Question

For decades, plant biologists maintained that transgenerational epigenetic inheritance—the transmission of DNA methylation patterns without alteration to the underlying nucleotide sequence—was merely an ephemeral secondary phenomenon in wild populations. Early experimental models suggested that stress-induced epigenetic marks were rapidly reset during meiosis, leading scholars such as Dr. Aris Thorne to dismiss their evolutionary significance as negligible compared to classical genetic mutations.

However, recent studies of clonal alpine flora have challenged this orthodoxy. By analyzing hyper-methylated loci in wild plant populations across varying elevations, researchers demonstrated that certain environmentally triggered epigenetic modifications persist across multiple generations, providing a rapid mechanism for adaptive phenotypic plasticity. Thorne's detractors argue that these findings fundamentally undermine classical neo-Darwinian models by proving that soft inheritance plays a primary role in speciation.

Yet, this sweeping conclusion requires careful qualification. While the empirical evidence of multi-generational persistence is compelling, Thorne’s initial skepticism was not entirely unfounded. Most documented epigenetic lineages still exhibit eventual decay over extended generational timelines, and their long-term evolutionary permanence remains unverified. Rather than replacing genetic variation as the engine of natural selection, epigenetic inheritance appears to function as a crucial temporary buffer, enabling populations to survive acute environmental shifts while slower genetic adaptations accumulate. Thus, while Thorne’s outright dismissal of epigenetic inheritance is overly reductive, viewing it as a full replacement for genetic selection overstates the current empirical evidence.

Which of the following best describes the author's attitude toward Thorne's view on the evolutionary significance of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance?