# Pitting Honeybadger **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 7, 2018, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183 "2018-03-07T15:40:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 45
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2024, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183/881 "2024-02-19T18:25:18Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > Anyone continuing to insist that epigenetic changes are inheritable is either willfully blind or impervious to alteration of initial beliefs. Just to clarify, although most epigenetic marks are wiped in the germline, there is evidence for the exception, that epigenetic marks _can_ sometimes be inherited - that in certain circumstances the level of gene expression established in a parent in response to the environment (notably environmental stress) can be passed to the next generation via epigenetic modifications to the DNA of germline cells. Technically, this _is_ a Lamarckian process. That’s why pop science articles (and some researchers) try to hype it. But the thing with biology is that it’s so messy that almost nothing _never_ happens. So the first question is _how much_ information is really being passed in this way? The answer is very little, there is no evidence that it is _important_, not much has been demonstrated beyond things like which metabolic pathways are more active. Nothing remotely close to a learned behavior or body morphology being transmitted in a Lamarckian manner. The other huge caveat is that (as in the linked article below) people researching transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in mammals naturally (as a practical experimental matter) include investigation of epigenetic marks that are not passed via germline DNA modifications but those that are established _in the womb_. This, of course, does not violate the Darwinian paradigm at all. Changes in gene expression in the fetus established in the womb due to things like maternal malnutrition and stress are certainly inherited, but not in a Lamarckian manner, only in the same way that a child inherits plenty of things (including gene expression) from its parents after birth through sharing their environment. But you correctly identity the decisive killer blow to any significant Lamarckian evolutionary paradigm mediated by epigenetics. Although epigenetic marks can (rarely) persist for a _few_ generations, they do not have the permanance of DNA, they simply do not last long enough to undermine the Darwinian paradigm for evolution. > **[Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_epigenetic_inheritance)** > > Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is the proposed transmission of epigenetic markers and modifications from one generation to multiple subsequent generations without altering the primary structure of DNA. Thus, the regulation of genes via epigenetic mechanisms can be heritable; the amount of transcripts and proteins produced can be altered by inherited epigenetic changes. In order for epigenetic marks to be heritable, however, they must occur in the gametes in animals, but since plants Th... ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2024, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183/882 "2024-02-19T18:30:42Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Although epigenetic marks can (rarely) persist for a _few_ generations, they do not have the permanance of DNA, they simply do not last long enough to undermine the Darwinian Could they last long enough to influence natural selection? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2024, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183/883 "2024-02-19T18:35:09Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > Could they last long enough to influence natural selection? Define natural selection please, so I can be sure you understand what it means before I answer the question. Not a trick, but I’ve defined it for you numerous times, it’s easy to find a primer on basic evolutionary principles online, and I just want to be sure that I’m not (yet again) wasting my time. If you can’t do that, your question is essentially incoherent, it is just a string of biology-adjacent words. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2024, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183/884 "2024-02-19T18:39:51Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Define natural selection please, so I can be sure you understand what it means before I answer the question. Not a trick, but I’ve defined it for you numerous times, and I just want to be sure that I’m not wasting my time. Any animal that survives long enough to pass on his genes. I will try to give you an example based on my limited understanding which very well might be wrong. Give me a few minutes on this one as I want to create an example that includes possible epigenetics. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2024, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183/885 "2024-02-19T18:42:22Z")
Nope, I just want a straightforward definition of natural selection. There a few valid ones depending on context, any of them are okay. “Any animal that survives long enough to pass on his genes” is not a definition of natural selection. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2024, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183/886 "2024-02-19T18:45:52Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > “Any animal that survives long enough to pass on his genes” is not a definition of natural selection. I guess the only thing that I could add to that would be that more successful types might be successful in different ways and gradually branch off into different species. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2024, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183/887 "2024-02-19T18:48:39Z")
So go and reader a primer on basic evolutionary principles, and come back when you can define natural selection. If you can’t do that, how can you ask a meaningful question that includes the term “natural selection”? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2024, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183/888 "2024-02-19T19:05:38Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > You should probably inform these guys: A (cynical) summary of this 9-year-old paper is: there are all these epigenetic mechanisms that we know mediate gene expression in somatic cells. Look how much we know about them, and how important they are (in somatic cells). **Maybe** some of them persist in germline cells and are super important in heredity too. Here’s a recent thorough discussion of the Missing Heritability Problem, showing that epigenetics is only one half a dozen possible explanations. > **[Three Legs of the Missing Heritability Problem](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9172633/)** > > The so-called ‘missing heritability problem’ is often characterized by behavior geneticists as a numerical discrepancy between alternative kinds of heritability. For example, while ‘traditional heritability’ derived from ... ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2024, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183/889 "2024-02-19T19:11:07Z")
Yeah, and that’s all I said. I was refuting this: > [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > Anyone continuing to insist that epigenetic changes are inheritable is either willfully blind or impervious to alteration of initial beliefs. The fact is, it’s an open area of investigation, and categorical statements about epigenetics and heritability one way or another are unwarranted. But there are learned behaviours that appear to be heritable. I’m not a biologist, but my understanding is that auite a few people in the field believe in epigenetic heritability of some traits. Do you disagree? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2024, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183/890 "2024-02-19T19:19:56Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > But there are learned behaviours that appear to be heritable. Nothing I’m aware of has been shown that is any other than rare, that would only be called “behavior” under a very loose definition, and at most for a few generations. So not in a manner that has any significance for evolution. I haven’t read the Wikipedia article on TEI for a while and it has changed a lot, feel free to go through it and find the most compelling experimental examples - they will be there for sure. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2024, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183/891 "2024-02-19T19:20:31Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > [Three Legs of the Missing Heritability Problem - PMC](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9172633/) That was a great article on the subject. I plan to refer back to it often. It mentioned something I was getting ready to bring up that involved the philosophy of the science. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2024, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183/892 "2024-02-19T19:33:48Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > > [@Cervaise](#): > > > > could > > > [@Cervaise](#): > > > > if you _do_ manage to glean some comprehension out of this and improve your behavior, Christ, it would make the board a better place > > You know the post I opened on epigenetics is a good example I think I spent about 150 post just I defending the idea that epigenetics is a valid topic we never got past that that’s as far as it went, if I would have seen a discussion develop on that I would have happily just sat back and watched But you don’t understand what epigenetics is, dude. There is virtually no evidence that epigenetic changes are heritable. There is a lot of junk science out there, and some of it misinterprets real studies. One study that is frequently misinterpreted in that way is the Dutch Hunger Winter study, which was really a study in the effects of starvation on unborn children. The study found that children whose mothers endured starvation during their pregnancies had worse lifelong health outcomes than their siblings that received sufficient nutrition in the womb. This, to me, is unsurprising. Some researchers think they have discovered an epigenetic factor which may have contributed to this outcome, a gene that may have been switched off. But there are possible non-epigenetic reasons for this change. You can read more about it here. This is a gift link. > **[The Famine Ended 70 Years Ago, but Dutch Genes Still Bear Scars (Published 2018)](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/science/dutch-famine-genes.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Wk0.67Ay.7OlqDPN_S9GW&smid=url-share)** > > Babies born during the Dutch Hunger Winter became adults with higher rates of health problems. Now researchers may have found the genetic switches that made it happen. This is probably the most frequently cited study with regard to epigenetic changes, and there is absolutely nothing in this story that indicates that epigenetic changes are passed from generation to generation. There are some relatively small groups of people in the world that have extraordinary skills in a specialized area. For example, there are American Indian tribes that specialize in high steel construction, and members of those tribes frequently have really good balance and no fear of heights. However, this is not a case of epigenetic changes being passed from generation to generation……the reason is much simpler……members of this tribe teach their children these skills from a very young age. Most of the ice sculptors that work for cruise lines come from the same small village in Indonesia - but they don’t have special genes that they inherited that give them the skills to turn big blocks of ice into swans and flowers. They just learn these skills at a very young age from their elders. Sherpas in Tibet do have distinct physical characteristics that have uniquely adapted them to life in cold weather and high altitudes, but that is the result of millennia of plain old natural selection, not epigenetics. You seem really invested in the idea that people can engage in behaviors that result in epigenetic changes and that they can then pass those changes onto their offspring, but that’s just not how it works. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2024, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183/893 "2024-02-19T19:40:47Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > You seem really invested in the idea that people can engage in behaviors that result in epigenetic changes and that they can then pass those changes onto their offspring, but that’s just not how it works. I agree that was my original thinking or suspicion. All I was hoping to do here was explore a topic hoping some of the members here with expertise on the subject would mostly carry it along with a few questions here and there from myself and possibly others. So I included things I was hoping to see discussed and then accused of believing things that were false. I really had no opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2024, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183/894 "2024-02-19T19:41:44Z")
I vaguely remember a study on flatworms where they taught a flatworm a behaviour, then ground it up and fed it to another flatfworm, which then picked up the behaviour. Am I misremembering, or was their another cause for that? I thought the theory at the time was that learning the behaviour changed the RNA, and the RNA in the ground up flatworm was passed on or something. This is way out of my area of knowledge, so maybe I have it wrong. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2024, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183/895 "2024-02-19T19:48:10Z")
> **[Memory transfer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_transfer)** > > Memory transfer was a biological process proposed by James V. McConnell and others in the 1960s. Memory transfer proposes a chemical basis for memory termed memory RNA which can be passed down through flesh instead of an intact nervous system. Since RNA encodes information living cells produce and modify RNA in reaction to external events, it might also be used in neurons to record stimuli. This explained the results of McConnell's experiments in which planarians retained memory of ac In McConnel... > Memory transfer through memory RNA is not currently a well-accepted explanation and McConnell’s experiments proved to be largely irreproducible. ---
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2024, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183/896 "2024-02-19T19:48:11Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > This is way out of my area of knowledge, so maybe I have it wrong. Lol, no shit ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2024, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183/897 "2024-02-19T19:53:42Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > So I included things I was hoping to see discussed and then accused of believing things that were false. Sorry, was there some ambiguity about this? YOU BELIEVE THINGS THAT ARE FALSE. And that’s only the small fraction of your claims that are coherent. Most of them are not even wrong. You started at least two threads I can think of based on your pot-induced Lamarckist ideas, people who have actual knowledge of basic biology explained your misconceptions, you completely ignored anything that didn’t fit your preconceptions, and then a few months later you come back recently saying _exactly_ the same thing you started with over again. If you want to fulfill your grand ambition to be important in the history of human intellectual endeavor, the most useful thing you could do would be to make yourself into a sausage and feed yourself to someone with more functioning neurons. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2024, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183/898 "2024-02-19T20:07:03Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > If you want to fulfill your grand ambition to be important in the history of human intellectual endeavor, the most useful thing you could do would be to make yourself into a sausage and feed yourself to someone with more functioning neurons I think you are projecting here. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2024, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183/899 "2024-02-19T20:14:14Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > If you want to fulfill your grand ambition to be important in the history of human intellectual endeavor, the most useful thing you could do would be to make yourself into a sausage and feed yourself to someone with more functioning neurons. I would like to congratulate you on being inventively nasty in the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2024, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183/900 "2024-02-19T20:18:12Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > > Memory transfer through memory RNA is not currently a well-accepted explanation and McConnell’s experiments proved to be largely irreproducible. But later there was of course this very real discovery in the worm model organism C elegans: [RNA interference - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_interference) [https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2006/popular-information/](https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2006/popular-information/) https://www.youtube.com/embed/EyfOTKar0lQ?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183.md?page=44) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-honeybadger/810183.md?page=46)