This is pretty much a societal belief that few in genetics would ever have put their name too. The original argument was between DNA and the proteins around the chromosomal DNA ladder. It was thought unlikely that the DNA had sufficient memory for a complete instruction set.
That was resolved, at least in the public arena with the discovery that one bacterial characteristic was definitely in DNA. Most of the public and the Eugenics Movement jumped to the irrational assumption that that proves that everything is in inherited in chromosomal DNA.
It is untrue. We know that some organelles are self replicating, most famously the mitocondria that have their own DNA. Many parts of inheritance seem to come from other parts of the egg and a small part of the membrane of the sperm in humans.
We can now understand the old argument better. 3 billion base pairs of DNA is only 750MB of computer memory. With copying and redundant areas, there may only be 30MB of active memory, less than one audio track.
The one thing that we know for certain that is inherited in chromosomal DNA is the transcription codes for proteins. Everything else is hypothetical and unproven, especially HOAX genes coding for our shape. It may be all that is encoded in chromosomal DNA and nothing more.
Which of course kills many of the theoretical justifications of Darwinism over Lamarckism. We only know that Mendel's 'Law' applies to chromosomal DNA. What is more we have no idea of how stable other means of inheritance are in life.
Medicine knows or has forgotten how shape is coded in life and it is not talking about it. There is no way that our individual shape is in DNA. There are not even enough neurones in the brain to contain that information. That is why they really do not want to talk about it because it blows the chemical anatomical model of life out of the water.
Behaviour? Intelligence? There is no hard evidence only conjecture. Nobody knows how they are inherited.
Materialist science is desparate to prove that everything is just within their reach in terms of inheritance, especially the reductinist camp. All that has been proven with the Hox genes is an association. Causality has not been proven and I would be interested to hear if a hypothetical mechanism of causality has even been postulated.
Lamarckism is the ability to acquire new genes or characteristics during life and pass them on to the offspring. When we are considering hard Evolutionary Theory at a cellular level, Horizontal Gene Transfer conforms to that definition whilst Darwinism is a term generally applied in a scientific context as the rejection of this possibility.
And the serious consideration of the science of evolution is about the possibility of exceptionally rare events leading to characteristics at the cellular and gross levels rather than peg leg pirates or cake tins.
As to the individual shape of an organism, the basic mechanism is known and proven, leading to a mystery in where it is coded or inherited because there is simply no physical memory space of sufficient size. Cellular growth and differentiation is controlled by an electromagnetic template and causality has been confirmed. The complexity of this template is such that it would require terabytes of memory for a single snapsnot. This thing not only grows but moves. Inconveniently for the chemical anatomical model, it is also capable of sensation in the absence of physical tissue.
You may find evidence by investigating the regrowth of reptilian tails but other that that, this evidence is stored in the oral tradition of medicine but you may find it surfacing in anaesthesiology and pain management texts in terms of phantom limb syndromes.
As for the Lamarck/Darwin debate, you will find my definition in Wiki which I hold as a pretty good reference for the compromise between academic and public perceptions of the meaning of a word. I have no doubt that many characteristics are Darwinian however that does not mean that all are. Unless the mechanism of inheritance is known rather than merely hypothesised, Lamarckism cannot be excluded. It is not about pirates losing a leg but whether soft characteristics that certainly have a nurture element can change during life and be inherited. If a person develops their intelligence or chooses to change their 'behaviour', is that passed on? There is no solid answer to that question.
And you have put your finger on the problems of the electromagnetic template. There is no way to explain it 'scientifically'.
In achondroplasia, the body is not capable of 'filling' its inherited (?), natural form and so a new map is formed. The same with the pirates leg. Yet shape is inherited.
And it does not conform to the chemical anatomical model of life. There is nowhere that it can be stored in physical terms, let alone inherited. Science has no grasp on it and so it does its best to forget about it. Medicine really would prefer to forget it for so many reasons.
The pragmatic answer that I have heard from anaesthesiologists who are force to deal with this magnetic template is that it is stored in the mind and not DNA or the brain. It is inconsistent with everything that we know about chromosomal DNA, not least its memory size. There is no correlation with areas of the brain.
I agree that science has been most successful in fooling a public that already has such faith in a materialist, even reductionist worldview.
Desperate? Not in terms of individual academics but there are massive vested interests involved in the perpetuation of a materialist model of life, particularly when it comes to the mind and its influence in biology and hence health. Through funding they ensure that the greater picture is not seen and the immense gaps in scientific knowledge are glossed over without anybody noticing or questioning.
This thread deals with one of those issues, the assumption that all inherited characteristics are coded in chromosomal DNA. It is unproven yet alternatives have not been researched.
The first rule of solving probems is to admit to them.
I am only saying that science does not know yet because a lack of investigation into other possible areas of inheritance. In the distant past it was believed that the majority of inherance was in the chromatids that surround the central DNA ladder of the chromosomes because of their greater memory capacity and flexibility. We are discovering mechanisms of inheritance outside of the nucleus too. We may find the answers there that are not answered in chromosomal DNA.
Until science does find hard answers to these questions, it must admit to pragmatic, working hypotheses such as our individual shape is coded in the mind and god knows how it is inherited.
In humans the evidence for an inherited factor in intelligence comes from ethically unrepeatable studies in the soviet union involving the compulsory separation of identical twins at birth, placing them into families on the polar opposites of the educational scale. The conclusion that they reached was that intelligence was around 60% learned and 40% inherited.
Certainly there is evidence for all kinds of animal behaviour being inherited, particularly reproductive behaviour that is 'known' despite the young being removed from their parents, including the basis of birdsong and the unusual behaviour of the cuckoo.
No high quality human data is available because of ethical considerations in producing a controlled trial but there is remarkable twin anecdotal evidence and also a lot of data showing associations between gene types and psychological traits, although it is all but impossible to exclude learning in these cases. The Eugenicists would have us believe that they are proven in terms of causality.
The research was conducted between the wars as a result of that wondeerful human invention the landmine. The medical profession was presented with a concerning number of amputations for which they obviously sought a cure.
One question was why a limb could grow the first time but was unable to regrow a second time. The second question was that some species, most notably certain lizards, are able to regrow a limb, a tail, which requires the ability of cells to be directed into differentiating into the correct cell types in the correct places.
The electromagnetic field was empirically measured in both cases. It was found that the lizard was capable of maintaining this Em field during the time of growth and that the cells literally grew into it. Unfortunately in terms of a human amputation, the field collapsed before significant growth had occurred.
Causality was proven by placing an disruptive electromagnetic field into the cage of the lizard. There was no regrowth.
This conclusive evidence was lost from mainstream science teaching for two reasons. The first was that it had no practice use at the time in the clinical setting. The research hit the brick wall of the inability of the medical profession to recreate or sustain the complexity of this electromagnetic template to allow a human limb to regrow. There was a lot of useful science to be taught in clinical terms and so it drifted out of the curriculum. This was facilitated by the growing influence and financial support of the pharmaceutical industry in medicine, particularly in the US, that sold the monopoly of chemical anatomical model of health.
So the evidence fell out of mainstream scientific teaching around 75 years ago and was forgotten by science as a whole. It is still passed from consultant to junior doctor in the oral tradition of medicine, at least in the UK.
I would guess that it is also known in the study of reptiles but it is not generally considered beyond that subject. It has been fragmented out of human biology and considerations of genetics and inheritance.
The whole concept is highly inconvenient to science as there are no answers that are convenient to science. There is no viable theory to explain it. Hence it is ignored in the same way that inconvenient archaeological finds that contradict the accepted theories can be swept under the carpet.
And this is about the normal variation of characteristics within a normal population rather than genetic abnormalities that fall well outside of normal and are on and off, Mendelean and basically Darwinian. They are known abnormalities of proteins and their mechanism is adequately understood.
To explain the normal variance of the population through the complex interactions of multiple genes is only a hypothesis and we should remember that there are subjective gains in accepting the hypothesis as a part of a web of theories that prove Eugenics, the materialist world view, the monopoly of the chemical anatomical model of health and the need to fund the HGP. It appears to be a frail argument in terms of the fact that there is usually only one normal variant of a protein coded from DNA. The spectrum of normal intellect is present in those that have completely normal production of the full array of neurochemicals.
Soft Evolution and the normal variation of the population has little or no solid basis in hard genetics.
The achondroplasia gene does not 'create' the original template. The template adapts to it as it does to any fact which impedes its being 'filled'. The effect of the inability of the long bones to grow is akin to that of external factors changing the ability of the body to fulfill that shape, such as malnutrition, the Japanese banding girls feet, African tribes that use metal rings to elongate the neck or banding the head to make it grow pointed before the growth plates close.
This can be seen more clearly in congenital short stature caused by a failure of growth hormone, so called Peter Pan Dwarfism. The short stature or shape is not congenitally coded into the defective gene. Growth hormone suppliments allow the body to assume its predestined shape.
Similarly the PKU gene does not code for organic brain damage but the protein error that causes that organic brain damage is.
Wherever it has been possible to remedy the problems that a protein abnormality causes, the organism becomes normal without any change taking place to the gene itself. Hence, there is no causality for the characteristic being coded into the gene but a consequence of the protein abnormailty preventing normality from being expressed.
It is a very interesting comparison between UFOs and there being an inherited element to human intelligence and behaviour.
The evidence for the latter is actually of similar, if not better quality than for most of what we believe about evolutionary history. Neither can be measured in the laboratory in a controlled manner to prove repeatability and reliability. Instead, we have to put togetheer a jigsaw of the best information that is available to us to form a rational explanation of that data.
Correct me if I am wrong but I remember the original declaration being that it was the position of the Hox genes in the genome that was associated with changes of very basic proportions of shape like spine to limb length. There was no mention of differences in the content of the gene and hence no difference in the protein that it coded. And no causality was proven, only association.
This association was presented to a public that does not fully understand the difference between association and causality. Predictably, all that they heard was the science had proven that shape was coded in chromosomal DNA.
I would be most appreciative of references relating to your case if I am misinformed on this matter and promise to regard any information that you provide in an objective and open-minded way, even changing and expanding my understanding.
That is how new evidence should be treated regardless of whether it offends our worldview.
There are three elements to phantom limb syndrome. Phantom limb pain can be explained by nerve trauma at the amputation site. The feeling that the limb is still there can rationally be explained by the persistence of the sensory (and maybe motor) areas of the brain.
The third, evidence based element of phantom limb syndrome is numerous cases of continuing perception where the limb was. Patients are still able to tell when 'the limb is touched' and it depends on 'the position of the limb'.
In the words of the consultant anaesthesiologist who first told me of this 'We don't talk about this because it brings the anatomical chemical model into serious doubt.'
I would suggest firstly that you have a look at the history of science if you believe that evidence can disappear from the mainstream only to be rediscovered later. It has happeneed from Copernicus to String Theory and of course including Mendel's work. During that time it is generally only carried in the oral tradition only to be rediscovered, their full importance realised and become mainstream.
You obviously have great faith in shape being encoded in chromosomal DNA. I am unsure how you jump from Hox genes being important in the embyological ordering of segments, which is pretty much what I said, to such details of shape as inheriting the recognisable facial features of your parents.
The whole argument of all inheritance being in chromosomal DNA started with an overgeneralisation that became an assumption and that tendency appears to be continuing.
About the best I can find on the internet about the importance of electrical signals in cell differentiation and growth, which obviously only includes recent data thinking in this expanding subject is to be found at http://jcs.biologists.org/content/122/23/4267.full.pdf
Although my boss might have added his own touches to what was known and expanded his interpretations, this was not some elaborate hoax on his part. It came up on account of his having a patient who demonstrated this phenomena. I saw it with my own eyes.
I think that I have adequately proved that in similar cases, a simple correction of the protein abnormality leads to normal development and shape. Development and shape are normal in the presence of the abnormal gene. QED, in these cases, the gene does not code for shape. It is a consequence of the protein that the gene creates.
There is no reason to believe that achondroplasia is an exception to this general pattern.
And rather than mudslinging to defend the assumption that all inheritance is in chromosomal DNA, would anybody like to define and justify 'scientifically' how intelligence, inherited animal behaviour or species specific markings are coded and inherited in chromosomal DNA?
Did you forget that it is genes that control the responses to these electrical cues, and that it is genes that control the production of these electrical cues?
And the electrical cues control the genes too....
And the two interact.
Evolution is complex. It appears to be multilayered and the genetics of DNA plays an incredibly important part in that. However, it is not everything in inheritance, except 99% of our research into inheritance.
The old moral of 'if we do not research it, it does not exist' is inappropriate. Research needs to expand to include other possibilities and earlier in the thread I have suggested other extra-nuclear processes and the nuclear proteins should also be investigated. This requires an open mind rather than one closed by attempting to squeeze every characteristic into DNA.
Various arguments are unsure, especially in the context of the limited storage capacity of DNA and the lack of hard mechanism for many characteristics. The detailed shape is one of them and generalising the action of Hox genes from the grossest features early embryology carries no certainty at all. It is not proven and it is open for debate. The same is true of most if not all forms of inheritance of the normal variation of characteristics.
Many of the arguments do not make sense. I have mentioned in this thread that both chromosomal proteins and other cellular mechanisms may be involved. Arguments about identical twins looking alike have not been thought through in that context. They do not only share DNA but every other part of the egg.
And I have presented the electromagnetic template as a mystery that needs to be solved. Something similar may well form another level of understanding that interacts with DNA and environment in life, rather than in the laboratory.
No takers for a rational discussion then on the very important subject of inheritance, what is in chromosomal DNA and other possible forms of inheritance?
Just knee jerk emotional responses to anything that threatens indoctrinated unexamined assumptions? No thoughts?
Perhaps it would be useful to explain to Elhardt for the purposes of his video the psychological mechanisms behind the assumption that all inheritance is in chromosomal DNA from a Cognitive Behavioural stand point....
It warns that the belief that all inheritance is in DNA was actually formed unseen and unexamined in the subconscious mind.
This must be considered as a two stage process. The original decision was based on the discovery in 1944 that a characteristic was definitely coded in chromosomal DNA. Prior to that, it had believed DNA did not have enough storage memory and that the chromosomal proteins were a more likely candidate. I do not know if anybody at the time actually made the definitive statement that one characteristic being proven to be in DNA because it is logically flawed.
That statement did not have to be made. The important factor was that the decision was taken to focus investigation on DNA. A part of this was funding matters, consistency with Darwinism and public support for the wonders of science but even the most objective scientist will have been lured by a simple fact. DNA is simple. It is linear. Even though the scale of it was beyond thm, there was hope of understanding it. It is linear, there only four possible combinations and it is relatively fixed. It is vastly easier to study DNA than chromosomal proteins or extranuclear mechanisms.
It is this fact that all investigation was into chromosomal DNA that causes the unquestioned assumption that all inheritance is in DNA in the unconscious mind. Emotions are formed by experience, the unquestioned facts of the world according to human experience. What the experts experienced was that only DNA was investigated forming the emotional belief that DNA is the be-all and end-all. It is not questioned at the subconscious level.
This emotional belief is powerful. The subconscious had control of our physiological stress responses. When we encounter a theory that is compatible with our subjective experience of the world, we relax like we have eaten too much Christmas dinner. When we encounter something that contradicts our emotional belief, we become stressed, anxious and even angry on account of adrenaline release. Gut instinct, even physical symptoms dictate that we easily accept theories that are consistent with our experience without adequately questioning but become over-critical to try to reject any theory that is not consistent with that human experience.
We could call it the fundamental mental block. it makes the person unable to listen or understand arguments that contradict their personal experience.
This is the cause of an insideous mass subjectivity in all specialties, academic and otherwise. The world of their daily life becomes everything. Those that study DNA all day will unquestioningly believe that DNA is everything important in the outside world.
This is the root cause of closed minds and resistance to new thinking. It distorts logic, especially fragile linear logic so that the overall context is lost. And more than words, it subjectively distorts actions. It distorts the collection of evidence causing a self-perpetuating vicious cycle in which the unexamined assumption the all characteristics are in DNA is constantly reinforced and all other possibilites excluded.
As a mass psychological effect, all of the experts will agree on and defend the same theory and exclude other thinking. So of course, the ivory towers of academia are disinterested in knowing this because it discredits their self-governing status as a specialty. The expert and their reputation must be questioned and judged by outsiders and they do not like that. This subjective interest overwhelms the need to be informed and pro-active in The Noble Scientific Ethic of Objectivity.
Hence it can be said that the assumption that all characteristics are coded and inherited in DNA must be regarded with suspicion of mass subjectivity and an emotional basis rather than a rational one, complicated by the fact that the evidence collected will have been skewed towards proving it. The case must be very carefully examined and analysed. It is unacceptable to be blinded by the mountain of evidence collected for that case. Fundamental questions must be asked about what has not been investigated and usually they can only come from analytic logic rather than evidence.
Let us see how many knee jerk emotional overreactions that elicits....