News:

When one conveys certain things, particularly of such gravity, should one not then appropriately cite sources, authorities...

Main Menu

Epigenetics

Started by Tank, April 30, 2017, 07:48:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Gloucester on May 29, 2017, 08:25:40 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 29, 2017, 12:38:58 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 28, 2017, 11:54:58 PM
So perhaps Lamark wasn't as far off the "mark" as we are normally told, at least in the basic idea of acquired traits.

:smileshake:

Your response seems ambiguous to me, xSP. Creates a double negative, sort of.

No, Lamarck wasn't that off the mark in the case of some types of inheritance, though geneticists and evolutionists in general will cringe if you call epigenetics "Lamarckism".
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Dave

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 29, 2017, 08:24:22 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on May 29, 2017, 08:25:40 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 29, 2017, 12:38:58 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 28, 2017, 11:54:58 PM
So perhaps Lamark wasn't as far off the "mark" as we are normally told, at least in the basic idea of acquired traits.

:smileshake:

Your response seems ambiguous to me, xSP. Creates a double negative, sort of.

No, Lamarck wasn't that off the mark in the case of some types of inheritance, though geneticists and evolutionists in general will cringe if you call epigenetics "Lamarckism".
I can understand that!
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Gloucester on May 29, 2017, 06:20:13 PM
@ Ecurb.

Sorry mate, I wasn't disagreeing with you, I did not put it well.

As you say he had the idea of a changing environment bringing challenges that necessitated psysiologicsl changes. Reading the Wiki article and Lamarck's laws perhaps it is the lack of time scale for the evolution he posits.

QuoteFirst Law: In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears.

Second Law: All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young.

If he were talking about many generations, a gradual change, it gets closer to the present theory of evolution. Did he ever actually say that it was the next generation that would express the changes I wonder?

Been years since I looked into this.

I think he was wrong about the mechanism and how environment led to change, as well as the time frame.  He was closer to the mark in saying that the environment can lead to changes that can somehow be passed along, although he didn't know how. 

xSilverPhinx

Another parallel between Larmarckism and epigenetics is that they both occur in individual organisms whereas Neodarwinian evolution is about the change in allele frequencies in populations. In other words, in Larmarckism individuals accumulate changes over time while in Darwinian theory it's populations that evolve.   

You have to give Larmarck credit for one thing: he was brave to come up with a hypothesis that outright defied creationism during that time. In a way, he paved the way for Darwin.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 29, 2017, 08:24:22 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on May 29, 2017, 08:25:40 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 29, 2017, 12:38:58 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 28, 2017, 11:54:58 PM
So perhaps Lamark wasn't as far off the "mark" as we are normally told, at least in the basic idea of acquired traits.

:smileshake:

Your response seems ambiguous to me, xSP. Creates a double negative, sort of.

No, Lamarck wasn't that off the mark in the case of some types of inheritance, though geneticists and evolutionists in general will cringe if you call epigenetics "Lamarckism".

Yes, he does not have the best reputation.  Maybe this will be somewhat of a rehabilitation. 

Dave

I feel somewhat more sympathetic towards Lamarck as a man in his time, even respectful. He certainly did seem to have conviction and courage in being willing to develop a theory that seemed to fit - and challenged religious doctrine.

Is Lamarck now getting blamed for those who followed and defended his theories against Darwinism? The winner writes the history.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

OldGit

Lamarck was the man who put the pig in epigenetics.

Tank

Male rats found to pass on epigenetic susceptibility to cocaine addiction to offspring

Quote(Medical Xpress)—A team of researchers with Fudan University in China has found that male rats are able to pass on their susceptibility to cocaine addiction through non-genetic means. In their paper published in the journal Nature Communications, the group describes how they induced cocaine addiction in test rats and tracked which offspring were more likely to develop an addition to the drug...
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.