MATT: To me, again, epigenetics-->if it can be demonstrated that they can cause massive, inheritable phenotypical changes, it still doesn't change the fact that there is an environmental cause that leads to the effect, and as such, still doesn't leave a strong case for intense preplanning.

I agree entirely. What intrigues me about epigenetics is the fact that if, as you say, it can be proved that they cause massive changes, this will drastically reduce the role of random mutations, and link change fairly and squarely to the impact of the environment. THAT is where chance steps in. But there is a catch in your wording – namely, the word “intense”. If pre-planning refers to a mechanism that will respond to environmental change and will therefore produce a huge variety of species, theism and atheism can follow exactly the same evolutionary scenario. We simply (???) have to decide if the mechanism was the product of design or of chance. But if pre-planning means that the process was deliberately targeted towards the production of humans (= “intense”?), there is no choice: only a divinely inspired, conventionally religious, anthropocentric view of evolution is possible. I think this may be where your species and mine split off from David’s!

MATT: The same effect would be created by having amassed a huge number of changes that don't manifest until the environment changes in the right way. I find the idea of cellular biochemical components "predicting the future" a pretty hard hill to climb, especially considering we've all agreed they aren't sentient.

This may be David’s idea of pre-planning (he will tell us) – that the changes are already potentially in situ, waiting for their moment. Too much for me to swallow as well, in the light of what I like to call the higgledy-piggledy history of life. But I’m not so sure now about cells and sentience – hence the thread on the Intelligent Cell. I don’t mean sentient/conscious in the way that we are. The various functioning combinations that make up our organs work quite independently of our control, and so in some ways they “sense” what they have to do. Similarly, each response to the environment, each new organ, each new species is the result of “intelligent” combination. As Lynn Margulis pointed out, our trillions of cells were once free-living creatures “before being incorporated into the symbiotic life forms which were our distant ancestors”.

MATT: The proper place for discussing God in relation to the universe, is at the level of human consciousness.

I don’t see why there has to be just one proper place. I agree absolutely that consciousness is a prime subject right at the very foreground. But the more we learn about the mechanisms of life, the more complex they seem to be, and I think the evolutionary process in the context of chance vs design is an equally “proper” approach to the existence of a possible designer and its relation to the universe.

It sounds as if your wife's choice of Christmas presents will be of benefit to us all! I'm afraid I shan't be sharing my pyjamas, office-tidier, chocolates, or other goodies with you folks, but Happy New Year all the same.

You should be more clear here, because this one is still used as a very "simple case" of evolution. Pigliucci treats it thoroughly in "Denying Evolution."

Thank you for your correction. See the Ken Miller explanation. It is an adaptation to bird predation, not a color camoflage issue. Pinning the moths to trees was not natural methodology and confused the issue.:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

And Happy New year!

Still, remember the classic moth experiment? A simple selection for color was all it took for an entire phenotype to flourish. Gradualism also exists in evolutionary arms races--generation by generation fights to one-up each other.

Most folks think the peppered moth experiment was not properly done, and the results are wrong.

You should be more clear here, because this one is still used as a very "simple case" of evolution. Pigliucci treats it thoroughly in "Denying Evolution."

Still, remember the classic moth experiment? A simple selection for color was all it took for an entire phenotype to flourish. Gradualism also exists in evolutionary arms races--generation by generation fights to one-up each other.

Most folks think the peppered moth experiment was not properly done, and the results are wrong.

I agree with PE-->Let's make that clear. I never didn't. What I don't agree with is the assertion that there's something other than a self-guided process for the events. "Molecular Genetic Engineering" is something we did cover in class, but I will point out that it doesn't require our intervention in order to work. The proper place for discussing God in relation to the universe, is at the level of human consciousness.

You are very correct about human consciousness. It raises more questions about relationship with God than any other area.

What I'm trying to drill at with you here however... is not that PE is a false idea, but its that I don't understand how PE refutes the idea that evolution "speeds up and slows down on demand." I don't see how "gaps in the fossil record" dictate some phenomenal re-valuation of how we know genetic mechanisms work... I still don't understand the problem you (or Gould) is trying to solve... what is the basis for asserting that there is any real difference between evolution that "speeds up" and PE?

Please see dhw's response of today and my thoughts from today.

Further, if we agree that evolution is a demand-[driven] enterprise, than I am even more confused by the idea that epigenetics solves a problem that current thought [doesn't]...?

Evolution is not entirely demand-driven. Nor is it completely passive. Recent work I presented a couple days ago shows that pre-Cambrian gene development preceded the Explosion itself. The theory is that as oxygen increased with the new availability of many diverse but unactivated genes, the explosion could then occur. According to Darwin theory organisms must adapt to changes or threats to survive, and it turns out they can adapt quickly with epigenetic mechanisms, and not always when available genes are necessary. There is a lot more to genetics than old Darwin theory. I feel Matt is stuck back there.

This still smacks of "collecting benign changes that don't manifest rapidly under some kind of pressure." New genes can be co-opted from existing genes, in fact they have to be. Unless there's a documented instance of a gene created ex-nihilo? (Please... don't say the beginning of life... )

I think... you don't realize exactly how alike we are in thought. dhw was right--my confusion was largely based upon the narrow confines of genetics that I was exposed to. Remember, that biotechnology doesn't exactly have a lot of use for Paleontology!

I answered part of this in a joint response to you and dhw.

I don't challenge that PE is wrong. I challenge that collecting benign changes over time coupled with selection pressure should result in rapid changes in phenotype. Like the demise of the dinosaurs and the rise of mammals in their wake. Warm-blood trumped cold-blood. Geologically, this transition was pretty rapid.

Another I think you would enjoy surveys current (well, 10 years ago) thought about art, consciousness, and the Brain. It talks to Ramachandran as well as Rev. Rinpoche. (Current big-shot in Buddhist circles.)

Now for the post!

Nail on the head. Still... there's more discussion before there's one in the coffin.

The quotes you gave of Darwin's theory--again--aren't even discussed in the classes I had taken in college. The idea of gradualism for us, was/is a general idea that stems from the flow of genetic information.

Darwin's gradualism implies that flow. From a molecular standpoint, we don't care about *anything* that happens to an organism until the moment it generates offspring.

I agree with your assessment completely however: I'm on the same page, quibbling over a word. I just wanted to express why my view existed as it did.

David,

To me, again, epigenetics-->if it can be demonstrated that they can cause massive, inheritable phenotypical changes, it still doesn't change the fact that there is an environmental cause that leads to the effect, and as such, still doesn't leave a strong case for intense preplanning. The same effect would be created by having amassed a huge number of changes that don't manifest until the environment changes in the right way. I find the idea of cellular biochemical components "predicting the future" a pretty hard hill to climb, especially considering we've all agreed they aren't sentient.

Still, remember the classic moth experiment? A simple selection for color was all it took for an entire phenotype to flourish. Gradualism also exists in evolutionary arms races--generation by generation fights to one-up each other.

I agree with PE-->Let's make that clear. I never didn't. What I don't agree with is the assertion that there's something other than a self-guided process for the events. "Molecular Genetic Engineering" is something we did cover in class, but I will point out that it doesn't require our intervention in order to work. The proper place for discussing God in relation to the universe, is at the level of human consciousness.

“The great majority of species do not show an appreciable evolutionary change at all. The species appear in the section [first occurrence] without obvious ancestors in the underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants.” (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002), p. 753)

On the thread ‘The Intelligent Cell’ I’ve been arguing that if there are sudden changes in the environment, adaptation would have to be rapid; similarly innovations must work straight away if they are to be of any use. I also suggested that the human species may have evolved initially as a result of a sudden, localized environmental change that brought our ancestors down from the disappearing trees to start a new way of life on the plains – with all the concomitant mental and physical adjustments. I’m not claiming that any of these ideas are original, but it would be interesting to know if the latter chimes in with Gould’s theories.

As for the mechanism, is there any more logical explanation than that of cells responding to changes in the environment by forming new combinations? This does away to a large extent with reliance on random mutations, it explains the gaps in the fossil records, and it also explains the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution with all its comings and goings. Whether such a mechanism could assemble itself by chance remains an unanswered and probably unanswerable question. I believe Gould himself was an agnostic. That speaks for itself.

Happy New Year to everyone, whether up in the trees or down on the savannah!

To sum up, the confusion here arises because you have a different definition of gradualism from that used by David and myself. You appear to accept the theory of punctuated equilibrium (i.e. there is no “real difference between evolution that ‘speeds up’ and PE”), and so there is no disagreement. Epigenetics is being discussed as a possible mechanism for rapid evolution. David’s pre-planning theory is another conjecture.

Gould tends to throw gradualism out the window:

long term stasis following geologically abrupt origin of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists. [The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002), p. 752.]

. . . . The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section [[first occurrence] without obvious ancestors in the underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants.” [p. 753.]

. . . . proclamations for the supposed ‘truth’ of gradualism – asserted against every working paleontologist’s knowledge of its rarity – emerged largely from such a restriction of attention to exceedingly rare cases under the false belief that they alone provided a record of evolution at all! The falsification of most ‘textbook classics’ upon restudy only accentuates the fallacy of the ‘case study’ method and its root in prior expectation rather than objective reading of the fossil record. [[p. 773.]

If Gould is correct, and why shouldn't he be (?), Darwin's gradualism conjecture is wrong. Darwin proposed his gradualism from seeing breeders at work. Don't blame him, but the cement-headed followers who feel any attack on original Darwin is an attack on the theory of evolution. Darwin made a great step forward, but consider the knowledge base he worked from. Descent with modification is correct. It is just that modification is a local and immediate process, not species changing for the most part. See Sudden Origins by Jeffrey Schwartz, 1999. Gould is not alone.

What I'm trying to drill at with you here however... is not that PE is a false idea, but its that I don't understand how PE refutes the idea that evolution "speeds up and slows down on demand." I don't see how "gaps in the fossil record" dictate some phenomenal re-valuation of how we know genetic mechanisms work... I still don't understand the problem you (or Gould) is trying to solve... what is the basis for asserting that there is any real difference between evolution that "speeds up" and PE?

Please see dhw's response of today and my thoughts from today.

Further, if we agree that evolution is a demand-[driven] enterprise, than I am even more confused by the idea that epigenetics solves a problem that current thought [doesn't]...?

Evolution is not entirely demand-driven. Nor is it completely passive. Recent work I presented a couple days ago shows that pre-Cambrian gene development preceded the Explosion itself. The theory is that as oxygen increased with the new availability of many diverse but unactivated genes, the explosion could then occur. According to Darwin theory organisms must adapt to changes or threats to survive, and it turns out they can adapt quickly with epigenetic mechanisms, and not always when available genes are necessary. There is a lot more to genetics than old Darwin theory. I feel Matt is stuck back there.

And this is the source of the misunderstanding. I hate to say it, but once again we have a problem of terminology. Gradualism, as I understand it, is not the flow of genetic information from generation to generation, but the theory that (a) complex organs evolved in tiny stages rather than by single mutations (Darwin says: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Origin, p. 214), and (b) evolution proceeds at a relatively constant rate – Dawkins talks of a “continuous and shallow slope up Mount Improbable” (God Delusion, p. 124).

Thank you for these exact quotes. I've read them, and digested them, but when I use my digested comments, instead of the exact quotes, it doesn't have the import of your presentation. Matt should surely see that the fossil research since Darwin does not show this type of gradualism. This is Gould's point. This is partially why the leaders of Neo-Darwinism are looking for a new paradigm with the Altenberg conferencce.

To sum up, the confusion here arises because you have a different definition of gradualism from that used by David and myself. You appear to accept the theory of punctuated equilibrium (i.e. there is no “real difference between evolution that ‘speeds up’ and PE”), and so there is no disagreement. Epigenetics is being discussed as a possible mechanism for rapid evolution. David’s pre-planning theory is another conjecture.

I again reiterate that Shapiro's book needs to be digested. Lamark is back in spades.

MATT: The main sticking point between David and I (and possibly yourself) is the challenge that the process of normal genetic transfer is not sufficient for speciation.

Normal genetic transfer would lead to perpetuation of the species. The problem is change, not replication. Darwin attributes change to random mutations and adaptations. But that’s not the main sticking point between us.

MATT: As for the explosions in the fossil record--we can only make claims on what we witness. If you combine our knowledge of how genetic information is passed on, with the fossil record--there is only one reasonable conclusion--given the evidence at hand. Evolution can speed up and slow down its processes given demand.

“MATT: In summary: I can't see beyond a G1-->G2 transmission of information being a key driver for observed changes in the fossil record. I identify this process as synonymous to gradualism, and therefore cannot step down the same path as David and yourself.

And this is the source of the misunderstanding. I hate to say it, but once again we have a problem of terminology. Gradualism, as I understand it, is not the flow of genetic information from generation to generation, but the theory that (a) complex organs evolved in tiny stages rather than by single mutations (Darwin says: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Origin, p. 214), and (b) evolution proceeds at a relatively constant rate – Dawkins talks of a “continuous and shallow slope up Mount Improbable” (God Delusion, p. 124). You yourself have acknowledged that there are sudden explosions of evolutionary creativity. These may be connected to environmental changes. Gradualism does not allow for such upheavals, and so far we cannot account for the sudden proliferation of new species at certain times (and new means really new, not just old species adapting). Epigenetics MAY supply us with an explanation of the mechanisms that allow not only adaptation but also innovation in response to environmental pressures. Changes therefore do occur from G1 to G2, but what you call “speeding up and slowing down” is what David and I understand by punctuated equilibrium (as opposed to gradualism), i.e. periods of comparative stasis interspersed with great activity. Nobody yet knows for sure how or why this happens – hence what you rightly call “conjectures”.

To sum up, the confusion here arises because you have a different definition of gradualism from that used by David and myself. You appear to accept the theory of punctuated equilibrium (i.e. there is no “real difference between evolution that ‘speeds up’ and PE”), and so there is no disagreement. Epigenetics is being discussed as a possible mechanism for rapid evolution. David’s pre-planning theory is another conjecture.

Adding to the confusion is the charge by David where he claims that for example, in the case of whales, that "Gradualism cannot be the cause." What I am sure of however is that David appears to be claiming that these whales don't have a common ancestor... that the normal transfer of genetic information over time cannot be creative enough.

Of course genetic material passes from generation to generation. My observation, like Gould's, looks at the gaps in the fossil record. When you look at one whale ancestor to the next there are large changes in phenotype. Darwin's itty-bitty changes that He anticipated do not exist! This is why Gould and Eldridge came up with PE, and PE has not disappeared in the 30 or so years since their paper.

What I'm trying to drill at with you here however... is not that PE is a false idea, but its that I don't understand how PE refutes the idea that evolution "speeds up and slows down on demand." I don't see how "gaps in the fossil record" dictate some phenomenal re-valuation of how we know genetic mechanisms work... I still don't understand the problem you (or Gould) is trying to solve... what is the basis for asserting that there is any real difference between evolution that "speeds up" and PE?

Further, if we agree that evolution is a demand-[driven] enterprise, than I am even more confused by the idea that epigenetics solves a problem that current thought [doesn't]...?

[EDITED]

On page 289 in Denton's book, Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, is this quote: " comparing the amino acid sequences [of hemoglobin] it is impossible to arrange them in any kind of evolutionary series". I know Denton believes in purpose as I do. See his second book. What is your reference for gradualism, especially since we see these jumps in species?

My reference is a genetics lab I worked on when I was still a biotech major. We created a pedigree sequence based on hemoglobin differences of 28 primates, and as would be predicted, the sequences match when fossil diversions between new-world and old-world primates began. The differences between a rhesus and us is much more drastic than a Gorilla and ourselves, or to Chimpanzees. (Which if I recall have identical hemoglobin.) I don't know another way to say it: If Denton said that he is absolutely wrong.

You are looking at closely related primates. You are quoting work in one genus. Denton was comparing much larger gaps in the tree in the evolutionary record.

Rhesus monkeys are not all that closely related to humans. There is a HUGE gap between old-world and new-world primates... the hemoglobin pedigree we built backs that up.

On page 289 in Denton's book, Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, is this quote: " comparing the amino acid sequences [of hemoglobin] it is impossible to arrange them in any kind of evolutionary series". I know Denton believes in purpose as I do. See his second book. What is your reference for gradualism, especially since we see these jumps in species?

My reference is a genetics lab I worked on when I was still a biotech major. We created a pedigree sequence based on hemoglobin differences of 28 primates, and as would be predicted, the sequences match when fossil diversions between new-world and old-world primates began. The differences between a rhesus and us is much more drastic than a Gorilla and ourselves, or to Chimpanzees. (Which if I recall have identical hemoglobin.) I don't know another way to say it: If Denton said that he is absolutely wrong.

You are looking at closely related primates. You are quoting work in one genus. Denton was comparing much larger gaps in the tree in the evolutionary record.

Adding to the confusion is the charge by David where he claims that for example, in the case of whales, that "Gradualism cannot be the cause." What I am sure of however is that David appears to be claiming that these whales don't have a common ancestor... that the normal transfer of genetic information over time cannot be creative enough.

Of course genetic material passes from generation to generation. My observation, like Gould's, looks at the gaps in the fossil record. When you look at one whale ancestor to the next there are large changes in phenotype. Darwin's itty-bitty changes that He anticipated do not exist! This is why Gould and Eldridge came up with PE, and PE has not disappeared in the 30 or so years since their paper.

As for the explosions in the fossil record--we can only make claims on what we witness. If you combine our knowledge of how genetic information is passed on, with the fossil record--there is only one reasonable conclusion--given the evidence at hand. Evolution can speed up and slow down its processes given demand.

See the recent entry (this past week) in Sandwalk, Larry Moran's blog on the subject of piling up lots of genes in preceding geologic eras before the Cambrian Explosion. This is really on point. Why did the genes pile up well before the event. We don't know the answer, but there is something about DNA that appears to anticipate and allow evolution to speed up or slow down. What is really active is the piling up of the available new genes in advance.

In summary: I can't see beyond a G1-->G2 transmission of information being a key driver for observed changes in the fossil record. I identify this process as synonymous to gradualism, and therefore cannot step down the same path as David and yourself.

You need to look beyond your current view. The paradigm is changing.

Yet even mechanisms such as epigenetics don't appear (to me) to correspond to the kind of "fits and starts" you see in the fossil record. I agree, that the record progresses as you discuss above--with bursts of "innovation" if you will.

You will need to reconsider if you read James Shapiro's book, Evolution. There are layers upon layers of controls, feedback loops, kill switches, etc.
the organisms can run their own destiny at times.

And I don't see where mainstream theory is at odds with this claim. Humans are a prime example of a species who have engaged in artificial selection for longer than recorded history. We've created thousands of foodcrops and domesticated animals using nothing more than selecting for specific traits... as I said once before, once organismal intelligence comes into play you have a much more difficult time arguing that genetics is purely a crap-shoot. If we can select for traits, so can other organisms.

Another claim made ex-nihilo. Even among primates, the mapping differences based on Hemoglobin make the strongest case for a "gradualism" that I have ever seen.

On page 289 in Denton's book, Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, is this quote: " comparing the amino acid sequences [of hemoglobin] it is impossible to arrange them in any kind of evolutionary series". I know Denton believes in purpose as I do. See his second book. What is your reference for gradualism, especially since we see these jumps in species?

My reference is a genetics lab I worked on when I was still a biotech major. We created a pedigree sequence based on hemoglobin differences of 28 primates, and as would be predicted, the sequences match when fossil diversions between new-world and old-world primates began. The differences between a rhesus and us is much more drastic than a Gorilla and ourselves, or to Chimpanzees. (Which if I recall have identical hemoglobin.) I don't know another way to say it: If Denton said that he is absolutely wrong.

I'm not saying that my mind concerning evolution is "made-up," what I'm saying is that the thinking I've heard from you and others has failed to come up with a strong and material case. However, those challenges I posed above would actually resolve the question in my mind, to your favor. (Insomuch as that there is something other than a generation 1 to generation 2 mechanism to evolution.)

We will have to wait for more research to find out whether you or I are closer to the final story. Happy Christmas!

Mainstream thought is, what I believe, is what you and David call gradualism. Both of you accept how genetic information flows from Generation 1 to Generation 2, and accept that key genes that contribute to (not killing) Generation 1, live on in Generation 2.

Where I think the confusion begins is that I hear "Gradualism" and then I hear you and David challenge it, when to me gradualism is exactly--Generation 1 sending information downstream into the future to Generation 2 and subsequent generations. SO the challenge to me has always had a ring of confusion to it...

The main sticking point between David and I (and possibly yourself) is the challenge that the process of normal genetic transfer is not sufficient for speciation.

Adding to the confusion is the charge by David where he claims that for example, in the case of whales, that "Gradualism cannot be the cause." What I am sure of however is that David appears to be claiming that these whales don't have a common ancestor... that the normal transfer of genetic information over time cannot be creative enough.

This is apparently where I diverge: Because we know and understand how genetic information flows, we don't really have a reason to think that explosions in the fossil record would be caused by anything other than the processes we have been studying since Crick and Watson discovered DNA. Epigenetics do not seem to me, to drastically change the equation--some genetic information will get passed on, but not from the DNA. (His discussions of how certain compounds exist in human ovum and are passed on.)

But we know that clearly--the majority of information resides in DNA and it is the primary mechanism of genetic information transmission. Epigenetics can only be really expected to either result in a permanent change to DNA or in passing forward certain small, single-function genetic operations. This is why I say that I don't see epigenetics causing a paradigm shift. It fills in gaps in our underlying understanding of genetic machinery... but it isn't sufficient to explain bursts of creativity.

As for the explosions in the fossil record--we can only make claims on what we witness. If you combine our knowledge of how genetic information is passed on, with the fossil record--there is only one reasonable conclusion--given the evidence at hand. Evolution can speed up and slow down its processes given demand.

In summary: I can't see beyond a G1-->G2 transmission of information being a key driver for observed changes in the fossil record. I identify this process as synonymous to gradualism, and therefore cannot step down the same path as David and yourself.

dhw: I find this discussion a bit confusing. I thought David was attacking gradualism, without which Darwin said his theory would fail. I can’t find any proposal in David’s posts that there’s anything other than a generation 1 to generation 2 mechanism. His divine pre-planning theory does not mean that each new species had to be created from scratch! But perhaps David would clarify this vital point himself.

I haven't changed. My pre-planning theory involves a guidance mechanism, yet to be discovered,in DNA, which gives us the drive to complexity in evolution. My main contention remains the same: 1) bacteria are still here and thriving over a 3.5 billion year history. Why did more complexity occur? It doesn't appear to be necessary. 2) the other primates are the same over 6 million years, and except for our incursions into their habitat, they are surviving nicely. So why the amazing advance to us big-headed guys. From all evidence it wasn't necessary. And it represents punctuated equilibrium to me. Gould is very reasonable in his point of view. 3) and Natural Selection never demands these advances. It acts like the 'sorting hat' in Harry Potter.

I find this discussion a bit confusing. I thought David was attacking gradualism, without which Darwin said his theory would fail. I can’t find any proposal in David’s posts that there’s anything other than a generation 1 to generation 2 mechanism. His divine pre-planning theory does not mean that each new species had to be created from scratch! But perhaps David would clarify this vital point himself.

MATT: Yet even mechanisms such as epigenetics don't appear (to me) to correspond to the kind of "fits and starts" you see in the fossil record. I agree, that the record progresses as you discuss above--with bursts of "innovation" if you will. However where I diverge is that there isn't any evidence-based validity for asserting that these changes happened in a manner inconsistent with current thought. Changes propagated by epigenetics would not appear distinctly different in a fossil record than anything else. It's something to consider, but there isn't a strong case here to displace mainstream thought on this issue. Until someone discovers a genetic mechanism that could warrant (geologically rapid) changes and can demonstrate it ex situ, there simply isn't a case beyond conjecture.

You keep talking of current or mainstream thought, as if there were a consensus on the issues of innovation and “fits and starts”. But nobody knows the answer, and there is no theory that provides “a case beyond conjecture”. Epigenetics MIGHT (conjecture) show that the fits and starts correspond to changes in the environment, and then apparent gaps in the fossil record would not be gaps at all if these changes resulted in innovations. This seems to me more logical than random mutations (see “The Intelligent Cell”, following on from Lynn Margulis’s brilliant insight that symbiotic combinations are as significant to evolution as competition between organisms.)

MATT: To me, the mechanics of DNA and heredity is the only known method for transmitting genetic information from organism A to C. To me, coupled with geological evidence, it explains everything we have seen. The explosions are unexplained. The solution will be an extension of current thought... not a replacement, I doubt even a paradigm shift.

Since the explosions are unexplained, all theories are conjecture. The fact that the explosions happened suggests there are flaws in Darwin’s “gradualism”, and that’s why it’s well worth considering epigenetics as a possible mechanism – i.e drastic and rapid changes in the environment producing drastic and rapid changes in the flora and fauna. In my view, the undermining of gradualism and of the role of random mutations would be a major change to Darwin’s theory and a paradigm shift, but not a replacement. Current thought cannot offer more than conjecture, so the solution is likely to be one of the current conjectures.