Is epigenetics real science? or is it just updated Lamarckism?
>>16988228What do you mean "real science", DNA is a chemical, it reacts with other chemicals.
>um akchully giraffes heckin evolverinod they necks because the trees got taller!cool where's the short necked giraffe bones?
>>16988246Obviously buried deeper, only the tall ones poke out of the ground.
>>16988246As if the current Neo-Darwinian paradigm doesn't have a problem with transitional fossils kek.
>>16988246We still have short-necked giraffes today anon
>>16988320Correct, it doesn’t
>>16988228Your skin cells and bone cells have the same DNA, but a different set of traits. That's epigenetics. Chemical signals cause different genes to be expressed in different ways resulting in different tissues being formed.Now, extend that same logic beyond tissue differentiation so that you include more subtle changes within the same tissue.
>>16988246
>>16989562That is clearly a unicorn
>>16989598I know you don't believe this, yet you still wasted my time with a reply anyways.
>>16988246How is the purported lack of short necked giraffe bones supposed to disprove Lamarck specifically, exactly?
>>16988228>Is epigenetics real science?yes>or is it just updated Lamarckism?also yes
>>16990571I know it's difficult to comprehend, but the fossil record is rather sparse.