Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
87 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr, Tanypteryx (3 members, 84 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,317 Year: 4,429/6,534 Month: 643/900 Week: 167/182 Day: 47/27 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory
nwr
Member
Posts: 5974
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 31 of 264 (674733)
10-02-2012 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by zi ko
10-02-2012 3:24 AM


zi ko writes:
1. Environmental information can result deep genome changes.

This has never been controversial. Normally, natural selection is given as the means by which the environment affects the genome.

zi ko writes:
2. The Selection mechanism is present.

Again, this is well accepted.

zi ko writes:
3. There was for some time a wrinkle in orthodox Darvinism.

Was there?

You are attributing this idea of a wrinkle to Dennett, who I would describe as a pan-selectionist. There have always been critics of the pan-selectionist view, with Gould as perhaps the best known.


Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by zi ko, posted 10-02-2012 3:24 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by zi ko, posted 10-06-2012 12:05 PM nwr has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 96 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 32 of 264 (674771)
10-02-2012 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Percy
10-01-2012 11:39 AM


"Mother Earth" ?
I think zi ko is a proponent of the Gaia Hypothesis. I had never heard of such a thing before but it was brought up in my Ecology lecture the other day as one way that people view interactions of the environment and organisms. When my professor mentioned it, zi ko's line of thinking immediately came to mind.

I had though zi ko's views were kinda whack, but apparently he is not alone. There is a whole "hypothesis" that he seems to have drawn his ideas from. I thought maybe this would provide some insight into his position.

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : misspelled zi ko


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 10-01-2012 11:39 AM Percy has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by zi ko, posted 10-03-2012 12:21 AM herebedragons has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2858 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 33 of 264 (674785)
10-03-2012 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by herebedragons
10-02-2012 7:46 PM


Re: "Mother Earth" ?
Yes. The Gaia hypothesis have some similarities with my views. Leaving out teleological thoughts, i think the whole Universe is a model of intercommuniation, where information exchange is the real essense and the defining expression of life. So the Universe is really alive. In sequence life in Earth, as the end result of this intercommunication depends on this information exchange.Nothing at this sense is random, as randomness itself is a natural, amongst others, sometimes more economical mechanism, to stabilise life ( eg. to preserve communication). .

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by herebedragons, posted 10-02-2012 7:46 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by herebedragons, posted 10-03-2012 9:35 AM zi ko has taken no action

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 34 of 264 (674793)
10-03-2012 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by zi ko
10-02-2012 4:01 AM


Re: Epigenetics is not Lamarckian
Epigenetic changes pave the way to relevant epig. changes.

In an entirely limited fashion. Epigenetic changes cannot build on each other. The primary form of epigenetics is methylation. A CpG island is either methylated or it is not. That's it. That's all it can do. Chromatin modifications have more scope and, in a very limited sense, one modification can enable another, but it cannot build new functionality or enable new modifications in the way DNA can.

Remember that the very most epigenetic modification can do is enable or disable existing genetic components, or vary their levels of expression. I don't want to diminish the importance of these features - expression regulation is extremely important - but they don't compare to the ability of genetic change to form entirely new proteins, duplicate proteins, form hybrid proteins, and so on.

That is why i am talking about the NEW SYNTHESIS OF LAMARCKISM

Sure, I just wanted to emphasise that epigenetics is not Lamarckism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by zi ko, posted 10-02-2012 4:01 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by zi ko, posted 10-03-2012 4:52 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2858 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 35 of 264 (674795)
10-03-2012 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dr Jack
10-03-2012 4:21 AM


Re: Epigenetics is not Lamarckian
....in a very limited sense, one modification can enable another, but it cannot build new functionality or enable new modifications in the way DNA can.

Who can denay by evidence that this modification is really limited and stops at a level that fits your preconcieved ideas. Maybe the time scale available to make sure deductions about their action on DNA is limited.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dr Jack, posted 10-03-2012 4:21 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Dr Jack, posted 10-03-2012 5:25 AM zi ko has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 36 of 264 (674796)
10-03-2012 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by zi ko
10-03-2012 4:52 AM


Re: Epigenetics is not Lamarckian
Perhaps you'd like to define what you mean by epigenetics, because what I mean by epigenetics is what biologists mean by epigenetics and they do not alter DNA sequences. It seems you want to go beyond anything we actually know or have evidence before.

Tell me, Zi ko, in your own words, what is epigenetic modification and how does it - at the molecular level - operate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by zi ko, posted 10-03-2012 4:52 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by zi ko, posted 10-03-2012 9:52 AM Dr Jack has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 96 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 37 of 264 (674814)
10-03-2012 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by zi ko
10-03-2012 12:21 AM


Re: "Mother Earth" ?
This Gaia hypothesis or "Mother Earth" is the premise of the movie Avatar, that earth is actually alive. I don't see how you can actually remove teleological thoughts from that idea though. Perhaps you think if you say there is no separate divine being but the universe as a whole is alive, then that gets around the teleological aspect of the hypothesis. I don't see it that way, but instead makes the universe itself and all that is a part of it a divine being.

But that is not the topic of the thread, so I won't keep going about it.

As far as epigenetics goes, there is a lot of work being done in this area and they are finding that epigenetic marks are somewhat inheritable and can affect future generations. Article from 2010 This may indeed affect selective pressure as gene expression is modified. Some scientists have referred to this as a type of Lamarckian inheritance, but it certainly is not Lamarckian in the tradition sense of the term (as pointed out by several other posters).

From one of your quotes in Message 1

Adding methyl groups to specific spots in the genome can alter the expression of marked genes. The process, known as DNA methylation, is one mechanism of epigenetic change, heritable change that does not alter the sequence of DNA itself.

As has been pointed out several times, there is a significant difference between "alter the expression" and "alter the sequence". I think we will discover more and more about epigenetics and its role in the evolutionary process, but I don't see how you can use this to support your idea of guided mutations, since epigenetics does not change DNA sequences (at least is not known to).

I also don't see where you have provided the basic tenets of this New Lamarickian Synthesis. It just seems as the same old argument that mutations are not random but guided by the environment and nobody on this forum but you sees this connection.

There is also another problem with this idea. You suggest that the entire universe is alive as a united entity (or at least that is part of the Gaia hypothesis). This would mean that abiotic features are actually part of this living being and can play a role in guiding mutations. How do abiotic features guide mutational changes in DNA? If they aren't acting with a conscious effort, aren't these changes just random with respect to the needs of the individuals?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by zi ko, posted 10-03-2012 12:21 AM zi ko has taken no action

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2858 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 38 of 264 (674817)
10-03-2012 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Dr Jack
10-03-2012 5:25 AM


Re: Epigenetics is not Lamarckian
Right. There is not yet proof of epigenetics altering the basic structure of DNA. But we read in WIKIE:

" ...then some epigenetic changes are inherited from one generation to the next.[12] This raises the question of whether or not epigenetic changes in an organism can alter the basic structure of its DNA (see Evolution, below), a form of Lamarckism."
So the question at least had been raised.
We know that up to now nobody had described a random mutation in action leading to a new species and the explanation given by Modern Synthesis Theory in multicellular organisms is the big timescale necessary for this to be seen. So random mutations in metazoa is an unfalsifiable theory. This explanation can be given for guided mutations. Maybe we will be luckier than Darwinists were.

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Dr Jack, posted 10-03-2012 5:25 AM Dr Jack has taken no action

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 39 of 264 (674963)
10-04-2012 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by zi ko
10-01-2012 12:09 PM


You don't need to bother about my supposed(!) intentions. You just present the evidences of your beliefs if you can.

No. You started the thread, you pony up the evidence.

My prediction is that you will do what you always do and say:

'do you expect me, an non scientist provide the evidence?'

If I'm wrong I will buy you a bag of balloons.

ABE:

I will try by my poor knowledge of biology

See?

Edited by Larni, : The very next post.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by zi ko, posted 10-01-2012 12:09 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by zi ko, posted 10-04-2012 7:20 PM Larni has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2858 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 40 of 264 (674989)
10-04-2012 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Larni
10-04-2012 4:12 PM


No. You started the thread, you pony up the evidence.

So can we agree that none of us can bring the needed evidence? It would be a very good start. Of course it pains,especially for you anderstandably, as after 250 years of intense research, the results are so meagre for the randomness of mutations. After all a theory or a hypothesis does not always need to bring the needed evidence.
Do you think it is realistic or even normal to expect a non specific scientist or even a specific one to provide all you want to be persuated, which i don't intent to. On the OP I related some work done in the field. Can you comment on them?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Larni, posted 10-04-2012 4:12 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Admin, posted 10-04-2012 9:28 PM zi ko has taken no action
 Message 42 by herebedragons, posted 10-04-2012 9:51 PM zi ko has replied
 Message 43 by Larni, posted 10-05-2012 3:02 PM zi ko has taken no action

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12793
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 41 of 264 (674997)
10-04-2012 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by zi ko
10-04-2012 7:20 PM


Hi Zi Ko,

One doesn't argue that unless someone has evidence that unicorns don't exist that therefore they do. And one doesn't argue that unless someone has evidence that mutations aren't guided that therefore they are.

If you wanted to discuss the case for random mutations then you should have proposed that topic, but you didn't. Please make your case by presenting the evidence for Lamarckian synthesis instead of asking others for the evidence against.

Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

Edited by Admin, : Improve bad writing.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by zi ko, posted 10-04-2012 7:20 PM zi ko has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 96 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 42 of 264 (675001)
10-04-2012 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by zi ko
10-04-2012 7:20 PM


So can we agree that none of us can bring the needed evidence?

Needed evidence for what? Your OP suggested that there is a "New Lamarckian Synthesis." But you have presented no indication of what that theory may be. The only thing you have suggested is epigenetic inheritance. It has been explained that epigenetics is not the same thing as mutation. Now you complain that no one is presenting the evidence for mutations being random.

Do you think it is realistic or even normal to expect a non specific scientist or even a specific one to provide all you want to be persuated

Yes it is realistic! You have made the claim, now back it up. Personally, I wouldn't have to have hard, empirically proven evidence in order to consider the possibility. I have even argued for non-random mutations in the past. I still think there may be more to the situation than meets the eye, and there may indeed be some non-random component to evolution. But you have presented nothing at all. This is about the extent of your supporting statements: "Epigenetics may be inheritable." And from that you conclude there is a "New Lamarckian Synthesis."

the results are so meagre for the randomness of mutations.

I might be able to agree with this to a point. It does seem as though the concept of random mutations is insufficient to explain the large scale evolutionary changes we observe in the fossil record. But the evidence that there is for random mutations is rather compelling. The evidence for guided mutations is virtually non-existent. Epigenetics is not the same thing as guided mutations. Period.

So what you need to do is build a case for whatever point it is you are trying to make. Do a little bit of study on the process of critical thinking in order to learn how to better form your arguments. If you want your ideas to overturn mainstream scientific thought, I say more power to ya! But you have to build your case with premises, not just wishful thinking.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by zi ko, posted 10-04-2012 7:20 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 10-06-2012 12:18 PM herebedragons has taken no action
 Message 46 by zi ko, posted 10-06-2012 12:33 PM herebedragons has taken no action

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 43 of 264 (675080)
10-05-2012 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by zi ko
10-04-2012 7:20 PM


Oh for fuck sake.

Yet again you refuse to post any evidence (as I predicted).

I've said this before: you are taking the position of a fuckwit.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by zi ko, posted 10-04-2012 7:20 PM zi ko has taken no action

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2858 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 44 of 264 (675127)
10-06-2012 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by nwr
10-02-2012 12:07 PM


natural selection is given as the means by which the environment affects the genome.

No, I mean direct environmental effect on deep DNA. I quote from TIME MAGAZINE, "WHY YOUR DNA ISN'T YOUR DESTINY by JOHN CLOUD:
"The stress of fear, lack of food, lack of mating opportunities etc., are the main causes of soft or deep changes. As these stresses are empathetically transmitted not only to life peers, but to extant population in wild areas, and to proximal generations , the resultant beneficial mutations are fairly quickly established, reducing the time needed by natural selection to do its work. This long time effect is the main cause of speciation as it expresses deep survival needs."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by nwr, posted 10-02-2012 12:07 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 10-06-2012 12:40 PM zi ko has replied
 Message 48 by nwr, posted 10-06-2012 2:15 PM zi ko has replied
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 10-09-2012 12:44 PM zi ko has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20767
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 45 of 264 (675128)
10-06-2012 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by herebedragons
10-04-2012 9:51 PM


herebedragons writes:

It has been explained that epigenetics is not the same thing as mutation. Now you complain that no one is presenting the evidence for mutations being random.

I just read up a little bit (a very little bit) on epigenetic inheritance to understand how it creates heritable changes if the underlying DNA sequence remains unchanged, and one of the examples was DNA methylation. As explained by Wikipedia:

Wikipedia writes:

It involves the addition of a methyl group to the 5 position of the cytosine pyrimidine ring or the number 6 nitrogen of the adenine purine ring (cytosine and adenine are two of the four bases of DNA). This modification can be inherited through cell division.

If we define mutations as changes to the DNA sequence of nucleotides then this kind of change is not a mutation, but it *is* a change in the DNA, it *is* heritable, and it *can* be caused by the environment. The Wikipedia article on Epigenetics argues at one point that if the genetic code represents the DNA sequence then the "epigenetic code" represents the total state of the cell.

Wikipedia mentions of the environment affecting epigenetic factors mostly mean the local cell environment. For single-celled non-communal organisms one could argue that the environment can guide evolution directly, but anything above this level is much more complicated. Most epigenetic discussion that I read was about internal chemical changes during fetal and juvenile development that turn processes on and off. For any external environmental changes to influence internal cellular processes in, say, a mammal would likely require a long chain of internal effects.

Zi Ko should pick an example of epigenetic inheritance so we have something concrete to talk about.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by herebedragons, posted 10-04-2012 9:51 PM herebedragons has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022