(September 11, 2014 at 2:17 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Simply because your opinion of what epigenetics implies does not match with mine, doesn't mean I don't understand it. Perhaps you may not understand it? As far as I know there is no "part of a gene that isn't expressed" (source?) Genes code for things and they are either methylated or not methylated, expressed or silenced. If a mutation occurred, the mutated gene and what it codes for could either be expressed or silenced (and many factors are said to be involved). I believe much of gene therapy is now looking at how methyl groups can be introduced to mutated genes to silence them and prevent the development of Parkinsons and Lou Gherig etc.
What would be interesting is a leading expert in epigenetics who agrees with your conclusion that this field 'proves Darwin wrong'. That would support the contention that you know what you're talking about on this matter and not simply misinterpreting it.
Frankly, I'm not qualified to make that evaluation, which is why I'm willing to defer to experts in the relevant fields. At this point, I've no reason to suspect that you're more qualified than I am to derive the particular conclusions you have from this research.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
