The concept of Evolution itself

>>8838725
There are no errors if there is no plan

>>8838725
When we say a species evolved, we are saying it had a mutation which helped it survive in their environment.
So yes, its actually a mistake in the formation of the DNA that turned out to be useful for the species.

Random mutations.
Non random selection.

That's all it is.

>>8838913
It's not a mistake, the term mistake conveys intent. There is no intent in the process of evolution.

Why aren't people talking about epigenetics more? Isn't the whole random mutations thing being moved away from? Environment plays a much more proactive role.

>>8838941
No.

>>8838725
Try any stochastic simulation with an accept/reject algorithm, and you'll see that random events with selection can converge to a useful result.

>>8838941
For further reading, google
epigenetics pz myers pharyngula

>>8838941
In summary: Most epigenetic changes are explicitly reset in plants and animals during sexual reproduction. The few remaining epigenetic changes that survive past that rarely survive more than a few generations. For almost all intents and purposes, there is no stable inheritable epigenetics over many generations, which is precisely what is required for natural selection to start kicking in.

There are exceptions, but they're rare.

PS: Epigenetics isn't new. It's just evo devo. It's not like it was just discovered 5 years ago or something. Again, read some of those PZ Myers blog posts. He's an expert in evo devo, and he knows what he's talking about, and he's a good teacher and good writer.

File: photo_venter.jpg (24KB, 310x324px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 310x324px

>>8838725
To remain the same would be the real error.

>>8838925
The intent of the first cells was to replicate themselves perfectly, which they did not, and evolution got started with the failure to meet that intent. Pedantic ass.

>>8838974
So are most of those studies talking about epigenetics playing a role in inheritance trash?

>>8839204
Those are the rare exceptions. They're interesting and maybe important for certain things, but not overall very significant.

>>8838725

Evolution is just the gradual change of matter from one form to another. The Earth itself "evolved"

>>8838725
Random mutations from copying errors are just one source of mutation, you also have recombination, independent assortment and mobile genetic elements
In organisms like humans mutations aren't that big of a deal relative to smaller, unicellular organisms like bacteria

Wouldnt an organism that evolved the ability to make intentive adaptations to its DNA and evolutionary path be vastly more successful than an organism that didn't?

I mean I get why that's not going to be notable for multi-cellular animals, but on a cellular level I see absolutely no reason why it can't be the case, or how this can't be how animals can adapt to common problems such as dietary and biome changes

>>8838974
Just because an epigenetic change is reset during germline development doesn't mean epigenetics doest play a role in evolution. If a gene is methylated or otherwise subject to regulatory control during the life of an organism, that's going to have some effect on selection because the expression of the gene is being affected during a period where it's expression can influence an organism's survival.

>>8839390
You also have just some variation between individuals because we are not carbon copies of each other. Not so much through mutation, but due to the interplay of genes from different ancestors.

>>8839412
Octopuses do this. I for one welcome our future tentacle overlords.

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-smart-cephalopods-genome-evolution-prolific.html

>>8839703
Octopi*