Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 61 of 264 (675354)
10-10-2012 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Percy
10-06-2012 12:40 PM


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
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 47 by Percy, posted 10-06-2012 12:40 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by zi ko, posted 10-11-2012 3:38 PM herebedragons has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 62 of 264 (675399)
10-11-2012 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Stile
10-10-2012 12:21 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Stile, posted 10-10-2012 12:21 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 63 of 264 (675403)
10-11-2012 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by zi ko
10-10-2012 11:52 AM


Re: Re DOUPTING IS THE BEAUTY OF SCIENCE
zi ko writes:
I don't follow you.
Well, try to answer the question I asked:
Panda writes:
zi ko writes:
Yes I agree.But what if theoriginal factor will not fade away? Has science any answer on this?
Can you think of any environmental factors that are immutable?
You are asking about environment factors that do not fade away, but can you name one that doesn't fade away?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by zi ko, posted 10-10-2012 11:52 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by zi ko, posted 10-11-2012 3:07 PM Panda has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 64 of 264 (675419)
10-11-2012 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by zi ko
10-10-2012 11:19 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by zi ko, posted 10-10-2012 11:19 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by zi ko, posted 10-11-2012 3:00 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 65 of 264 (675478)
10-11-2012 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Percy
10-11-2012 9:15 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 10-11-2012 9:15 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 66 of 264 (675479)
10-11-2012 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Panda
10-11-2012 5:43 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Panda, posted 10-11-2012 5:43 AM Panda has not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 67 of 264 (675484)
10-11-2012 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Taq
10-10-2012 12:19 PM


Re: Re DOUPTING IS THE BEAUTY OF SCIENCE
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Taq, posted 10-10-2012 12:19 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 10-12-2012 1:10 PM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 68 of 264 (675487)
10-11-2012 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by herebedragons
10-10-2012 2:02 PM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by herebedragons, posted 10-10-2012 2:02 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by herebedragons, posted 10-13-2012 1:24 PM zi ko has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 69 of 264 (675579)
10-12-2012 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by zi ko
10-11-2012 3:25 PM


Re: Re DOUPTING IS THE BEAUTY OF SCIENCE
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by zi ko, posted 10-11-2012 3:25 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by zi ko, posted 10-12-2012 11:37 PM Taq has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 70 of 264 (675603)
10-12-2012 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taq
10-12-2012 1:10 PM


Re: Re DOUPTING IS THE BEAUTY OF SCIENCE
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 10-12-2012 1:10 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Coyote, posted 10-12-2012 11:56 PM zi ko has replied
 Message 72 by Theodoric, posted 10-13-2012 12:03 AM zi ko has replied
 Message 83 by Taq, posted 10-16-2012 5:02 PM zi ko has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 71 of 264 (675604)
10-12-2012 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by zi ko
10-12-2012 11:37 PM


Re: Re DOUPTING IS THE BEAUTY OF SCIENCE
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.
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by zi ko, posted 10-12-2012 11:37 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2012 6:05 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 72 of 264 (675605)
10-13-2012 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by zi ko
10-12-2012 11:37 PM


Theories are not theories
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by zi ko, posted 10-12-2012 11:37 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2012 6:00 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 73 of 264 (675618)
10-13-2012 10:13 AM


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: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 74 of 264 (675625)
10-13-2012 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by zi ko
10-11-2012 3:38 PM


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.
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 68 by zi ko, posted 10-11-2012 3:38 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2012 5:56 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 75 of 264 (675650)
10-14-2012 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by herebedragons
10-13-2012 1:24 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by herebedragons, posted 10-13-2012 1:24 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024