About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory

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.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : misspelled zi ko

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 1As 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

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. 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." 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

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

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 lifeIf 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

I have an analogy may explain what I think Zi Ko is saying.Mutation is going to shoot an arrow, but it can't see where the target is. Nature, however, has a way to call out to mutation to say "aim this way", so that the arrow will be shot in the general direction of the target. But mutation still fires in a relatively random direction because it cannot actually see the target. Nature however can see exactly where this arrow is heading so she quickly moves the target to intercept the arrow and thus mutation hits the target.The big thing is that nature is almost a being in and of itself and is directing all natural processes, so what looks random really isn't, but guided by some supernatural force (nature itself). If anything survives and thrives then that is considered evidence that the process is guided. If anything dies or goes extinct, that is also evidence that nature had deemed it necessary to ensure survival of other life.Zi Ko's philosophy seems very Eastern in nature and very difficult for us with a more Western philosophy to get a handle on.HBD

I think one would need to approach his kind of view with a "our senses are being deceived" type philosophy rather than a "reality only exists in what we can perceive with our senses." philosophy. Like I said, it doesn't fit real well with our more Western thinking. Of course, it is not really possible to prove that our senses are not being deceived, it is just something we have come to accept - that we can trust our senses to construct reality. Zi Co apparently hasn't come to that conclusion yet. (and I truly don't mean that as an insult, I simply mean that Zi Co seems to have a different way of constructing reality than we do)And no, its not much of a scientific concept, but more a philosophical concept. Where a creationist would be explaining these concepts with God or an unnamed supernatural being, Zi Ko seems to give that recognition to "nature" itself. Read a little about the Gaia Hypothesis for a more concise version of his POV.HBD

You keep making the same flawed inferences. Epigenetic changes CAN be influenced by the environment, but they are not permanent changes to the genome. Epigenetics affect the expression of genes not the genes themselves. The resources we have reviewed on this thread support that position, if you believe otherwise, you will need to provide evidence of that.Regardless of how long the epigenetic changes persist, they are not know to be able to affect the actual genetic code. If you have evidence that contradicts that, please present.If the epigenetic changes cause deleterious effects, then, yes, natural selection can remove those individuals with negative fitness. This may seem to you like the environment is guiding the process, but it is really not the case. You could more accurately think of the epigenetic changes as a part of the environmental conditions since there are no changes to the genetic code.An analogy: Superman is fighting the bad guys but they are hiding a big chunk of kryptonite and when superman gets close, the bad guys expose him to it. Superman is weakened and the bad guys start kicking his butt. However, he manages to escape but a piece of kryptonite gets stuck in his tights. Even though he is away from the main kryptonite "environment", the effects still go with him since there is a piece of it on him. His enemies continue to beat him, all is lost! However, Superman himself has not change, he is still Superman, but he is weakened by the effects of the environment that he has carried along with him. Finally he realizes that the piece of kryptonite is there and he gets rid of it. His super powers return and he saves the day. HooRah!The kryptonite was a part of the environment, not part of Superman himself.Now I think we need a brief refresher as to what random mutation actually means. It means that mutations occur regardless of whether the organism needs them or not. They are random with respect to fitness. A mutation does not occur because an organism is in a particular environment and needs that mutation to increase its fitness.So, in order to establish the case that mutations are guided by the environment via epigenetic changes it needs to be established that:1. The environment can target specific places in the genome for epigenetic change.
2. Those epigenetic changes can target specific mutations within that region.
3. Those targeted mutations increase the fitness of the individual.If you don't have hard evidence of the above, that's quite OK. But you need some rationalization that supports why you think you case is solid. That you believe that evidence is lacking in other areas is not support of your position. Besides, there has been plenty of evidence that supports the randomness of mutations (as defined above).HBD

Maybe there is a reason it's a classic! How so? What you presented supports the "classic" evolution theory.Obviously, English is not your first language and I think we are all willing to work hard at overcoming that barrier. But your lack of comprehension skills is making a meaningful discussion practically impossible and there is not much any of us can do about that.HBD

zi ko ...There is a saying that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."What this means is that once a particular theory has gained widespread acceptance it cannot be overturned easily. There is a reason that it has become a theory ... because it has a large amount of support from many, many observations and tests. It has survived repeated attempts to falsify it from independent sources.For example, think of the amount of evidence you would need to bring in order to challenge the theory of gravitation. Do you think your gut feeling that the theory was wrong would be enough for people to consider an alternative. To propose that the theory of gravitation was wrong would be an extraordinary claim ... and would therefore require extraordinary evidence.While I am sure there are some who don't want to hear any challenge to the current paradigm, for the most part scientists are willing to consider new ideas. However, if they are going to overturn the current theory ... they will require extraordinary evidence! That is all anyone here is asking for, something besides your "feelings" that mutations are guided. You have no authority to make such a claim. The current theory, being well established and accepted, does have the "authority" to claim that mutations are random with respect to fitness because that idea has been well tested and supported by the evidence.So the "authority" by which RAZD makes such declarations is based on the accepted theories regarding those issues. If you wish to challenge that "authority" the burden of proof is on YOU! Why can't you understand this?????What you propose is interesting and worthwhile to debate, but in order for those ideas to gain acceptance you need to bring "extraordinary" evidence.HBD