Results 1 to 6 of 6
Epigenetics vs Natural Selection
Epigenetics: mutation is what drives evolution.
Natural Selection: Darwinian survival of the fittest.
"oh noes they be takin mah surplus value" -Tim Finnegan
"'The' names reached a peak with The The and hence after were obsolete. " -Angry Young Man
"anyone seen blazin saddles? best fucking movie ever." - Red Spartan
I thought modern evolutionary theory depends highly on mutations..and epigenetics was more about the environment affecting genes or the ability for organisms to pass on acquired traits?
Edit: I didn't realize you put "Natural Selection", and obviously mutations fall into "environment" affecting genes.
Anyhow, I voted synchronicity.
Last edited by RedGrunt; 24th November 2011 at 16:54.
I thought organisms have mutations, and the organism with the most advantageous mutation has more offspring- they are naturally selected. Aren't they?
Da Fok?
this would be "synchonicity"
who voted for God Almighty?
"oh noes they be takin mah surplus value" -Tim Finnegan
"'The' names reached a peak with The The and hence after were obsolete. " -Angry Young Man
"anyone seen blazin saddles? best fucking movie ever." - Red Spartan
Uhh... this is sort of awkward, but that's what evolution is. It's just variations in frequencies of different genes in different populations over time. That's what "survival of the fittest" means.
They are one and the same.
Patience has its limits. Take it too far, and it's cowardice. -George Jackson
There is no such thing as an innocent bystander. -Abbie Hoffman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
It's not on the list, and doesn't necessarily directly conflict with the other options in a fundamental way, but it's worth putting here.
... To live – does it not mean to have indomitable faith in victory?
