The appropriate simplification of this is:

Heritable information + environmental interaction = quantitative trait

Where heritable information includes both genetic and epigenetic factors. There is ample evidence that epigenetic factors are both heritable as well as significant sources of heritable variation (and thus information; see research on agouti mice).

The truly revolutionary aspect of epigenetics is the instability in which it is inherited. Epigenetics and tandem repeats (another unstable carrier of information) hold the key to understanding heritable sources of phenotypic (trait) variation. An excellent review on the subject was published in Cell by Rando and Verstrepen in 2007.

The big unknown at this time is how much heritable variation is actually caused by epigenetics. While it is certain that epigentic inheritance is important, its level of significance is not yet fully known. If we can keep an open mind about it, and continue funding research in epigenetics, we might one day find out.

Nothing really. I used “selection” as an example of biology’s conceptual language that’s confusing to outsiders, creates rifts within academia (comp. Biologist’s snide remark “A mechanism by which cultural evolution could loop back around and affect biological evolution without invoking selection would probably thrill them to no end”) and often gets misinterpreted. I also noted that there was a certain social context underlying its invention and this context was different, albeit easily comparable, for biology (Darwin) vs. anthropology (Morgan). Darwin portrayed evolution as “acting upon” organisms (just like human breeders act on domesticated birds, animals and plants), while Morgan portrayed “evolution,” using the example of wild, higher-order animals such as beavers, as being acted out by organisms.

It was a footnote, but miko, then, decided to use all his ignorance to fight over it.

“I’m very aware of the history of terminology and concepts in the history of science.”

No, you don’t. You are just defending your own misreading of my words.

“Evelyn Keller, a physicist by training (!) has written the best works on this subject regarding genetics and developmental biology, without the help of anthropologists.”

She is a philosopher of science, who originally wanted to become a physicist. Physicists don’t have time to observe biologists. I mentioned philosophy of science earlier. Whether it’s anthropology of science or philosophy of science, without these filters biology or physics may be an incomplete product.

“your bizarre ramblings about mind and epigenetics.”

I didn’t “ramble” about any of that. I just wasn’t convinced that epigenetics is “not revolutionary.” I think it very well may be if this research trend is better funded and if it’s socialized better within the social scientific community.

“in understanding evolutionary mechanisms or what is meant by basic terminology.”

I didn’t discuss them either, so how do you know?

“You seem hung up on it in some fundamental way, which I don’t get.”

You may be right here. I prefaced my note on “selection” with a caveat that may be a minor historical thing. (same to Chris T)

“I do not know of any analogies that are “necessary.”

It just means that there are different analogies and not just one. Just like the metaphor of a ball spinning down a concave vessel toward its center is different from the metaphor of one ball attracted to another (the former describes relativity theory, the latter Newtonian physics, also to your quarks example). This is what is interesting about Darwin’s selection. I never said that Darwin was useless, but it’s interesting that biologists praise Darwin, are familiar with Wallace but don’t know L H Morgan.

“However, my cursory and shallow understanding was that he was interested in theories of social evolution.”

Yes, but it was part of his broader agenda of understanding evolution as such. Think of him as a forerunner of niche construction theory. In fact, on another thought, I think Morgan would say that evolution is achieved not just in an agency-free “field of selection” but through creative, selective, constructive activity of the organism itself. He limited himself to higher-order animals like genus Castor and then switched to humans. Read him and compare his focus with Darwin’s focus. It’s possible that Darwin, who knew Morgan personally and mentioned him in his Origins, wrote his “The formation of vegetable mould, through the action of worms, with observations on their habits” (1881) under the influence of Morgan’s “American Beaver and his works,” which, btw, was one of the very first monographs devoted to a single species.

“I have the feeling that what you’re on about (besides policing language) is something that interests some anthropologists a great deal and biologists not at all.”

I don’t police language – I already said that. I understand you are trying to assume the pose of a victim. Also, I gave an example earlier when it’s molecular biologists who are interested in cultural transmission as an example of non-Mendelian inheritance. Direct your complaints to Cavalli and Feldman that they are interested in what other biologists are not interested in.

“I am embarrassed on behalf of biologists when one of us makes sweeping biological claims about human culture or society, with scant respect or understanding of the fields that have made those phenomena their object of study. Your uses of the term selection, Mendelian, epigenetic, etc, indicate that you do not have much understanding of what they mean or their mechanisms. Somewhere, maybe an anthropologist is embarrassed for you.”

You are just the type of commenter who takes advantage of internet anonymity to rant about the one thing you love and to abuse other people.

Darwin used animal husbandry as an analogy to help engage the intuition of his audience in describing his theory of evolution. It was a useful analogy–I do not know of any analogies that are “necessary.” Is your point merely that you wish Darwin had chosen a different word? The analogy of selective animal breeding is not central or necessary to evolutionary theory. You seem hung up on it in some fundamental way, which I don’t get. I don’t think understanding of evolution, particularly after the modern synthesis, would be different if he had chosen a different analogy, or none. Maybe the terms would be more aesthetically pleasing to you, but so what?

I don’t know much about Morgan so I won’t make any sweeping claims about his work. However, my cursory and shallow understanding was that he was interested in theories of social evolution. Since 99.999999% of evolution on this planet has occurred among non-social organisms you might see why this is of limited interest to biologists as a unifying model. Biologists are–for the most part–trying to explain life, not people. Evolution does not require mind, agency, wild animals, or social systems. I don’t doubt that one’s cultural context shapes scientific thought, but I am reasonably certain that the differences between Darwin and Morgan have more to do with the fact that they were attempting to explain different phenomena than their slightly different shades of white European-ness.

“proper choice of words”
Pardon me, but fuck you very much. Go tell a particle physicist that quarks don’t really spin, I’m sure they’ll thank you for enlightening them. You’re just being effete.

I think interdisciplinarity is great, but I have the feeling that what you’re on about (besides policing language) is something that interests some anthropologists a great deal and biologists not at all. I am embarrassed on behalf of biologists when one of us makes sweeping biological claims about human culture or society, with scant respect or understanding of the fields that have made those phenomena their object of study. Your uses of the term selection, Mendelian, epigenetic, etc, indicate that you do not have much understanding of what they mean or their mechanisms. Somewhere, maybe an anthropologist is embarrassed for you.

All of the below is meant as a conversation about term usage and the conceptual analogies and metaphors science has been using to describe its observations and communicate it to outsiders. It’s not about the nature of those observations. Plus it’s a historical excursion and not an attempt to simplify or diminish biology’s achievements.

“I would suggest before you do any further wading into discussions of evolution, you learn some of the basics terms and concepts.”

I love how people parade their knowledge of basics and expose their absolute ignorance of anything slightly more sophisticated. I’m sure you’ll graduate from high school with merit.

“It is an analogy, and a very useful one. This is why Darwin prefaced “selection” with the word “natural” and wrote a very long and clear book explaining it.”

Artificial or natural, it’s still “selection” and “natural” was extended from “artificial” as a metaphor thereof. More importantly, this analogy wasn’t a necessary one. You would benefit from contextualizing your knowledge of biology from the point of view of the history and anthropology of science. Science is a behavior subject to the same empirical analysis as it’s own primary objects of study. Darwin’s view of nature was shaped by the European tradition of animal domestication. Contrast Darwin with his contemporary Lewis H Morgan – the founder of anthropology and a forerunner of comparative psychology – who in 1868 arrived at a different view of evolution on the basis of his observation of wild [sic!] animals in North America. Check out his “American Beaver and His Works.” It didn’t occur to him to use the word “selection” because he dealt not with pigeons in urban British clubs or with sheep in the vast expanses of Shropshire, but with wild beavers. Different social context – different theory. I’m not saying, forget Darwin, celebrate Morgan, but it’s just a fascinating example how polymorphic science is at all the nodes of its development. Look up my book “The Genius of Kinship” and read the first part of it. It has further literature on the topic.

“No one needs the permission of social scientists to use language in a useful, field-specific way.”

It’s not about permission. It’s about the proper choice of words and a basic knowledge of history, anthropology, linguistics, etc. to make sure important biological discoveries are meaningful and interesting to other professionals.

Natural selection occurs despite the fact that there is no “selector” and does not require humans. It is a substrate-neutral process that has been occurring since before there were humans, before there were mammals, before there were multicellular organisms, and probably before there were cells. There is no agency involved.

The fact that biologists use the term “selection” in a way that does not exactly correspond to common usage is not much of a criticism–all academic fields use terminology borrowed from everyday vocabulary that acquires specialized and context-specific meanings. I don’t criticize English majors who claim they are deconstructing a novel for not dissolving the glue and taking the pages out. Subatomic particles have spin, but this is not the same thing as rotating rapidly. Something being statistically significant does not lend it any other kind of significance.

No one needs the permission of social scientists to use language in a useful, field-specific way.

For anyone who has taking a more than 30 minute interest in understanding evolution, there should not be any confusion between human breeding and natural selection. It is an analogy, and a very useful one. This is why Darwin prefaced “selection” with the word “natural” and wrote a very long and clear book explaining it.

I would suggest before you do any further wading into discussions of evolution, you learn some of the basics terms and concepts.

Interesting. It’s funny how scholars trying to work across two disciplines often end up booed by both. People love pure-breeds.

“maybe you can offer some substantive examples of epigenetics that should make us reconsider the human condition.”

You set the bar very high and I’m forced to bring it down. Epigenetics is not my field. It requires more in-depth knowledge of the primary subject. But in other fields in which I feel more competent I do just that. But my main point remains: unless there’s an operationalized procedure for biologists and the social scientists to share and cross-check their results before they hit the masses, or cross-disciplinary training is consistently fostered across universities, there’s no way to say whether epigenetics is a new Kuhnian revolution underestimated and underfunded within the biological community or just icing on the Mendelian cake overhyped by the media.

@miko

“And what do you mean by mind? If you mean something that is separate from the brain, I think we’re done here.”

What I meant is that some of the language, the terminology and the category biology uses, including the very term “selection,” is unfiltered through social scientific analysis and if often confusing and simplistic. No surprise public debates rage about it. Nature doesn’t select, humans do, just like those British pigeon-breeders whom Darwin admired as forerunners of his theory. This may seem like a minor point but it’s just an example of how biologists shouldn’t be surprised their empirical theories get often misinterpreted by the public.

In my own area, evolution, I have a suspicion (though I lack the mathematical skills to prove this) that as long as epigenetic modifications happen “relatively fast” compared to the rate of environmental change, they won’t have that much of an effect on gene trajectories… which is something that I think people like Jablonka et al. feel like is one of the primary effects of epigenetics.

anthropological interest in heritable epigenetic modifications
It is unclear to me why anyone thinks that the existence of such a mechanism is somehow outside the bounds of standard concepts of natural selection or evolution as we currently understand it. I can’t even tell if you think so… if you do, why?

a non-Mendelian aspect to biological transmission
There are loads of non-Mendelian phenomena in biology. Do you mean non-genetic? It’s hard to get your point when you are fuzzy with terminology.

At the level of the NY Times reader, I don’t see much more to get excited about, but maybe you can offer some substantive examples of epigenetics that should make us reconsider the human condition.

Anthropologist: Would you care to read Cultural Transmission and Evolution by Cavalli and Feldman, who are molecular biologists? They refer to cultural transmission as an example of non-Mendelian inheritance.

Biologist: “A mechanism by which cultural evolution could loop back around and affect biological evolution without invoking selection would probably thrill them to no end, so that might be part of what stimulates interest in heritable epigenetic modifications.”

Anthropologist: If cultural evolution is essentially non-Mendelian, and molecular biologists seem to concur, then it’s possible that anthropological interest in heritable epigenetic modifications is more than just a vague conspiracy against Darwin and selection. People are just trying to understand if there a Mendelian slant to culture (e.g., could certain units of language be conceived of as relational “traits” that are different from discrete and continuous traits but are still traits) and a non-Mendelian aspect to biological transmission. It would help a lot when we are trying to unravel such problems as the origin of language and cognition.

BTW, “selection” is one of those unfiltered words that Darwin picked up from the European tradition of breeding birds, plants and animals, which had nothing “natural” about it in the first place. And it continues to create confusion. It is the mind influencing methylation.

Biologist: “At least to me, post-translational modifications of histones (to pick one example) don’t seem the basis for predicting a revolution in social thought about the human condition.”

Anthropologist: Biologists expend too much useful energy on articulating what seems “implausible” to them. You could just report the results of your researches and do so in a language that would be promising to social scientists and philosophers of science. They could take it from there and figure out how it fits with free will and stuff. This should be doable within the capabilities of a university in which biologists sit catty-corner from anthropologists, don’t you think?

Benchwork just isn’t paying the mortgage.

I think at the popular level, your dualist description is pretty much on point.

I am vaguely familiar with an aspirational movement in anthropology towards a unify doctrine of social and biological evolution. A mechanism by which cultural evolution could loop back around and affect biological evolution without invoking selection would probably thrill them to no end, so that might be part of what stimulates interest in heritable epigenetic modifications.

to my shock i noticed someone actually bought that weird book i linked to (can see amazon purchases). hope it was a gag gift….

I realize there is some dualist fantasizing about “mind” influencing methylation or something, but I’m hoping the discourse on GNXP hasn’t degenerated that far. Why not rainbows driving topoisomerase activity?