Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 1:22 PM
137 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,429 Year: 3,466/19,786 Month: 461/1,087 Week: 51/212 Day: 12/39 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
18NextFF
Author Topic:   About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory
zi ko
Member (Idle past 1692 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 1 of 264 (674561)
09-28-2012 9:22 AM


Why evolutionists are not willing to discuss Lamarckian scenario in evolution?

I understand that as Lamarckism is an evolutional theory , any discussion about it would weaken the thesis of evolution theory against ID. But should this be an excuse for the scientists for not willing to discuss it? Doesnt it show that scientists, at least in this forum, are only caring for to protect at any cost the sacred caw of exclusive random mutations? This is very disappointing to me.

Of course nobody supports that mutations, insertions, transpositions repairing etc, are conscious acts towards fitness, no more than of the parts of a working machine made by an intelligent man. Here in the case of existing living creatures we have to accept either a Superior Intelligence, or that Natural Forces and Laws are able to lead to these creatures. This is the real big problem we have to face, instead of quarreling around.

We cant stop in between, if we want to be sincere.

In Wikipedia we read:

Epigenetic inheritance
Forms of 'soft' or epigenetic inheritance within organisms have been suggested as neo-Lamarckian in nature by such scientists as Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb. In addition to 'hard' or genetic inheritance, involving the duplication of genetic material and its segregation during meiosis, there are other hereditary elements that pass into the germ cells also. These include things like methylation patterns in DNA and chromatin marks, both of which regulate the activity of genes. These are considered "Lamarckian" in the sense that they are responsive to environmental stimuli and can differentially affect gene expression adaptively, with phenotypic results that can persist for many generations in certain organisms. Although the reality of epigenetic inheritance is not doubted (as many experiments have validated it), its significance to the evolutionary process is uncertain.

its significance to the evolutionary process is uncertain.

Yes I agree but what is certain about in classic theory except natural selection? Specially as it regards evolution by random mutations? Only indications and beliefs not substantiated. The same it applies to Lamarckism, though the evidence is growing up all the time and it seems that it would incorporate randomness, as a helpful mechanism of evolution amongst others, in the New Lamarckian Synthesis theory.

Of course we know about clearly random mutations caused by X-rays, chemicals etc, But most of them are deleterious and in any case not substantial to evolution.

Classic evolutionists have to face this fact: ANY MUTATION DETRIMENTAL, NEUTRAL OR USEFUL IS A GUIDED BY THE ENVIRONMENT MUTATION. Not a single scientific work up to now had convincingly excluded it in all relevant described cases. Surely they had ignored guided mutations, but not excluded it.

Let me relate some relevand data:

"Soma to germ-line feedback
In the 1970s the immunologist Ted Steele, formerly of the University of Wollongong, and colleagues, proposed a neo-Lamarckian mechanism to try to explain why homologous DNA sequences from the VDJ gene regions of parent mice were found in their germ cells and seemed to persist in the offspring for a few generations. The mechanism involved the somatic selection and clonal amplification of newly acquired antibody gene sequences that were generated via somatic hyper-mutation in B-cells. The mRNA products of these somatically novel genes were captured by retroviruses endogenous to the B-cells and were then transported through the blood stream where they could breach the soma-germ barrier and retrofect (reverse transcribe) the newly acquired genes into the cells of the germ line."

"A Comeback for Lamarckian Evolution?
Two new studies show that the effects of a mother's early environment can be passed on to the next generation.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Silencing DNA: 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. In this image, colored bars represent the bases that make up a strand of DNA, while the green circles represent methylation.

Technology Review

The effects of an animal's environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring, according to two new studies. If applicable to humans, the research, done on rodents, suggests that the impact of both childhood education and early abuse could span generations. The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring.

"....The results are extremely surprising and unexpected," says Li-Huei Tsai, a neuroscientist at MIT who was not involved in the research. Indeed, one of the studies found that a boost in the brain's ability to rewire itself and a corresponding improvement in memory could be passed on. "This study is probably the first study to show there are transgenerational effects not only on behavior but on brain plasticity."

The results of both studies are likely to be controversial, perhaps resurrecting a centuries-old debate. "It's very provocative," says Lisa Monteggia, a neuroscientist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, in Dallas. "It goes back to two schools of thought: Lamarck versus Darwin."

"But the research now makes it more plausible that these things may be real and may be based in molecular mechanisms."

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Reformat so it's easier to tell Zi Ko's own words from the words he quotes.

Edited by Admin, : Correct spelling error in title.



Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 09-28-2012 11:23 AM zi ko has responded
 Message 6 by Jon, posted 09-30-2012 4:05 PM zi ko has responded
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 09-30-2012 5:44 PM zi ko has responded
 Message 18 by Taq, posted 10-01-2012 2:15 PM zi ko has responded
 Message 23 by Dr Jack, posted 10-02-2012 1:41 AM zi ko has responded
 Message 244 by dayalanand roy, posted 12-04-2012 12:25 AM zi ko has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12578
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 2 of 264 (674562)
09-28-2012 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by zi ko
09-28-2012 9:22 AM


Your proposal is mostly about epigenetic inheritance, but you also mention a "Superior Intelligence". Did you just want to discuss epigenetic inheritance, or did you want to argue that epigenetic inheritance requires and is therefore evidence for a "Superior Intelligence"?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by zi ko, posted 09-28-2012 9:22 AM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by zi ko, posted 09-30-2012 12:45 AM Admin has responded

    
zi ko
Member (Idle past 1692 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 3 of 264 (674563)
09-30-2012 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
09-28-2012 11:23 AM


I intent to discuss mainly epigenetic inheritance together with comparing the existing evidence for random mutations useful to evolution vs guided mutations through environmental effect on genome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 09-28-2012 11:23 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 09-30-2012 2:15 PM zi ko has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12578
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 4 of 264 (674564)
09-30-2012 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by zi ko
09-30-2012 12:45 AM


Okay, so because you have indicated you will not be arguing for a "Superior Intelligence" I will promote your thread to the Biological Evolution forum instead of the Intelligent Design forum.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by zi ko, posted 09-30-2012 12:45 AM zi ko has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12578
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 5 of 264 (674566)
09-30-2012 2:15 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 264 (674574)
09-30-2012 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by zi ko
09-28-2012 9:22 AM


I understand that as Lamarckism is an evolutional theory , any discussion about it would weaken the thesis of evolution theory against ID.

That's just too ridiculous. Discussing evolutionary theories makes ID more acceptable?

Classic evolutionists have to face this fact: ANY MUTATION DETRIMENTAL, NEUTRAL OR USEFUL IS A GUIDED BY THE ENVIRONMENT MUTATION.

And were that 'fact' written in a language folks can understand, such as English, they just might try to face it.

Until then...

Surely they had ignored guided mutations, but not excluded it.

Just what are you hoping to prove?


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by zi ko, posted 09-28-2012 9:22 AM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by zi ko, posted 10-01-2012 7:11 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 7 of 264 (674583)
09-30-2012 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by zi ko
09-28-2012 9:22 AM


zi ko writes:
Why evolutionists are not willing to discuss Lamarckian scenario in evolution?

Perhaps because there isn't a lot of evidence for it.

zi ko writes:
In Wikipedia we read:

Epigenetic inheritance
...
its significance to the evolutionary process is uncertain.


That sounds about right. ID people argue for it from time to time, but usually without significant evidence.

I would think you would be more likely to find something a bit Lamarckian resulting from the Baldwin effect than from epigenetic inheritance.


Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by zi ko, posted 09-28-2012 9:22 AM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by zi ko, posted 10-01-2012 6:52 AM nwr has responded

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 1692 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 8 of 264 (674619)
10-01-2012 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by nwr
09-30-2012 5:44 PM


Perhaps because there isn't a lot of evidence for it.
But what is the evidence for random mutations? Whow science have had decided which mutations are random and not guided?
I would think you would be more likely to find something a bit Lamarckian resulting from the Baldwin effect than from epigenetic inheritance.

Yes i agree. The Baldwin effect it is another argument for guided mutations and against randomness.
The interesting thing is that real scientist discuss easily about diversions of evolutionary theories in contrast of participants in evolutionary forums. I think it is a psychological phenomenon not difficult to explain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 09-30-2012 5:44 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 10-01-2012 8:31 AM zi ko has responded
 Message 19 by Taq, posted 10-01-2012 2:22 PM zi ko has not yet responded

    
zi ko
Member (Idle past 1692 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 9 of 264 (674620)
10-01-2012 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jon
09-30-2012 4:05 PM


Discussing evolutionary theories makes ID more acceptable?
Of course not. But it reduces the faith of the followers of classic Theory, which to some is very dangerous to happen.

And were that 'fact' written in a language folks can understand, such as English, they just might try to face it.
Very arogant statement...But you just have forgotten to present any evidence for random mutations.

Just what are you hoping to prove?

Nothing more than that i have said in the oponent post and may make some to think about their fixed and unjustifiable beliefs.

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jon, posted 09-30-2012 4:05 PM Jon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Larni, posted 10-01-2012 7:44 AM zi ko has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 8.1


(2)
Message 10 of 264 (674621)
10-01-2012 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by zi ko
10-01-2012 7:11 AM


We know where this is going to end up, don't we? Every few years you start going on about how there is some guiding intelligence to evolution where cells have intelligence and I bet you are going to say that Lamarkian Evolution is is evidence of guided evolution.

Then after many, many pages you will admit that you have no evidence, but you are not a scientist and it is unfair of people to want you to provide evidence.

We've been here at least three times in the past and it's going to go the same way: again.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


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 9 by zi ko, posted 10-01-2012 7:11 AM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by zi ko, posted 10-01-2012 12:09 PM Larni has responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 11 of 264 (674624)
10-01-2012 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by zi ko
10-01-2012 6:52 AM


The Baldwin effect it is another argument for guided mutations and against randomness.

No, it isn't.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by zi ko, posted 10-01-2012 6:52 AM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by zi ko, posted 10-01-2012 11:27 AM nwr has responded
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 10-01-2012 11:39 AM nwr has responded

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 1692 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 12 of 264 (674643)
10-01-2012 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by nwr
10-01-2012 8:31 AM


No, it isn't.
Can you or anny body else prove this assertion?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 10-01-2012 8:31 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Tangle, posted 10-01-2012 11:39 AM zi ko has not yet responded
 Message 21 by nwr, posted 10-01-2012 2:50 PM zi ko has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 13 of 264 (674645)
10-01-2012 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by nwr
10-01-2012 8:31 AM


I think the way Zi Ko is looking at this is that if a behavior can be considered an acquired characteristic, then if that behavior is heritable it could be considered Lamarckian because it would be a heritable acquired characteristic, and it could be considered guided by the environment because the environment could have trained in the behavior, either naturally in the wild or experimentally through laboratory training, or through a classroom, and just through normal day-to-day activities.

Zi Ko: Whether or not I've accurately captured your views, this is an example of the kind of explanation that *you* should be providing. You shouldn't be relying on others to make guesses as to what a bald assertion with no explanation might mean.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 10-01-2012 8:31 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by zi ko, posted 10-01-2012 2:12 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 20 by nwr, posted 10-01-2012 2:46 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 32 by herebedragons, posted 10-02-2012 7:46 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6663
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 14 of 264 (674646)
10-01-2012 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by zi ko
10-01-2012 11:27 AM


zi ko writes:

Can you or anny body else prove this assertion?

I think that one reason for the blunt reply was to point out to you that anyone can make an unfounded assertion.

If you think that....

The Baldwin effect it is another argument for guided mutations and against randomness.

.......then it's best to show why, otherwise you're straight into a 'yes it is, no it isn't' game.

ABE - I see Percy has beat me to it. Rats.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Edited by Tangle, : can't even edit correctly......


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by zi ko, posted 10-01-2012 11:27 AM zi ko has not yet responded

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 1692 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 15 of 264 (674648)
10-01-2012 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Larni
10-01-2012 7:44 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Larni, posted 10-01-2012 7:44 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Larni, posted 10-04-2012 4:12 PM zi ko has responded

    
1
23456
...
18NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019