Seven out of ten for trying

By today's standards of recognition of the roles of multiple, interacting processes in the course of evolution (other than by the most die-hard of selfish gene panselectionists), it is generally accepted that there is more to life than natural selection. The grandeur of life's progress (as Steve Gould might have put it) is the consequence of a complex, yet fascinating, mix of internal and external factors, involving both genetic and epigenetic phenomena. Jablonka and Lamb, in reviewing and debating the role of epigenetic inheritance in evolution, can no longer be marginalised as operating on the wilder, outer shores of established evolution theory; rather they bring to our attention the breadth and variety of heritable phenomena which demand careful consideration if a comprehensive understanding of evolution is to emerge. Their review performs a usual function but has it's shortcomings: the heart is in the right place, but the head is not always as clear as it might be. But before I begin my pennyworth of 'criticism', two points need to be made. The first is that I'm aware that I'm one of several commentators, each of whom, like me, will focus on what comes naturally. As with the proverbial tale of the blind wise men and the elephant - each of us will be groping at a different part, hoping that no one is left with the hindend. Secondly, elephant is an apt metaphor, for the review covers a massive amount of epigenetic ground, every inch of which is not in itself incorrect, and, hence, cannot be criticised, in itself. The central question left begging is what does it all mean? Is there a need to adjust our view of the Darwinian mechanism of evolution given the experimentally proven phenomenology of epigenetic inheritance systems?