Feral Hogs

[PairTheBoard]

I'm watching a National Geographic show about Hogs. They say that the soft haired pink, short snouted, relatively well behaved domesticated farm pigs without tusks revert suprisingly quickly to coarse long haired dark, long snouted, viscious feral hogs with tusks when they escape into the wild. This happens in just a generation or two. My impression from the show is that it doesn't require breeding with other wild feral hogs, although that would explain it better when that's what happens. Is this possible, that with no change to the blood line, domesticated hogs undergo such sudden physical transformation when released into the wild? Their hair grows long, dark and coarse? Their snouts grow long? They suddenly start growing tusks? How could this be explained?

I also saw an interesting show about the dogification of foxes. The theory was that dogs evolved from wolves by being less easily scared. Thereby having an advantage when approaching human trash dumps. To support the theory they pointed to an experiment done with Foxes where they selectively bred foxes that were less easily scared by humans. The amazing thing is, the dogified foxes did not just change in disposition. They underwent physical changes very similiar to the physical differences between wolves and dogs. Their fur became softer and multicolored, along with other notable physical changes.

These are the kinds of things that make me suspect that there is more going on with evolution than we've put our fingers on so far. It's like there are dormant dna instructions ready to take effect under the right enviornmental conditions. With the domesticated Pigs to Feral Hogs example it appears these instructions don't even need selective breeding. They appear to be triggered by the environment alone.

PairTheBoard

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
These are the kinds of things that make me suspect that there is more going on with evolution than we've put our fingers on so far.

[/ QUOTE ]
Great post, and I agree. Three billion years of evolution has left life with some surprises up its sleeve.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm watching a National Geographic show about Hogs. They say that the soft haired pink, short snouted, relatively well behaved domesticated farm pigs without tusks revert suprisingly quickly to coarse long haired dark, long snouted, viscious feral hogs with tusks when they escape into the wild. This happens in just a generation or two. My impression from the show is that it doesn't require breeding with other wild feral hogs, although that would explain it better when that's what happens. Is this possible, that with no change to the blood line, domesticated hogs undergo such sudden physical transformation when released into the wild? Their hair grows long, dark and coarse? Their snouts grow long? They suddenly start growing tusks? How could this be explained?

I also saw an interesting show about the dogification of foxes. The theory was that dogs evolved from wolves by being less easily scared. Thereby having an advantage when approaching human trash dumps. To support the theory they pointed to an experiment done with Foxes where they selectively bred foxes that were less easily scared by humans. The amazing thing is, the dogified foxes did not just change in disposition. They underwent physical changes very similiar to the physical differences between wolves and dogs. Their fur became softer and multicolored, along with other notable physical changes.

These are the kinds of things that make me suspect that there is more going on with evolution than we've put our fingers on so far. It's like there are dormant dna instructions ready to take effect under the right enviornmental conditions. With the domesticated Pigs to Feral Hogs example it appears these instructions don't even need selective breeding. They appear to be triggered by the environment alone.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting story. Definitely don't know the answer in this case...want me to try to imagine one? I think I probably could, just to dismiss the "ZOMG this is unpossible!" argument, but it would be just wild conjecture. Either way, pretty cool stuff, agree with Phil's post.

[Austiger]

Dogs' great evolutionary step was befriending humans. Pretty f-ing sneaky of them. My dog sleeps in my bed all day while I'm at work. Then she sleeps on the floor all night when I'm at home.

[Rduke55]

I'd guess if it isn't explained by other, short term factors it could be explained by epigenetic changes. It's not changes in the code, it changes of what, how much, and when genes get expressed. There was an article in Discover or Scientific American within the last 6 months about this. Very rapid changes based on the environment.

Edit: Found the article linky (http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/cover/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=)

Something like the water fleas maybe?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd guess if it isn't explained by other, short term, factors it could be explained by epigenetic changes. It's not changes in the code, it changes of what, how much, and when genes get expressed. There was an article in Discover or Scientific American within the last 6 months about this. Very rapid changes based on the environment.

Edit: Found the article linky (http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/cover/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=)

Something like the water fleas maybe?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was going to guess something along those lines.

[PairTheBoard]

So it's called epigenetics. A recent development in theory which was laughed at when first suggested. I see them talking about "stress" being a factor triggering epigenetic changes. I wonder how the intelligence of the species might get involved. There seems to me to be a feedback between stress and the experience of it by intelligence.

I know this is theoretical heresy for evolution, but if epigenetics can direct physical changes, why couldn't it direct alterations to the dna itself? Wouldn't it be an evolutionary advantage for a species under intense environmental stress to direct rapid alterations in its dna? Thus giving it a chance to produce a lot of radically "new models" in the next generation - one of which might be able to survive in an environment so stressful it is likely to be forcing the original form of the species into extinction. Wouldn't such a mechanism have evolutionary advantages?

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
So it's called epigenetics. A recent development in theory which was laughed at when first suggested. I see them talking about "stress" being a factor triggering epigenetic changes. I wonder how the intelligence of the species might get involved. There seems to me to be a feedback between stress and the experience of it by intelligence.

I know this is theoretical heresy for evolution, but if epigenetics can direct physical changes, why couldn't it direct alterations to the dna itself? Wouldn't it be an evolutionary advantage for a species under intense environmental stress to direct rapid alterations in its dna? Thus giving it a chance to produce a lot of radically "new models" in the next generation - one of which might be able to survive in an environment so stressful it is likely to be forcing the original form of the species into extinction. Wouldn't such a mechanism have evolutionary advantages?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

It would have to be heritable. I am reminded of a story from Godel, Escher and Bach, where one of the characters was trying to play any possible record, and the other was trying to design records that, when played, destroyed the recordplayer. He thought of the tactic of designing a recordplayer that would scan the record, find out what type of player it would destroy, and then reassemble itself into some other kind and play the record. You have to have some way of programming the organism to reorganize its DNA while allowing for the DNA that does this programming to be impervious to change. Thus, THAT DNA is now vulnerable since it cannot adapt. Remember, eventually, EVERYTHING is a genetic, not epigenetic, response.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it's called epigenetics. A recent development in theory which was laughed at when first suggested. I see them talking about "stress" being a factor triggering epigenetic changes. I wonder how the intelligence of the species might get involved. There seems to me to be a feedback between stress and the experience of it by intelligence.

I know this is theoretical heresy for evolution, but if epigenetics can direct physical changes, why couldn't it direct alterations to the dna itself? Wouldn't it be an evolutionary advantage for a species under intense environmental stress to direct rapid alterations in its dna? Thus giving it a chance to produce a lot of radically "new models" in the next generation - one of which might be able to survive in an environment so stressful it is likely to be forcing the original form of the species into extinction. Wouldn't such a mechanism have evolutionary advantages?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

It would have to be heritable. I am reminded of a story from Godel, Escher and Bach, where one of the characters was trying to play any possible record, and the other was trying to design records that, when played, destroyed the recordplayer. He thought of the tactic of designing a recordplayer that would scan the record, find out what type of player it would destroy, and then reassemble itself into some other kind and play the record. You have to have some way of programming the organism to reorganize its DNA while allowing for the DNA that does this programming to be impervious to change. Thus, THAT DNA is now vulnerable since it cannot adapt. Remember, eventually, EVERYTHING is a genetic, not epigenetic, response.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the problem. The trait I'm thinking of could be relatively simple and applicable to almost any dna structures beyond the dna that directs it - Call that the Safe dna. Like, when under intense pressure the epigenetic mechanisms do major alterations of the UnSafe dna, like cutting off a piece, or adding a piece, or something like that. It takes what it has to work with and does some rearangements. Sort of a last gasp shotgun into the next generation hoping to get something that can survive what is becoming unsurvivable. Maybe there are things about dna that we don't know about whereby such an emergency operation on it could be done without producing a lot of poorly functioning offspring.

btw, from that link I see this:
-------------------------------
" When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations."
-------------------------------

I assume they mean the effect lasts for several generations even after the predators have been removed. Isn't that an example of the heretical "inheritance of aquired characteristics"? I understand there is no change in the dna in this case. But still there's a characteristic aquired due to environmental conditions that gets passed to the following generation, even though it fades later on. I guess it's not an evolutionary change. However, I have to wonder if they really know that much about changes to the dna. If epigenetics can Turn Off certain dna maybe it can cause it to actually "whither" after enough time.

I really doubt we know everything about how dna gets altered.

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it's called epigenetics. A recent development in theory which was laughed at when first suggested. I see them talking about "stress" being a factor triggering epigenetic changes. I wonder how the intelligence of the species might get involved. There seems to me to be a feedback between stress and the experience of it by intelligence.

I know this is theoretical heresy for evolution, but if epigenetics can direct physical changes, why couldn't it direct alterations to the dna itself? Wouldn't it be an evolutionary advantage for a species under intense environmental stress to direct rapid alterations in its dna? Thus giving it a chance to produce a lot of radically "new models" in the next generation - one of which might be able to survive in an environment so stressful it is likely to be forcing the original form of the species into extinction. Wouldn't such a mechanism have evolutionary advantages?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

It would have to be heritable. I am reminded of a story from Godel, Escher and Bach, where one of the characters was trying to play any possible record, and the other was trying to design records that, when played, destroyed the recordplayer. He thought of the tactic of designing a recordplayer that would scan the record, find out what type of player it would destroy, and then reassemble itself into some other kind and play the record. You have to have some way of programming the organism to reorganize its DNA while allowing for the DNA that does this programming to be impervious to change. Thus, THAT DNA is now vulnerable since it cannot adapt. Remember, eventually, EVERYTHING is a genetic, not epigenetic, response.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the problem. The trait I'm thinking of could be relatively simple and applicable to almost any dna structures beyond the dna that directs it - Call that the Safe dna. Like, when under intense pressure the epigenetic mechanisms do major alterations of the UnSafe dna, like cutting off a piece, or adding a piece, or something like that. It takes what it has to work with and does some rearangements. Sort of a last gasp shotgun into the next generation hoping to get something that can survive what is becoming unsurvivable. Maybe there are things about dna that we don't know about whereby such an emergency operation on it could be done without producing a lot of poorly functioning offspring.

btw, from that link I see this:
-------------------------------
" When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations."
-------------------------------

I assume they mean the effect lasts for several generations even after the predators have been removed. Isn't that an example of the heretical "inheritance of aquired characteristics"? I understand there is no change in the dna in this case. But still there's a characteristic aquired due to environmental conditions that gets passed to the following generation, even though it fades later on. I guess it's not an evolutionary change. However, I have to wonder if they really know that much about changes to the dna. If epigenetics can Turn Off certain dna maybe it can cause it to actually "whither" after enough time.

I really doubt we know everything about how dna gets altered.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I think something like what you are talking about is the current understanding. Not only do we evolve, but we evolve evolvability. The ability to quickly adapt is something that itself would usually be selected for.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
It's like there are dormant dna instructions ready to take effect under the right enviornmental conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, we have mapped the genome, but we still have almost no idea how genes work. 'Junk' DNA that doesn't seem to do anything is everywhere. Yet DNA directly affects protein synthesis. With terabytes of information - each bit possibly having immense (or zero) significance - a DNA sequence is really just a tangible representation of what uniquely identifies an organism. Evolution is a recursive process occurring over huge times scales and an innumerable range of environmental variables. Ice ages are severe climate changes and they only happen over a few years.

Is it really unreasonable imagine that an organism can evolve to evolve?

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, we have mapped the genome, but we still have almost no idea how genes work. 'Junk' DNA that doesn't seem to do anything is everywhere. Yet DNA directly affects protein synthesis. With terabytes of information - each bit possibly having immense (or zero) significance - a DNA sequence is really just a tangible representation of what uniquely identifies an organism.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm curious how this concept is handled by geneticists -- do they explicitly use the mathematical tools of classical information theory to discuss these concepts and gain new insights? If not, is it simply that there's no working theory (starting from certain postulates) to put the mathematics to work?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I think something like what you are talking about is the current understanding. Not only do we evolve, but we evolve evolvability.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the current understanding it hasn't percolated down to the Popular Level that includes me yet. I'd be happy to see articles explaining that as the accepted view in the field. I'd especially like to see what they think the mechanisms are for it.

PairTheBoard

[Alex-db]

Perfect replicators couldn't evolve. Completely random mutators would be too unstable. The predominant replicators will have evolved towards an optimum ability to evolve: not too perfect, not too imperfect.

So when the environment changes, the ones with the most optimum ability to change again will become the most frequent.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
A recent development in theory which was laughed at when first suggested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you talking about Lamarckism? Because if so, then you're mistaken because it was very much in vogue for a long time in evolutionary theory. Even Darwin was a Lamarckist.


[ QUOTE ]
I wonder how the intelligence of the species might get involved. There seems to me to be a feedback between stress and the experience of it by intelligence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure what you mean here.

[ QUOTE ]

I know this is theoretical heresy for evolution, but if epigenetics can direct physical changes, why couldn't it direct alterations to the dna itself?

[/ QUOTE ]

The mechanism would be orders of magnitude more complex.


[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't it be an evolutionary advantage for a species under intense environmental stress to direct rapid alterations in its dna? Thus giving it a chance to produce a lot of radically "new models" in the next generation - one of which might be able to survive in an environment so stressful it is likely to be forcing the original form of the species into extinction. Wouldn't such a mechanism have evolutionary advantages?


[/ QUOTE ]

What would be the advantage over something like the mechanisms of epigenetic change described in the article? That gives you a lot more flexibility to change with your pressures.
Also, I'd have to think that the probability for things to go wrong would be much, much greater using a mechanism you are proposing than the one we are talking about.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the problem. The trait I'm thinking of could be relatively simple and applicable to almost any dna structures beyond the dna that directs it - Call that the Safe dna. Like, when under intense pressure the epigenetic mechanisms do major alterations of the UnSafe dna, like cutting off a piece, or adding a piece, or something like that. It takes what it has to work with and does some rearangements.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that I'd imagine this would result in a lot of nonfunctional and/or deleterious genes. Most of the time cutting off a piece or adding a piece has really bad repurcussions.

[ QUOTE ]

I assume they mean the effect lasts for several generations even after the predators have been removed.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does.

[ QUOTE ]
heretical

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep using this word. Heretical to whom?

[ QUOTE ]
I really doubt we know everything about how dna gets altered.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
'Junk' DNA that doesn't seem to do anything

[/ QUOTE ]

I really wish this idea would go away.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm curious how this concept is handled by geneticists -- do they explicitly use the mathematical tools of classical information theory to discuss these concepts and gain new insights?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think some may use it as a useful analogy in some cases but it's not used by geneticists all that much, at least the kind of information theory and extent you are talking about. I would guess that things like how evolution progresses by "tinkering", and problems in what genetic communication is are what cause problems with using IT for this.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
'Junk' DNA that doesn't seem to do anything

[/ QUOTE ]

I really wish this idea would go away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would it? We have always been able to watch RNA transcription and protein synthesis. Inexplicably there are non-coded sequences that are never transcribed and never have any affect on the organism.

The point of bringing up the 'junk' DNA was a way to demonstrate that we understand very little about the higher level nature of DNA with respect to it being a product of evolution. We can't definitively say, "if this piece of DNA were active the organism would look different in this way". But junk DNA is definitely a real thing. The information may be dormant for 1 generation or 50 or 5000, or come alive from environmental changes, or never be active.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Inexplicably there are non-coded sequences that are never transcribed and never have any affect on the organism.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really, really wrong. While I'm sure that a lot of it is not used noncoding DNA has enormous effects on the organism. A lot of our genes (as in coding region) range from pretty similar to exactly the same as other organisms - the difference is how those genes are expressed. Many people that work on these kinds of things think that kind of thing makes up the main differences between different related organisms. You need noncoding DNA for genes to get turned on, off, when, where, etc.
In fact I'd say a huge chunk, if not most, of the changes of our brain between us and say, chimps, have to do with differences in developmental timing during the formation of the nervous system. Are there coding differences that play a big role? Of course, but for some reason people really don't know about the gigundous role expression differences, which are governed by noncoding regions that are not transcribed or translated into proteins, play.

I've posted before on the prairie vs. montane vole differences in mating systems that are based on different expression of the same gene. That's relevant here.

[m_the0ry]

Again I'm not arguing that all non coding sequences are meaningless, I'm arguing that all meaningless sequences are non coding.

To be arguing against my point you have to be saying that every single base pair is significant in the formation of the organism. I want to be sure this is in fact what you are saying before I rebut.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Again I'm not arguing that all non coding sequences are meaningless, I'm arguing that all meaningless sequences are non coding.

To be arguing against my point you have to be saying that every single base pair is significant in the formation of the organism. I want to be sure this is in fact what you are saying before I rebut.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm certainly not saying that so no rebuttal needed. My original beef was with the term "junk DNA" which gives people the idea that noncoding DNA is not relevant and really screws their idea of how this stuff works.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
So it's called epigenetics. A recent development in theory which was laughed at when first suggested. I see them talking about "stress" being a factor triggering epigenetic changes. I wonder how the intelligence of the species might get involved. There seems to me to be a feedback between stress and the experience of it by intelligence.

I know this is theoretical heresy for evolution, but if epigenetics can direct physical changes, why couldn't it direct alterations to the dna itself? Wouldn't it be an evolutionary advantage for a species under intense environmental stress to direct rapid alterations in its dna? Thus giving it a chance to produce a lot of radically "new models" in the next generation - one of which might be able to survive in an environment so stressful it is likely to be forcing the original form of the species into extinction. Wouldn't such a mechanism have evolutionary advantages?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Such a mechanism would have exciting applications in a science fiction novel.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
'Junk' DNA that doesn't seem to do anything

[/ QUOTE ]

I really wish this idea would go away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The fact that we don't know what it does doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't do anything.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
'Junk' DNA that doesn't seem to do anything

[/ QUOTE ]

I really wish this idea would go away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The fact that we don't know what it does doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't do anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say that the fact that it doesn't code for a protein doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't do anything. We know what some of it does and it's really, really important.

[Bill Haywood]

I remember seeing the report on foxes. The explanation was that although they selected foxes for temperament, other changes accompanied. Apparently, the genes for easy temperament had other affects on fur, etc.

Feral hogs would change quickly because all the tusk and stiff hair and aggression genes are still present in the gene pool, just in low numbers. Since they confer significant advantages, they rapidly increase in the wild.

Re: junk DNA. They ARE finding functions for "junk" DNA. A lot is just junk, but a lot is involved in regulating other genes. The "junk" DNA is apparently a new class of genes that do not code for proteins. They use RNA to regulate protein production by other genes. This means there is a whole new class of genes for evolution to act through -- another blow to the folks who refuse to believe mutations can produce speciation.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Feral hogs would change quickly because all the tusk and stiff hair and aggression genes are still present in the gene pool, just in low numbers. Since they confer significant advantages, they rapidly increase in the wild.


[/ QUOTE ]

That would be the normal explanation. I don't think it applies here though because of the amazing speed with which the changes take place. The very next generation is remarkably transformed. I'm not sure, but there may even be transfomative effects in the original hogs that escape. Nothing has changed for them but the environment. And the first generation could only be affected by the genetic concentration on the first dominant male hog, who was originally of the same soft haired pink tuskless type - probably the hog that would have been used for breeding anyway.

PairTheBoard

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
The very next generation is remarkably transformed. I'm not sure, but there may even be transfomative effects in the original hogs that escape.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, that is intriguing.

Well, plenty of development is done in response to the environment. Human wisdom teeth never emerge because we don't spend our lives wearing our molars down to the nub chewing on hides. Skin darkens only with exposure to the sun. Who knows, maybe tusks develop only by digging for truffles.

Living in pens, eating from a trough, is immensely different from working for a pig living. I would imagine the lack of environmental stimulus accounts for these extra-selective changes, not some unknown genetic mechanisms.

[Jetboy2]

[ QUOTE ]
They say that the soft haired pink, short snouted, relatively well behaved domesticated farm pigs without tusks revert suprisingly quickly to coarse long haired dark, long snouted, viscious feral hogs with tusks when they escape into the wild. This happens in just a generation or two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider this.... A female pig can become pregnant at around 8-18 months of age. She will then go into heat every 21 days. Male pigs become sexually active at 8-10 months of age. A litter of piglets typically contains between 6 and 12 piglets.

So... the stupid domesticated ones die off rapidly; and the ones with "wild" traits live. Go figure? Doesn't seem all that far-fetched to me.

Cats can become feral pretty quickly as well; but they don't seem to change all that much in appearance.

I need to read up on the fox thing...

jb2

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They say that the soft haired pink, short snouted, relatively well behaved domesticated farm pigs without tusks revert suprisingly quickly to coarse long haired dark, long snouted, viscious feral hogs with tusks when they escape into the wild. This happens in just a generation or two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider this.... A female pig can become pregnant at around 8-18 months of age. She will then go into heat every 21 days. Male pigs become sexually active at 8-10 months of age. A litter of piglets typically contains between 6 and 12 piglets.

So... the stupid domesticated ones die off rapidly; and the ones with "wild" traits live. Go figure? Doesn't seem all that far-fetched to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are getting at. There's normally not a mix of domesticated and "wild" piglets when they are in a domestic setting.

Also, it doesn't matter how fast their generation time is if they are measuring the change in generations.

[PairTheBoard]

I think epigenetic effects have always been understood in the sense of the development of the fetus being affected by the environment of the womb. What appears to be happening here is the Wild environment of the Mother is impacting her womb's environment and thus the development of the piglet fetus. The first generation piglets are born with feral characteristics.

PairTheBoard

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The very next generation is remarkably transformed. I'm not sure, but there may even be transfomative effects in the original hogs that escape.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, that is intriguing.

Well, plenty of development is done in response to the environment. Human wisdom teeth never emerge because we don't spend our lives wearing our molars down to the nub chewing on hides. Skin darkens only with exposure to the sun. Who knows, maybe tusks develop only by digging for truffles.

Living in pens, eating from a trough, is immensely different from working for a pig living. I would imagine the lack of environmental stimulus accounts for these extra-selective changes, not some unknown genetic mechanisms.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. It just doesn't work like that. After a while, domestic pigs have wild litter born with feral traits. It is not a selective effect and not an effect of the environment after they're born. Something must actually be changing in the frequency or expression of genes in the offspring, as a result of the environmental experiences of the parents.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
No. It just doesn't work like that....Something must actually be changing... as a result of the environmental experiences of the parents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pray tell us about this new mechanism you have discovered.

But before you do that, read up on Lysenkoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism).