From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

examples please[edit]

I still do not get just what epigenetics is? Why is there no section of examples, or another way to help the reader find a concrete example of epigenetics? tahc chat 20:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

There already are multiple sections on applications. Natureium (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Do understand epigenetics so well that you find no example needed? Since I don't even understand very well what epigenetics might be, how can I know which parts of the article you think are "on applications"? There is no section called "on applications" and I have already done a search for the word "application". This word appears only once, and in a paragraph with zero examples.
Please try to understand that any Wikipedia articles on nebulous ideas should have concrete examples to help explain them, and such examples should in the lead of the whole article-- if not in the very first paragraph.
If you think there is at least one half-way decent example, why don't you just tell me the key words in that example? tahc chat 22:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the lead gives several examples (using the word "example"), and the section called "Mechanisms" is really a list of examples. I understand your confusion -- this is a very difficult topic for anybody without a pretty deep understanding of genetics -- but there really are plenty of examples here. Looie496 (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I have looked at it and none of the "mechanisms" are meaningful examples... because the "mechanisms" (as they are described) lack any concrete terms. The "mechanisms" are all given in abstract terms that may be clear you wrote the article or already know what epigenetics is, but since I am not that person they do not help an outsider very much.
Here is how you might word a concrete example... "As an example of epigenetics, the way DNA strands are wrapped in female cuckoos dictates which bird species is targeted by the cuckoo to raise their young." tahc chat 20:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Epigenetic transmission via extracellular vesicles[edit]

It appears that another mechanism of epigenetic transmission of paternal stress has been identified. This report on a conference contribution describes the transmission of paternal stress by means of exttracellular vesicles that are ejected from cells and fuse with the sperm. --Chris Howard (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Lamarckism category[edit]

When I said "Lamarckism is not even mentioned in the article" (left side), I obviously meant "in the Wikipedia article" and not "in the article by Jablonka and Lamb" (right side) or "in the article on page 43 of the leftmost of the magazines that are lying on the table I am writing this on".

I know that some people make a connection between epigenetics and Lamarckism, but it is not mainstream that such a connection exists. Therefore, if the article contains the word "Lamarckism", it should not be in the shape of a category, coming from nowhere, but in a real sentence - you know, one of those thingies making up the actual article. And then it should not be "epigenetics is Lamarckism", but more on the lines of "some people make a connection between those two, but that is a minority position", plus a source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this where we should mention “correlated regions of systemic interindividual variation” (CoRSIVs)[edit]

“correlated regions of systemic interindividual variation” (CoRSIVs) [1] - may be a neologism. - Rod57 (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Use of the word "heritable" is seriously misleading[edit]

There is a serious problem with the article, which is the repeated use of the word "heritable" to describe epigenetic phenomenon. This is SERIOUSLY misleading, because the word "heritable" usually implies stable transmission of a trait over several generations. There is no evidence that epigenetic modifications to DNA are transmitted over more than one or two generations AT MOST, and compelling reasons to believe this will not occur (DNA is re-programmed epigenetically during early embryonic development). The writers of the article are not at fault; the error is embedded in some of the source material -- but that doesn't make it any less misleading. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do the re-write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)