Darwin re-visited

[Michaelangelica]

Weed Gave Up Sex Long Ago

 

Science Daily — The ability of plants to self-pollinate -- a big factor in the spread of weeds -- is much older than previously thought in one widely studied species, leading biologists say.

 

 

The mustard-like plant Arabidopsis thaliana. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

 

 

The findings show that at least in plant evolution, sex with others may be more trouble than it's worth.

 

The mustard-like plant Arabidopsis thaliana lost interest in sex and started self-pollinating at least a million years ago, said plant geneticists led by Magnus Nordborg, associate professor of molecular and computational biology at the University of Southern California.

 

The results contradict a 2004 estimate from North Carolina State University that A. thaliana began self-pollinating in the last 400,000 years.

 

"We can rule out a very recent change to self-fertilization," said Chris Toomajian, USC research associate in molecular and computational biology and co-author of two new papers on A. thaliana in Science Express and Nature Genetics.

 

Self-pollination, or selfing, confers a major advantage to weedy species. A selfing plant can invade new territory by itself and colonize it alone.

ScienceDaily: Weed Gave Up Sex Long Ago

[Michaelangelica]

Sunday 05 August 2007

 

Listen Now - 05082007 |

Controlling your genetic blueprint

 

Most of us were taught the genetic blueprint we inherited from our parents predetermines our bodies, our temperaments and our health. But in the last two decades Bruce Lipton and other cellular biologists have discovered that, while our genes do not change, the way they are expressed may be very much within our control. Since Dr. Lipton first observed two cells with the same genetic code, in two different Petri dishes, behaved in radically different ways, his work has became a foundation for scientific documentation of the mind-body connection and a bridge between science and spirituality.

 

He explains that based on their genetic code, "cells can do a job that contributes to the growth of the organism, its maintenance and keeping it healthy, or a cell can get into a position of a protection response.

Cells need the brain to interpret the world and feed back to them what they should be doing to keep this whole system alive and floating."

 

Dr. Lipton's enthusiasm for his subject is contagious as he shares the impact his work in the lab has had on his personal life, and on his understanding of evolution and the future of life on our planet.

New Dimensions

[Michaelangelica]

Sunday 05 August 2007

 

Listen Now - 05082007 |

Controlling your genetic blueprint

 

Most of us were taught the genetic blueprint we inherited from our parents predetermines our bodies, our temperaments and our health.

But in the last two decades Bruce Lipton and other cellular biologists have discovered that, while our genes do not change, the way they are expressed may be very much within our control.

Since Dr. Lipton first observed two cells with the same genetic code, in two different Petri dishes, behaved in radically different ways, his work has became a foundation for scientific documentation of the mind-body connection and a bridge between science and spirituality.

He explains that based on their genetic code, "cells can do a job that contributes to the growth of the organism, its maintenance and keeping it healthy, or a cell can get into a position of a protection response.

Cells need the brain to interpret the world and feed back to them what they should be doing to keep this whole system alive and floating."

Dr. Lipton's enthusiasm for his subject is contagious as he shares the impact his work in the lab has had on his personal life, and on his understanding of evolution and the future of life on our planet.

New Dimensions

The talk will only be there for three weeks

[Michaelangelica]

Self-fertility In Fungi: The Secrets Of 'DIY Reproduction'

 

Science Daily — Research from The University of Nottingham sheds new light on a fascinating phenomenon of the natural world — the ability of some species to reproduce sexually without a partner.:(:D

Scientists have been trying to determine how individuals of a key fungus, Aspergillus nidulans, are able to have sex without the need for a partner.

 

In new findings published in the journal Current Biology on August 2, they reveal that the fungus has evolved to incorporate the two different sexes into the same individual.

 

This means that when sex occurs the fungus activates its internal sexual machinery and in essence 'mates with itself' to produce new offspring, rather than bypassing the sexual act.

. . .

The long-term aim of the research is to be able to manipulate fungal sex to our own advantage, to prevent disease and help produce better strains for use in the food and biotech industries.

. . .

Self-fertilisation is thought to have developed in some plant and fungal species as a response to a scarcity of compatible mating partners. It also allows species to maintain a combination of genes — called a genotype — that is well adapted to surviving in a certain environment.

ScienceDaily: Self-fertility In Fungi: The Secrets Of 'DIY Reproduction'

 

So how does evolution happen here?

 

Perhaps this would explain why evolution is fast among some species (those who "shuffle"?) and much slower among others.

 

It is interesting that some organisms don't find sex useful.Why?

Will change come Only by our intervention?

[Moontanman]

Has anyone read the book Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood, very disturbing book on several levels. If biological engenering ever came to be controled by companies i could see this happening. One Man designs a virus and intentionally infects the entire human race and kills everyone! Hell of a note but could one company or man hold that much power?

 

Michael

[Michaelangelica]

Has anyone read the book Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood, very disturbing book on several levels. If biological engenering ever came to be controled by companies i could see this happening. One Man designs a virus and intentionally infects the entire human race and kills everyone! Hell of a note but could one company or man hold that much power?

 

Michael

I would think that has already happened.

both the USA and Russia have developed deadly genetically engineered strains of bacteria like the plague.

It just they (or some mad idiot/terrorist) has not let them out yet.

**************

Shark has virgin birth

Research on the perished pup found that it had no paternal DNA. It also had half of its mother's genetic diversity.

 

Combined, the data indicates the mother gave birth through a non-sexual mode of reproduction known as automatic parthenogenesis.

 

Shivji says this process involves the female creating an egg that contains 50% of the mother's genes. It is induced to behave as though it has been fertilised by a tiny, genetically similar cell called a sister polar body.

 

Genetic disadvantage

 

The resulting offspring therefore is doubly genetically disadvantaged.

 

"It had no father to provide genetic diversity, and it even lacks its mother's full genetic make-up," Shivji says.

 

He speculates that such births can only occur when females do not have access to males, such as in captivity, or in the wild when overfishing depletes shark populations.

News in Science - Shark has virgin birth - 24/05/2007

while we are on the topic

News in Science - Humans have a bit of shark in them - 30/05/2007

 

 

Humans have a bit of shark in them

Jennifer Viegas

Discovery News

Wednesday, 30 May 2007

 

Sharks and humans share certain physiological processes, like the way they have sex and how they protect their bodies from disease. Now scientists say they share common genes (Image: iStockphoto)

 

Some 450 million years ago, sharks and humans shared a common ancestor, making sharks our distant cousins.

 

And according to recent research, this kinship is evident in our DNA, as at least one shark species possesses several genes that are nearly identical to those in human

s.

[Michaelangelica]

 

"Long before it's in the papers"

August 27, 2007

 

RETURN TO THE WORLD SCIENCE HOME PAGE

 

Scientists: ancient Mars microbes might still live

 

Aug. 27, 2007

Courtesy PNAS

and World Science staff

 

Some microbes can live for more than half a million years by repairing their DNA—so if Mars ever har*bored simiilar life forms in its wetter past, they too might live on, scientists say.

. . . ,.

t’s also known that bacteria can survive for millennia, encapsulated in ice, seiments and other materials. But for how long they live has been unclear, as well as how they do it. The leading idea was that they go dormant to survive.

. . .

They analyzed the DNA of the ancient cells, and also detected metabolic activity. The key to the longevity of these bacteria is continuous DNA repair, they wrote.

Evolution?

[Michaelangelica]

Energy conservation in evolution

The principle is known as a resource allocation trade-off, he says.

 

"They got a fixed amount of resources to allocate to various structures, to their legs, their wings, their horns and to their testes and other important organs," he says.

 

"If [the developing beetle] doesn't produce horns those males then produce bigger testes because they have resources that weren't used for horn growth."

 

Other examples

 

Simmons says the principle of resource allocation has been demonstrated in other animal studies.

 

For example, there is some evidence that bats trade the size of their testes for brain power.

 

And a recent study showed that stalk-eyed flies, in which eye span width is a measure of sexual desirability, trade testes size for the width of their eyes.

News in Science - Horny beetles have tiny testes - 17/10/2006

I heard a comic once say something about human males having enough blood for his brain or penis but not both. Turns out that that is right? :D

 

Epigenetics - the new wave in science

 

Listen Now - 22092007 |Download Audio - 22092007

 

Epigenetics describes the way genes can be modified in the way they work. It's an effect which is not genes and not environment which makes us who we are. The application is in making animal organs suitable for use in humans, and not rejected by the immune system. This is expected to become possible using epigenetics.

I

Science Show - 22September2007 - Epigenetics - the new wave in science

[Michaelangelica]

ABC TV Documentaries Australian Broadcasting Corporation

 

Email this story Email this page Print-friendy versionPrint-friendly

 

Broadcast: 12/06/2003

Ted's Evolution

24_ted_p What happens when those who fight against traditional thinking eventually become the establishment?

 

 

Charles Darwin started a revolution when he published his evolutionary theory in the late 1800s. he challenged the belief that God created the world in seven days and the theories of people such as Jean Baptiste de Lamarck, who believed that characteristics acquired during a lifetime could be passed on to the next generation.

 

Since then , Darwinian theory has become the accepted way of thinking but now an Australian scientist, Ted Steele, is stirring things up again.

 

Is he pursuing a false dream or is he about to change our understanding of life on earth?

 

Credits

Produced by David Noakes and Lou Petho.

ABC TV Documentaries: Ted's Evolution

 

 

 

TED’S EVOLUTION

 

Reputations and careers are on the line as Australian scientist Ted Steele takes on the establishment in a battle that could revolutionise the

 

theory of evolution.

SYNOPSIS

 

Charles Darwin started a revolution when he published his evolutionary theory in the late 1800s, challenging the belief that God created the world in seven days. Since then, Darwinian theory has become the accepted scientific doctrine but now an Australian scientist, Ted Steele, is stirring things up again.

 

For years, Ted and his collaborators around the world have been researching ideas that challenge a fundamental principle of biology - the Weismann Barrier - and give new meaning to one of the most discredited theories in the history of science. Their proposition is based on the work of Jean Baptiste de Lamarck, published some 50 years before Darwin's The Origin of Species. The concept is that characteristics acquired during a lifetime could be passed on to the next generation. Ted is convinced that we can pass on these genetic improvements, such as stronger immunity, to our children.

 

Encouraged by the great science philosopher Karl Popper, Ted launched his first book in 1979. It shook the foundations of evolutionary thinking. Since then, he and his collaborators have battled with the scientific establishment, their own universities and the media to have their research accepted.

 

Has Ted devoted a lifetime to pursuing a false dream or is he about to change what we know about life on earth? ‘Ted's Evolution’ documents the process of a potential paradigm shift. The stakes are high - reputations, careers and our understanding of evolution are all on the line.

 

 

TED’S EVOLUTION

DIRECTOR’S NOTES

 

One of the first things students are taught in biology is that evolution progresses through random mutations in the sex cells. Those born with modifications that help them better adapt to their environment carry on the species. This was what I knew to be true about evolution.

 

Students are also reminded of a discredited idea from French biologist Jean Baptiste de Lamarck. He proposed that changes made by an animal in one lifetime (such as a giraffe stretching its neck for higher leaves) could, over many generations, pass on that trait.

 

In 1998, I saw Professor Bob Blanden on a current affairs program talking about genetic information making its way from one generation to the next and how his collaborator, Ted Steele, had spent a turbulent 20-year career researching this.

 

I’ve always had a layperson’s interest in science and naively thought it a straightforward process where scientists make discoveries and add to our understanding of the wonders of life. Your experiments and ideas are either right and you add them to the pile of knowledge or they’re wrong and you move on. I didn’t see that science could have much room for shades of grey. But Ted’s story and science were full of grey areas that mixed theory with circumstantial proof, politics and personalities. It was an opportunity to do a science documentary with a difference.

 

Here was a controversial subject with a 200-year history and two scientists staking their reputations on an idea that had been dismissed almost out-of-hand. It was a chance to follow science in the making and look at what sort of people take on such a challenge and what it means for the progress of science as a whole. It was also a chance to put a human face to science. As fascinating as the science is, it was the people story that fascinated me and how, what we know as truth, is partly determined by the personalities and politics of the time.

Meeting Ted and Bob

 

 

Before meeting Ted and Bob in late November 1998, I read their book Lamarck’s Signature (1998, Allen and Unwin) which outlined the history of their work and what evidence they had. It was complex material, about mutation patterns that appeared on genetic material that made up antibodies in the body’s immune system. I hoped that they could simplify it for me but the initial conversations were full of words like ‘homologous recombination’, ‘reverse-transcriptase’ and ‘soma-to-germ-line feedback-loops’. Nevertheless, their passion and conviction were inspiring.

 

But it wasn’t just their enthusiasm that encouraged me to go on. Ted and Bob were just about to start a new collaboration with an American team in Augusta, Georgia, in the United States.

 

Ted would become the main focus of the story; his career was full of controversy. He was a maverick, a man of conviction, happy to say what was on his mind without thinking about the consequences. He admits that once he gets his teeth into something he finds it hard to let go. This trait has got him into many of the predicaments he’s found himself in over the years, but has also kept him focused on his science. He can hang onto an idea to the point where people just have enough and walk away.

 

Ted’s educational environment can be seen as a contributing factor to his personality. He attended university from the late ‘60s to the early ‘70s, a time when new ideas and innovation were highly prized. Ted first worked at the John Curtin School of Medical Research, regularly attending lunchtime meetings run by Professor Gordon Ada. Here, status had no power - students would joust with professors over theories, and nothing was sacred or too ridiculous. This was where imagination, creativity and science collided and from these sessions, new discoveries and even Nobel Prize winners emerged. To Ted, this was a far cry from the economical rationalist approach to education of today.

 

Bob Blanden, on the other hand, is more laid-back and though he’s not shy about saying what he thinks, he gives considered thought before speaking. He is in an important position in one of the country’s most respected research labs. As a scientist, Bob believed Ted’s work was important so he teamed up with him despite his controversial reputation. To me, this made Bob a true scientist, eager to pursue truth in science despite the dominant ideas, and despite the luminaries who espoused them. Interestingly, Bob’s credibility offset Ted’s ‘rat-bag’ reputation.

Early Days

 

 

Initial approaches for support for a documentary to a number of funding bodies proved unsuccessful. However, Film Australia thought the idea interesting and asked to be kept informed of developments. It was this interest throughout the first two and a half years that encouraged me to keep shooting events as they occurred.

 

On the strength of this material, Film Australia invested in the development of the project and later funded production under the National Interest Program. The organisation then submitted the developed proposal to ABC-TV Science, and the broadcaster offered a pre-sale.

 

I then followed Ted to conferences in Europe, as he promoted the book and visited old haunts. Having started my career as a cameraman and having my own SP gear gave me a head start, though this meant hauling over 60kg of gear overseas as a one-man-band.

 

Every protagonist needs a nemesis and there was a particular interview I was keen to secure - with populist British evolutionary writer, Richard Dawkins. Dawkins was strongly Neo-Darwinian and wrote quite passionately against the possibility of Lamarckian-acquired characteristics in his book The Extended Phenotype (1982, Oxford University Press). To me, his passion against the idea bordered on the non-scientific and I was keen to explore his reasoning.

 

I called him at Oxford University and introduced myself as an independent filmmaker doing a story on evolution, and trying very hard not to mention “he who should not be named”. When I had no option but to say “Ted Steele”, it was over. His last words were “not interested” before hanging up the phone.

 

Luckily, we did attract some very important scientists including British professors Leslie Brent, Gabriel Dover and science commentator Sir John Maddox.

Into Production

 

 

In late 2000, David Noakes came on board as producer. He too had become interested in producing a documentary on the same subject and had approached Ted and Bob.

 

In late 2000, a backlash began against soft marking in universities and Ted, being Ted, was not afraid of speaking out or being named in the media - where other academics remained anonymous. Ted spoke out after two of his students’ marks were upgraded. He thought this was wrong, and started a relentless internal email campaign, later going to the media with the story. The Vice-Chancellor sacked Ted in late February 2001.

 

These events gave Ted a higher profile and added fuel to the story. Film Australia committed to the production at just the right time, as I was running out of my own funds and had resorted to shooting on ten-year-old second-hand tape stock.

 

The project now took on a new life. Previously, the story’s shape had been largely determined by verite material, but we needed to give it more structure. On the team we now had Geoff Burchfield (ex Quantum journalist) to help tell the science side of the story.

 

While we had a lot of observational footage to tell the contemporary story, for Ted’s early career we were reliant on interviews with older scientists reminiscing about a bygone era. Fortunately, they were all passionate and highly articulate people. Those who had had altercations with Ted during the early 1980s had kept files of correspondence, data sheets and diaries. It was obvious that the younger, more assertive, Ted had a great impact on these people’s lives.

 

In the end, after nearly four years of shooting, we had enough material for two films, and were fortunate to have experienced editor Nikki Oldroyd cut the one-hour program. It isn’t time enough to tell the full story about Darwin and Lamarck. We stuck to what the world generally knows about these two significant figures of biological science. In researching the story, I discovered that Darwin apparently admired Lamarck, and that it could be argued, Darwin was more Lamarckian than Lamarck.

The Science

 

 

This scientific story wasn’t one where we could introduce the audience to simple bits of information that then come together in a meaningful conclusion. Ted started with a complex idea that needed a fair amount of simplification before being understood. Each time Geoff and I would add more detail to the script, we found ourselves falling into a trap where new science had to be given a lot of background information. It was a battle to the end, keeping the science simple for a lay audience to understand, but not so simple that it became meaningless. Fortunately, we had the help of computer animation to tell this side of the story. The animators did a great job and worked patiently as we went through various versions.

 

Depending on whom you talk to, Ted is either “a delusionary egotist hanging onto a ludicrous idea” or “a brilliant lateral thinker tenaciously hanging onto a major discovery”. It was important to document Ted’s mission as he would be the audience’s journey through the science. Even if the science became challenging at times, there would hopefully be a rapport with Ted as someone pursuing what he believed and not giving up.

Lou Petho

Director

 

Additional information: //members.optusnet.com.au/~tedsteele/links.html

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:cJ_c_EFiSeoJ:www.filmaust.com.au/programs/attachments/tedsevolution_pk.doc+ABC+TV+Ted%27s+evolution&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au&client=firefox-a

Australian universities are harlots/prostitutes to the holy $.

 

If Lemark was wrong how is it that exposure to the plague gives immunity to AIDS? :)

Are immunity cells different?

[Michaelangelica]

Across species from fish to mammals, they found that rates of protein evolution showed the same body size and temperature dependence as metabolic rate.

Specifically, their mathematical model predicts that a 10-degree increase in temperature across species leads to about a 300 percent increase in the evolutionary rate of proteins, while a tenfold decrease in body size leads to about a 200 percent increase in evolutionary rates.

 

"It does suggest that if there were an evolutionary arms race between a small, hot animal and a cold, big animal, it's going to be awfully hard for the cold, big animal to keep up," said James F. Gillooly, an assistant professor of zoology in the University of Florida College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and a member of the UF Genetics Institute. "But really, what we are showing is that neutral processes, processes that do not depend on natural selection, are important in governing its evolution."

 

Natural selection, a concept first introduced by British naturalist Charles Darwin in 1859, is a cornerstone of biology that says evolution is driven by organisms passing along beneficial traits that help them survive and reproduce while weeding out unfavorable ones.

 

"We know evolution depends on the environment in which an animal lives," Gillooly said.

"And yet this study suggests that you can look at different species -- and without knowing anything at all about their pressures to survive and reproduce in their respective environments -- you can draw conclusions about their rates of protein evolution over millions of years. It's pretty exciting."

ScienceDaily: Driving Force Of Evolution? Evolution Of Proteins Linked To Species' Metabolic Rate

[Michaelangelica]

Amazing stuff Natural Selection

"jumping genes."

 

 

"We have known for some time that some genes can move from one place to another within the genome," said President Sheldon Schuster, PhD, KGI's president. "Dr. Ray's research provides evidence that this movement of genes does not cause instability at the point from which the gene moves.

. . .

. .

Ray characterized the genomic DNA as "smart" for repairing itself in a manner that doesn't produce drastic abnormalities. He also said that the process of repairing is "ancient" because the mechanism appears similar to that used by the immune system of mammals. Ancestors of plants and mammals diverged early in evolution, at least 1.5 billion years ago.

New insight on jumping genes

 

Lady luck at work

Which of the thousands of long stretches of repeated DNA in the human genome came first? And which are the duplicates?

 

The answers, published online by Nature Genetics on October 7, 2007, provide the first evolutionary history of the duplications in the human genome that are partly responsible for both disease and recent genetic innovations.

. . .

"The results suggest that the high rate of disease caused by these duplications in the normal population - estimated at 1/500 and 1/1000 events per birth - may be offset by the emergence of newly minted human/great-ape specific genes embedded within the duplications. The next challenge will be determining the function of these novel genes," said Eichler.

For the Maths Geeks

Pevzner and his associate Haixu Tang (now professor at University of Indiana) applied their expertise in assembling genomes from millions of small fragments - a problem that is not unlike the "mosaic decomposition" problem in analyzing duplications that the team faced.

 

Over the years, Pevzner has applied the 250-year old algorithmic idea first proposed by 18th century mathematician Leonhard Euler (of the fame of pi) to a variety of problems and demonstrated that it works equally well for a set of seemingly unrelated biological problems including DNA fragment assembly, reconstructing snake venoms, and now dissecting the mosaic structure of segmental duplications.

 

In the future, the researchers plan to continue their exploration of evolution.

Better understanding of what genomic changes paved the way for modern humans

[Michaelangelica]

DNA Shuffling then Natural Selection

or

Natural Selection then DNA Shuffling

or

first the egg. . .?

Based on the structure of the chromosomes, the cat genome much more closely resembles that of humans than that of other nonprimate species.

Unlike cats and humans, pieces of chromosomes in "the dog, mouse, rat, and others have been reshuffled like a poker deck," says O'Brien.

This conservation suggests that the cat's genome has more in common with the ancient ancestor of cats, humans, and other mammals than, say, the dog's does.

Other surprises included an excessive amount of mitochondrial DNA stuck into the cat genome, although researchers have yet to figure out the reason or significance.

Spice of life.

Researchers have sequenced the genome of this cat, named Cinnamon.

[Hyba]

(Edited out as I was clearly talking gibberish)

[Rade]

...how is it that exposure to the plague gives immunity to AIDS? :phones:

The question you ask about relationship of plague and AIDS appears to be related to a single gene mutation in DNA. This "helpful" mutation appears to have provided a selective advantage to a population that survived plague in England over 300 years ago, and the same gene mutation today provides selective advantage to individuals exposed to AIDS. The reason is that the mechanism of infection is similar to both plague and AIDS --See here

 

SECRETS OF THE DEAD . Mystery of the Black Death | PBS

Read Clues & Evidence section to see mechanism.

 

A nice example of how random DNA mutations at a specific gene locus can provide adaptive value in humans via natural selection.

 

Also, I would like to mention that although it is very possible that endogenous retroviruses (perhaps also the antibody hypothesis of Steele) could provide a mechanism to penetrate the Weisman Barrier, such examples of information flow from somatic cells to DNA within germ cells (eggs, sperm) are extremely rare, and in no way support the use-disuse hypothesis presented by Lamarck in 1802. Here I copy some text from a link that presents information on this topic:

 

Lamarck's Signature. (Ted Steele)

 

Natural selection would not become unnecessary by the hypothetical soma-to-germline route. If the inherited antibody sequences would become permanently incorporated into the germline, this would happen by virtue of both 'somatic selection' and natural selection. Because only the contribution to the fitness of the individual and its offspring would determine the long-term usefulness of those retro-genes. And the retro-pseudo-genes can only be useful if they are expressed! Steele is not opposed to natural selection and as I see it the 'only' possible change to "Darwin's Natural Selection Paradigm" would be the addition of a mechanism specific to the immune system. So the subtitle of his book is too general: even if the soma-to-germline route would be proven, it would not follow that other organs do behave in the same way. It would not automatically be a general mechanism. As Stephen J. Gould said: "If acquired characters are inherited only rarely and weakly, then Lamarckism might aid natural selection in developing adaptation more quickly - a position advocated by Darwin himself throughout the Origin. But if acquired characters are inherited faithfully all the time, then natural selection will be overwhelmed and Lamarckism becomes a refutation of Darwinism. Relative frequency determines the distinction." . However, if the soma-to-germline route exists, I think it could have consequences for gene therapy in humans.

[Michaelangelica]

OK

 

How does GM canola that is immune to weedicide fit with natural selection?

[Michaelangelica]

“Imprinted genes have always been something of a mystery, partly because they don’t follow the conventional rules of inheritance,”

. . .

Jirtle, who has studied imprinting for years, notes that imprinting is an epigenetic event, meaning it’s something that can change a gene’s function without altering the sequence of its DNA. “Imprinted genes are unusually vulnerable to pressures in our environment – even what we eat, drink, and breathe. On top of that, epigenetic changes can be inherited. I don’t think people realize that.”

 

Several years ago, Jirtle showed that Agouti mice – normally fat and yellow – when fed certain dietary supplements, would produce brown, normal weight babies. The babies’ Agouti genes, the ones responsible for color, were the same as the mother’s, yet they looked different. “That’s epigenetics in action,” says Jirtle.

'Genetic Rosetta Stone' Maps Imprinted Genes In The Human Genome | Scientific Blogging

[Rade]

OK. How does GM canola that is immune to weedicide fit with natural selection?

Genetically Modified (GM) organisms (such as canola plant) fit completely with natural selection, as long as you are willing to agree that the species called Homo sapiens is part of "nature". Recall that "natural selection" is defined as the nonrandom (differential) reproduction of genotypes in a population. There is nothing in theory that puts humans outside this process. Individuals do not evolve, population gene pools evolve. Selection tends to adjust gene frequencies in a population to maximize fitness (e.g., ability to survive AND reproduce). A single gene modification, such as is used in GM, may be selected because it has beneficial effects on the phenotype of populations. There can be selection against traits as well as selection favoring traits, this process has been going on for millions of years. Predators and competitors for example can serve as selective agents. A well studied selective agent is a type of virus called a bacteriophage of the T1-phage type. And humans also act as "selective agents"--usually we select for one extreme in an attempt to improve production in crops and livestock--this process is called directional (progressive) selection.

 

So, with above information, we find answer to your question--QM canola that is immune to weedicides evolved (which means nothing more than a change in gene frequencies in a population over time) via natural selection with the natural species called Homo sapiens acting as selective agent to bring about directional (progressive) selection in canola plant populations such that over time the fitness of the population was increased when in the presence of toxic weedicide chemicals--which ironically where produced by same selective agent to decrease fitness of many other species of plants. Usually this type of selection by humans is termed "artificial selection" to distinguish it from selection caused by "nature"--but I find little value in this philosophy--I hold humans to be an animal of nature, the Homo sapiens animal.

 

I am relatively new here and do not know your background--have you taken a college level class in Organic Evolution ? What I present here is nothing more than basic understanding of modern evolutionary theory (with my spin vis-a-vis artificial vs natural "selection").