|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 857 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
It includes the Lamarck argument that Zi Ko has been making. While Lamarck was wrong to think that acquired characteristics such as cutting off the tails of mice could be inherited, apparently less overt acquired characteristics *can* be inherited, though they are thought to be impermanent and in the absence of the original environmental factor will fade away and be lost Another thing to consider is that although epigenetic marks don't affect DNA sequence, they do affect phenotype expression. So epigenetics could change how natural selection interacts with the genotype, since natural selection acts on the phenotype. Does that make sense? So epigenetics could and probably does have a dramatic impact on evolution. But we all know zi ko doesn't want to discuss epigenetics ... he wants to discuss directed mutations HBDWhoever 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Both PTSD and depression are known to trigger increased methylation in the brain. However, these changes have AFAIK only been observed in somatic tissue not the gametes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
zi ko writes: I don't follow you. Well, try to answer the question I asked:
Panda writes:
You are asking about environment factors that do not fade away, but can you name one that doesn't fade away? zi ko writes:
Can you think of any environmental factors that are immutable? Yes I agree.But what if theoriginal factor will not fade away? Has science any answer on this? If you cannot think of one, then you are just asking a fantasy "what if?" question, similar to "But what if fish could fly planes? Has science any answer on this?""There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
zi ko writes: Yes I agree.But what if the original [environmental] factor will not fade away? Has science any answer on this? Has science any answer? You're not asking anything complicated. Keeping with the example of DNA methylation, it is modestly heritable. As long as the original environmental factor responsible for the methylation remains present then the methylation will remain present. When the original environmental factor is removed then within a few generations the methylation will disappear. But getting back to the topic of Lamarckian evolution, DNA methylation is somewhat Lamarckian in that the characteristics it confers are heritable for several generations. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
You're not asking anything complicated. It doesn't seem to me so simple. We are talking about thousands or more of years. Is it sensible to equate one four generations and so long spans, at their affects on genome? Any way we just don't know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
You are asking about environment factors that do not fade away, but can you name one that doesn't fade away?
Lack of food for maybe a thousand or more of years.Or lower environmet temperature for amillion of years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
It is your theory. You need to present the evidence that it does happen as you claim it does. How does epigenetics guide mutations so that they are not random with respect to fitness?
You are right. But surely you and science in general on lack of evidence against a theory should keep an open mind of its possibility to happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
But we all know zi ko doesn't want to discuss epigenetics ... Why not?
he wants to discuss directed mutations And again why not? What makes you to believe otherwise? Or it is an avasion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
You are right. But surely you and science in general on lack of evidence against a theory should keep an open mind of its possibility to happen. Science is always open to new evidence. The history of modern science shows this to be true. What we need now is that evidence. What scientists are really interested in his how nature DOES work, not how it COULD work. You need to bring evidence to bear. You need to demonstrate your claims, not merely make them. More importantly, you need to have a better understanding of modern genetics so you can know when your ideas have already been falsified.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Science is always open to new evidence.
I agree. . Ufortunaly in science there are theories,not proved, but just accepted by its followers as true, for not exactly scientific reasons, as f.e randomness in mutations, which they act against probing new or old ideas , as it did happened with Lamarckism. I know your arguments. They are so few. I understand the difficulties (long time scale, focusing in mutations on metazoa etc). The same it applies to environmentally guided mutations. I just hope you aknowledge this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Ufortunaly in science there are theories,not proved, but just accepted by its followers as true You need a refresher course on what a theory is in science, vs. "proof:" Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws. OF COURSE THEORIES ARE NOT PROVED IN SCIENCE! Duh! But if you read these definitions, you will find that a theory in science is in essence the single best explanation for a particular set of facts. Any proposed hypothesis or hypotheses has to explain things better than the existing theory, make predictions, and withstand a lot of tests. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
You have wasted all of this time and you do not even know what a Scientific theory is?
WOW!!Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
I haven't read any of this thread since my last post but I bet Zi has ponied up exactly no evidence.
That's what happens when people aren't willing to do a simple lit review.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 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 857 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
But we all know zi ko doesn't want to discuss epigenetics ... he wants to discuss directed mutations
Why not? Because it is not the topic. The topic is the New Lamarckian Synthesis. The only thing that I see you have presented regarding this "New Theory" is an article about epigenetics and the potential for hereditary transmission of those epigenetic marks. If that's all there is, there is no "new theory." Is this your proposed theory?
environment --> epigenetics --> mutation --> evolution --> preservation of life If this is a correct understanding of what this "New Lamarckian Theory" is, then you need to support the process with evidence. In other words, what have people observed, tested and verified that supports the above proposed theory? If I have misrepresented your position, please clarify and offer a more correct understanding. Scientists are open to considering new possible explanations, but they need evidence or at least something they can test and verify. Your speculations are hardly a reason for anyone to consider a "New Lamarckian Theory." Is it possible that the environment is affecting evolution through directed mutations? Sure it is possible, but there is virtually no evidence of it. First thing you need to do is to provide us with an understanding of what this "New Lamarckian Theory" actually looks like. Describe the mechanisms and processes that the theory would include. Then we can go from there. HBDWhoever 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
environment --> epigenetics --> mutation --> evolution --> preservation of life
You are right. But in my opening pos i did put some thoughts and data i wanted and insit to discus.Not to present a new theory.Thiw was not my purpose.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024