Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: decimon

Epigentic changes are most probably the key to nearly all adaptation. A lot of stock has been put into natural selection but the problem with it was the lack of a clear mechanism for feedback to fuel the selection engine. There has always been a good deal of evidence for Lamarkian type of inheritability. There has been a lot of evidence that points to the conservation of immunity and not just through transfer of mother’s antibodies through that clearly plays a role. One of the reasons epigentics is not widely discussed is because it muddies the waters of those who like their genes in nice neat packages. The idea of acquired traits through environmental feedback changes everything. It means our behaviors do make a difference in no only our genetic makeup but that of our children.


7 posted on 07/24/2011 8:14:16 PM PDT by Maelstorm (Better to keep your enemy in your sights than in your camp expecting him to guard your back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Maelstorm

I’m in way over my head here but this is the internet so that won’t stop me. ;-)

If I have this right then they propose no change to genetic makeup but rather to genetic utilization. If that makes any sense.


10 posted on 07/24/2011 8:23:54 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Maelstorm
Epigentic changes are most probably the key to nearly all adaptation.

The 'random mutation factor', caused by radiation or perhaps chemicals absorbed by the parent, has always been tough for me to embrace. Too many 'bad' mutations would crowd out the 'good' mutations, since only a percent of a percent of random mutations are helpful.

This new concept of the environment informing the DNA itself about desirable behavior and traits, if applied to humans, is analagous to a parent giving verbal advice to his/her sons and daughters. IOW, "Son, don't make the same mistake I made when I was young. Avoid certain types of people. Plan ahead for bad times. Etc."

The implications for evolutionary science are staggering. If proven to be true and pervasive, then Lamark will be vindicated to a degree. Just cutting off the tails of mice did not produce mice with no tails. But it may have produced mice with a strong aversion to shiny metallic objects! And people in white lab coats, LOL.
~:<)

A lot of stock has been put into natural selection but the problem with it was the lack of a clear mechanism for feedback to fuel the selection engine.

That appears to be changing! The next thing you know, scientists will discover that space is curved, there is no time, and the universe has no center.

18 posted on 07/25/2011 12:20:57 AM PDT by ARepublicanForAllReasons (The world will be a better place when humanity learns not to try to make it a perfect place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Maelstorm
I have always been skeptical of the theory of natural selection by random genetic mutation. I rarely discuss the issue, though, because inevitably it ends with me being accused of being an anti-evolution creationist.

One of my enduring memories of high school was my biology text that for some reason went out of its way to mock Lamarck and how people of that era could have been so foolish when Darwin's work was the final answer to all the questions about evolution. I think Lamarck will have the last laugh!

26 posted on 07/25/2011 1:16:10 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson