*Skip to below the videos if you don’t care about an aside about doctors.

I almost feel bad focusing this piece on one article in particular. I’ve been squinting skeptically at the talk surrounding epigenetics for months now. Because of that, much of what follows is directed at pop science journalism as much as anything.

I can’t bring myself to actually feel all that bad because Dr. Hyman is a doctor. Not only is he a doctor, but he brings up his doctoryness pretty much everywhere. And that’s fine, but training to be a medical doctor doesn’t necessarily provide special training in nutrition, exercise physiology, et cetera. It’s a problem because people respect doctors. It seems to me that people also tend to respect medical doctors (Dr. Hyman’s flavor) more than PhDs. Unfortunately for reality, the converse should often be true. The brief training medical doctors get in nutrition and exercise physiology has a higher probability of being dated (however slightly) when it comes in the form of chapters of generalized books and/or when it is taught by non-specialists. It’s certainly true that some medical doctors have stepped up their game and are exempt from this criticism, and that isn’t the point. It’s a problem of automatically granted authority where none should be granted. A recent exchange between Deepak Chopra (and M.D.) and Sam Harris (Ph.D. in neuroscience) illustrates this somewhat.

Scientific claims by Deepak Chopra

Response by Sam Harris (rewind to beginning for a funny moment: Michael Shermer calls Deepak “woo woo”)

Hilarious: Leanord Mlodinow (theoretical physicist, co-authored 2 books with Stephen Hawking) pwns Deepak

The Meat of It

“Science is now proving what we all knew intuitively—that how we live, the quality of our relationships, the food we eat, how we use our bodies, and the environment that washes over us and determines much more than our genes ever will.”

Propaganda 101: The False Dichotomy

The above (and below) quote is from a blog post, ‘Secrets to Health are in Diet and Lifestyle Not Human Genome: The Failure of Decoding the Human Genome and the Future of Medicine‘ [it actually starts with “Secretes”, but I assume that’s a typo], by Dr. Mark Hyman. There is some value here, but when I’m being offered “secrets to health” and instead given fluffy science, appeals to intuitive folk psychology, and hyperbole, I have a hard time recommending you endeavor to dig for nuggets of truth. The way the article is framed is misleading, and… well… wrong. It’s not wrong to say that epigenomics is real and important, but it is wrong to dismiss genetics in favor of epigenomics. That approach is not only a logical fallacy, but an advertising/propaganda tactic. Claims along these lines are madness when we consider that all epigenomics can ever do – by its own definition – is influence the expression of genes. Knowing this simple fact refutes the sensationalist claim that, “Science is now proving [that] the environment… determines much more than our genes ever will.” [emphasis mine]

So at first I was put off by the article. But that was before I remembered that I’ve recently been working on a theory proposing that, while beneficial to plants via chlorophyll, our yellow sun presents a contra-optimal environmental input to epidermal vitamin D synthesis. If we were able to find suitable habitat on a planet orbiting a red sun, the spectrum phase-shift would cause a hormone balance reconstituentialization switching the protein cascade of certain genes to unlock the potential for conscious human negation of both gravity and friction. Failing that, I have high hopes for the venom of radioactive spiders.

Now… if I actually believed in the Superman or Spiderman hypotheses, statements similar to those made by Dr. Hyman would enable their theoretic viability.

The Epigenome: Bypassing Darwin and Evolution

More important than our collection of genes, it now appears, is how those genes are controlled by both internal and external factors—our thoughts, stress, social connections, what we eat, our level of physical and mental activity, and our exposure to microbes and environmental toxins. These factors are switches that turn genes on and off and determine which proteins are expressed. The expressed proteins, in turn, trigger signals of disease or health.

In the context of this article, the claim that epigenomics bypasses Darwin and evolution seems to be more of a political hope than a scientifically defensible position. Now everybody, in your best Beach Boys harmony:

Wouldn’t it be nice if genes were over
‘Cause selling magic-bullets never would be wrong
And wouldn’t it be nice to live forever
In worlds where supra-malleable human beings belong

No, I am not saying Dr. Hyman made this argument explicitly. Yes, I am saying the implication of the argument unlocks false hope in a world in which epigenomic influences wield supreme power. Invoking the concept of control by external factors is problematic. It implies that, if only we can find the right environmental factor(s), we can positively or negatively bend genetic expression to overcome any malady or limitation. If genes and/or evolution don’t matter, nothing can stop us, comrades!

Yes folks, I regret to inform you that it’s the “nurture trumps nature” argument all over again. Not only is the mind a blank slate (as others claim) in this warm and fuzzy world,  but now the body is as well. Bla bla fracking bla.

It could be rightly said that I’m attributing more weight to Dr. Hyman’s mention of epigenomics than is appropriate. However, the other factors he discusses (exposomics, nutrigenomics and microbiomics, and toxigenomics) fall under my same criticism asserting an interactionist framework. In fact, while trumpeting the “failure” of genomics, he simultaneously admits “the dynamic interplay of the environment” and genes. Nutrients, microbes, toxins, and (catch-all term) exposomes all collide with the human genotype and phenotype in ways that can’t accurately be cast in a binary light in which genomics has been deemed a failure. And despite the equivocations and qualifications invoked to temper his message to be mostly accurate-ish, there’s no hope of escaping Darwin and evolution in Dr. Hyman’s position.

Three neo-Darwinist points about epigenetic switches

*Note the switch from “epigenomics” to “epigenetics”. For our purposes, epigenomics can sufficiently be thought of as a macro view of epigenetics.

As is always the case in the “nature vs. nurture debate”, there is no “nature vs. nurture debate”. The false dichotomy only exists in the polemical propaganda of the nurture Nazis (think Seinfeld’s “Soup Nazi”, not reductio ad Hitlerum). No, there is no versus, there is only synthesis amidst a continuum. The 3 points below are from Oana Carja‘s excellent answer to the question, “Is it time to revise evolutionary biology textbooks to reconcile Darwin with Lamarck?” They have been edited, but the two quoted paragraphs that follow appear in their original form:

1. A property of the DNA sequence itself is the ability to switch epigenetic state, and is therefore subject to natural selection on conventional mutations.

2. Natural selection will  eliminate switches with maladaptive effects but perpetuate, and refine, those with adaptive effects.

3. The additional ‘information’ represented by a  DNA sequence’s particular epigenetic state is repeatedly being reset.

Thus, epigenetic switches do not involve cumulative, open-ended evolutionary change. Switches are wonderful tools that increase the options available to  DNA sequences but, in themselves, should not challenge the beliefs of a neo-Darwinist. The high rate of epigenetic change is also important because the level of achievable adaptive precision is limited by the  fidelity of replication. Adaptation is constantly being degraded by copying  errors and the higher the rate of errors, the larger the selective advantage that is required to maintain previous adaptation. Thus, small selective advantages are  unable to be maintained in the presence of low-fidelity replication.

Therefore,  significant adaptations are expected to be encoded genetically rather than  epigenetically. Modern neo-Darwinists do not deny that epigenetic mechanisms play an important role during development nor do they deny that these mechanisms  enable a variety of adaptive responses to the environment. Recurrent,  predictable changes of epigenetic state provide a useful set of switches that allow genetically identical cells to acquire differentiated functions and allow facultative responses of a genotype to environmental changes (provided that  ‘similar’ changes have occurred repeatedly in the past). However, most neo-Darwinists would claim that the ability to adaptively switch epigenetic state is a property of the DNA sequence (in the sense that alternative  sequences would show different switching behavior) and that any increase of adaptedness in the system has come about by a process of natural selection.

In other words, epigenetic switches themselves are subject to evolution. Thus, I must sincerely apologize for my current inability to christen epigenetics as the long-awaited mechanism to bring the DC vs. Marvel debate into the scientific realm.

The astute among us may have realized by now that my criticism of Dr. Hyman’s article relies almost entirely on just four of his words. If “failure” wasn’t in the title, and “control” wasn’t used in reference to extra-genomic influence, and “bypassed” didn’t precede Darwin and evolution,  and “determines” wasn’t attributed to epigenetic influence, I may not have been forced to write this. In actuality, those four little words poison an otherwise interesting article in a way that misleads casual readers. I’ll just put aside the problems with the use of “much more” in the lead quote unless someone raises further concern in the comments.

Epigenetics is interesting. Epigenetics is useful. However, epigenetic influence remains confined by genetic potential and Darwinian selection. Let us not make it out to be the panacea it is not. Beyond that, I believe we’re at, or even beyond, the point at which there needs to be some push-back on pop science framings of epigenetics as something that somehow undermines neo-Darwinian evolution. From a strategic perspective, misconstrued epigenetics can be taken out of context far too conveniently by the Creationist and/or Intelligent Design programs.

Oh, and for those of the paleo persuasion… Dr. Hyman’s prescription for gut health? “Eat whole unprocessed foods with plenty of fiber… beans… and whole grains.” Beans and whole grains for gut health!? I don’t feel bad about picking on this article for four words after all. Please don’t take that as ad hominem; it supports the thoughts in the preface.

What follows is a list of a few things ranging from totally not paleo to totally paleo that strike me as distractions from an “Is it paleo?” perspective. This list is by no means exhaustive, and I hope you’ll add your favorites in the comments below.

After a sometimes exhausting year trying to learn about the most important period of human development with way less data than we’d like, I think it’s time for a mini-salute to modernity.

“Then with my face covered in good factory mud, covered with metal scratches, useless sweat and celestial grime, amidst the complaint of staid fishermen and angry naturalists, we dictated our first will and testament to all the living men on earth.” – F.T. Marinetti, ‘The Futurist Manifesto’, 1909

Happy New Year!

10. Creationists Glasses/Sunglasses

ZZ Top is totally paleo by the distributive power of “beards are rad”, and they wouldn’t be the same without sunglasses. I’ll leave it to you to sort out that logic. Another cool thing about sunglasses: polarization. I’m a fan of polarization as a magical coating that cuts down on glare, and in the establishment of false dichotomies and other propaganda tools. If you were a hunter-gatherer who couldn’t see, you’d probably kill for a pair of vision correcting lenses. And don’t mess with Marcello Mastrioanni.

Exception: Implicit in one version of the cover of Guy Debord’s masterwork, ‘The Society of the Spectacle‘, wearing 3-D glasses makes you a mindless automaton that’s been recuperated by the spectacle. Oh, and colored contacts aren’t fair in assessing mate value.

9. Vegans Beer

Hey, don’t question me. It’s written on the sign, and thus, totally out of my hands.

Exception: None. I mean… I could probably make a case for Hefeweizen, what with it’s gluten-bomb wheat base rather than barley. I’d rather make a case against beer with fruit in it, but if I say anything bad about fruit, the president’s vegan personal trainer might get all preachy again.

8. Birth Control

It’s just that it used to be called infanticide and infant mortality. Unless you’re a pope or other form of deviant, we’re much better off with modernity.

Exception: Trojan Condoms’ slogan, “Feels like nothing’s there.” That’s what she said?

7. Coffee

I recently heard someone sincerely say that “coffee is paleo.” Until someone establishes the Homo sapiens “Out of Seattle” hypothesis, I’m going to have to go ahead and reject that coffee is historically or logically paleo. And… I don’t care that it’s not… not even a little.

Exception: Frappuccinos. And no, getting the coconut version doesn’t make it paleo either.

6. Bicycles!

A huge number of people don’t use bikes as a substitute for other forms of exercise, but as a substitute for lazy ass planes, trains, and automobiles. That’s right, Kevin! Having the same birthday as me isn’t going to make me forget your post asking if bikes are faileo. Besides, there’s an entire blog dedicated to paleo cycling, so… game, set, and match.

Exception: None. Not even road bike weenies.

5. Computers {electricity, light bulbs, et cetera}

“You eat paleo, but you’re using a computer!?” Shut up. Seriously. Just. Shut. Up.

“…the chimpanzees I work with are keen on computerized testing: the easiest way to get them to enter our testing facility is to show them the cart with the computer on top.” –Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved

Exception: Macs clearly aren’t paleo because of the high fructose content of apples.

4. Running {and endurance training in general}

Sure, I hate the pain sometimes too, but… it would be a strange evolutionary coincidence that bipedalism is the most mechanically efficient method of distance running, and only humans do it, AND it wasn’t a huge part of our evolution – ostensibly because CrossFit was the hominin fitness program of choice throughout the Pleistocene.

Exception: Clunky running shoes and endurance “sports” based on internal combustion engines.

3. Carbs

If only to shut up critics of paleo that keep saying paleo is dead because 10 Homo sapiens and 3 Homo neanderthalensis fossils show signs of starch consumption. Paleo isn’t anti-carbs! Paleo is anti-carbs in the massive quantity easily and cheaply acquired at Krispy Kreme and everywhere else in grocery store culture.

Exception: Refined sugars and mega-concentrated extracts like agave syrup. Oh, and wheat and corn and rice and all other grains and… (but the latter isn’t a carb thing)

2. Socialism

Sorry comrades. As a bourgeois capitalist, I didn’t want to believe it either. But… the predominant political organization of hunter-gatherer bands seems to be socialist anarchism, libertarian socialism, social anarchism, anarcho-socialism, or some other flavor of social organization that rejects private property and emphasizes communitarian forms cooperation. Objectivism runs into problems (not least because Rand didn’t really believe in evolution… more on that in an upcoming post), and libertarianism relies on a blatantly agrarian conception of property rights.

Exceptions: Authoritarianism, Marxism, State-Socialism

1. Evolutionary Psychology

“Neck-down Darwinism” ain’t cool. If you’ve noticed the difference in personality between golden retrievers and cats, you already understand what evolutionary psychology looks like. Denying that it applies to humans is evolutionarily unjustifiable anthropocentrism. If you still reject it, I hereby sentence you to a lifetime of riding zebras (which I’m told is not unlike herding cats).

Exception: Evolved cognitive biases are real, but I don’t like them.

Your turn! Favorite non-paleo things? Non-paleo things you’re sick of hearing about? Whatcha got?