Lamarckism

[dieseltaylor]

I have always had a fond feeling for the concept that learning is passed on generationally and that the evolutionary theory was not the whole answer.

An example of this would be that why do giraffes have long necks - can it only be that giraffes with longer necks survived better because they could see danger sooner/eat from higher trees. Or is it something that occurred faster in generations as each generation passed on the benefit.

Not a complete answer but very interesting is an article in the New Scientist showing a laboratory bred mother crickets managed to pass on the their future off-spring behaviour for when seeing a spider.

SO young crickets who had never seen a wolf-spider ,but whose mother had, froze longer [the best defence mechanism] when exposed to spider silk/droppings than cricket offspring whose mothers had never seen a spider.

Exposing the eggs or juvenile crickets to spider cues made no difference so the warning had to be done during egg production.

Seriously freaky huh!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

BTW I am stretching a behavioural response when linking into a skeletal growth analogy but hey perhaps science has not got that far yet. : )

[Michael Emrys]

Seems I read something several years ago along these lines. It had been discovered in simple organisms, but whether in microbes or something a little further up the food chain I do not at the moment recall.

Michael

[Grimthane]

There is some slightly controversial evidence for adaptive mutation in bacteria.

The idea being that bacteria that are given a particular stress (ie only given a food source that they are defective in metabolising) are more likely to come up with a mutation that repairs the defect than identical bacteria that were not given the stress.

The evidence is controversial because it looks like bacteria under stress mutate everything more than usual, so the fact that they come up with apparently "directed" mutations is not necessarily surprising.

As far as I am aware, this is the extent of environment-directed changes in DNA. Changes in DNA are the gold standard for heredity, so Lamarckism, though an excellent idea, seems not to be widely used. One reason seems to be that it is tricky for your giraffe's stretching neck cells to know which bit of DNA to screw with to make them longer, and if they did know, how they could then change the sperm cells' DNA. And if they get it wrong...

Having said that, there are other things that we inherit by various means, so it is possible to pass on some traits without DNA changes. These are the focus of most interest in Lamarckism. Amusingly, Darwin was a Lamarckist, at least for a period, as well as believing in blending inheritance, which doesn't really happen either.

[John Kettler]

dieseltaylor,

If Lamarckism interests you, I recommend you find Arthur Koestler's provocative book The Case Of The Midwife Toad and read it.

Regards,

John Kettler

[gunnergoz]

Damn, what turns up here never fails to amaze me. Eclectic bunch of weirdos, I'll say that...

[John Kettler]

I've heard about this intriguing argument against standard Darwinism, so am throwing it into the mix. It's about why the eye didn't just evolve.

http://www.wikihow.com/Argue-Against-Evolution-of-Eyesight

Regards,

John Kettler

[costard]

Evolutionists argue that [non-directed] features that improve a creature’s chance for survival get passed on in succeeding generations? Is it just as logical that all mutations would be passed on. Whether or not they are beneficial there is no awareness of the process by the genetic system. So, how would the unrelated parts of an eye and a brain now correlate, by independent mutations--all "failures" of the previously existing genetic process. Unobservant processes that did not realize their own existence then continued, added, subtracted by failures (mutations) of the genetic system...

Here's the flaw, straight up: a mutation that doesn't lend itself to better chances of survival for the organism (and thus it's chance of propagation) will be less likely to be passed down the line. Over time, the unsuccessful mutation will be bred out (examine the probability outcomes). In some instances the mutation will cease to be represented in the DNA of the species with the original mutant (where the mutation causes sterility, or death) and not be passed on. The statement (or grammatically incorrect question)

Is it just as logical that all mutations would be passed on.

is false, or answered by "No."

[John Kettler]

dieseltaylor,

Here's an intriguing example. Indian agricultural researchers have found that crops grown while being played traditional Ragas not only outproduce crops grown without musical assistance, but their progeny also outproduce the baseline crops.

Some related research.

http://earthtransitions.com/Alchemy-of-Sound/Gaian-Matrix.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Music-affects-plant-health-too/articleshow/43639165.cms

Regards,

John Kettler

[costard]

dieseltaylor,

Here's an intriguing example. Indian agricultural researchers have found that crops grown while being played traditional Ragas not only outproduce crops grown without musical assistance, but their progeny also outproduce the baseline crops.

Some related gumph. Read it at your peril.

http://earthtransitions.com/Alchemy-of-Sound/Gaian-Matrix.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Music-affects-plant-health-too/articleshow/43639165.cms

Regards,

John Kettler

John. it's far more likely that the positive aura of the farmer, having a good time playing/listening to music instead of ... I dunno, getting drunk or fighting with auntie sam. Sure, the music has its effect, but it is secondary to the enhanced brainwave patterns of the happy, productive, music playing farmer. Too bad he lives in earthquake country.

[John Kettler]

costard,

If you're going to quote me, I'd appreciate if you didn't alter the quote without informing the reader you've changed what I've said.

We're not talking about the farmer here, but the crop. Moreover, we're talking about music's inducing a positive change in the crop that carries over to the next generation. Recommend you find and read Tame's The Secret Power of Music. Two of the more intriguing tidbits therein are that in ancient China, there was a direct correlation between the quality of the music and the quality of provincial administration there. If the music was harmonious, the government followed suit and vice versa. This greatly simplified the Emperor's inspection tours. The other is that music was so fundamental to that society that a key volumetric measurement was based on how many grains of rice fit into a certain kind of flute.

To show how profoundly sound affects and informs matter, take a gander at this vid, 1 of 3 in the series.

Here is some pioneering research which should definitely make you think twice about the power of words and their influence on the world. What you're seeing is how the microcrystalline structure of water is fundamentally altered by the vibration of the thought expressed. It occurs to me that this may be the explanation of how homeopathic medicines really work, when, by standard concepts, they've been diluted to the point of being undetectable. At a vibrational level, though, I'd expect to see profound differences under the microscope between a super dilute homeopathic solution and the water used to help make it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkbpXRSIUnE&feature=related

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

costard,

Here is an uplifting vid showing the effects of Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 on water in real time. Note the fractal growth occurring in the water's crystalline structure.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Wicky]

Knew it couldn't last...

No opera required

[John Kettler]

Wicky,

Beautiful! I'm pretty sure, though, that the crystals in the video are much smaller than those exquisite ice crystals (snowflakes) you so kindly provided. I think it would be an interesting project to use outdoor speakers to play different types of music during a snowfall and see what forms as a result. Forgot to add that the crystals shown on the video are in a dynamic growth process, whereas the snowflakes have completed their growth, at least, as of the time they were imaged.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ChrisND]

I've heard about this intriguing argument against standard Darwinism, so am throwing it into the mix. It's about why the eye didn't just evolve.

http://www.wikihow.com/Argue-Against-Evolution-of-Eyesight

Regards,

John Kettler

What a crap article in the link. If you wish me to expound on that statement I will, but suffice to say whoever wrote that has not the faintest idea how evolution works. No doubt a parroting of outdated and outlandish creationist literature.

[John Kettler]

Normal Dude,

I realize the site has an agenda, but I found the issues raised in the article proper intriguing. Please expound!

Regards,

John Kettler

[hoolaman]

Why not provide some critical analysis yourself instead of parroting the first result in a google search?

No offense intended but sometimes I wonder if you are a unique web-bot programmed to link google results and TV guide results by cropping keywords from a forum thread..

[ChrisND]

Very well. The eye is a favorite piece of evidence against evolution trotted out by creationists because it has irreducible complexity - remove any part of it and it does not work well, if at all. The idea being, it could not have evolved from natural selection, therefore there must be a Creator. This is an argument from incredulity and a false "A or B" setup. Just because a person cannot imagine how it evolved does not mean it didn't.

They first start out by giving a very terrible description of how evolution works: "Point out that clearly evolution if it works is by failure of a previously successful part or system in genetic accidents called mutations." They then use this flawed assumption to serve their ends for the rest of the article. They then associate mutations with such conditions as Downs Syndrome and Spina Bifida. This person must have been asleep in whatever biology classes they took. Mutations can be benign and beneficial as well as harmful. The idea that it must involve a failure is a fanciful notion grabbed out of thin air.

The second point made is that somehow life went from very simple life forms to complex multi-sensory systems randomly groping to how it is today, and how ridiculous this notion is. Anyone who thinks that evolution is random is very ignorant of the subject. Evolution builds on it's successes, with failures being rejected and successes being retained overall. There is nothing random about it.

In their third point they get to the meat of the irreducible complexity, where they describe various parts of the eye and how they would not work unless they are present together - so how did we get a working eye in one piece? Easy: in increasingly complex steps. Contrary to the claims, you CAN build an eye piece by piece. Each step of the human eye, from photosensitive cells to pigments to lenses to optic nerves, is present in increasing increments of complexity in the animal kingdom. There are plenty of scientific papers detailing how this could have reasonably evolved and showing the comparative anatomy that makes it very feasible. Anyone saying otherwise may as well be sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!"

Since their step 4 is invalid, I don't need to address their steps 5 and 6 because they follow from 4.

Now perhaps you can point out what you found intriguing.

[costard]

costard,

Here is an uplifting vid showing the effects of Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 on water in real time. Note the fractal growth occurring in the water's crystalline structure.

Regards,

John Kettler

Water, being a liquid, has no crystalline structure. Ice does.

Drawing a correlation between the presence of music and the formation of crystals is an exercise for the faint of mind and the extremely gullible. Still, that is a largish number of people.

[John Kettler]

hoolaman,

The item cited on the eye was something I happened to hear about, not something I have in expertise in. I posted it because this seemed like a good place to get some feedback on the concept someone else came up with.

Normal Dude,

Will have to get back to you later, but I do appreciate the explanation.

costard,

Last I checked, ice is one of several forms water takes, but it's still water, as is steam. The video here explains how the images are created, showing the process from field collection of samples through finished product.

http://www.hado.net/

Regards,

John Kettler

[Wicky]

There's no 'classical' music playing in the video so what's your point?

Was a rogue Spinal Tap gig responsible for these mineral monsters?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/photogalleries/giant-crystals-cave/

hoolaman,

The video here explains how the images are created, showing the process from field collection of samples through finished product.

http://www.hado.net/

Regards,

John Kettler

[dieseltaylor]

Sorry for being absent through the thread so far. This first paragraph below is a precis of a New Scientist article

1. The human genome project expected to find about 100000 genes but in fact found about 20000. A review of the genetic sequences found that these genes made up 1.5% of the human genome and 9% of the DNA is derived from viruses. Furthermore another chunk of 34% is derived from virus-like entities called retrotransposons who seem to do nothing but replicate themselves.

Viruses appear to have a symbiotic relationship and in fact may be a powerful change force. They cite myxomatosis as wiping out 98.2% of the rabbits in Australia - and only those rabbits with a suitable gene variant survived. Survival of the fittest ... for that particular threat. Now the virus is a persistent partner to the rabbit.

Interestingly in the edition was a test for an increase in schizophrenia in the children of mothers who had flu whilst pregnant. Thought to be true a test with monkeys found that the 19 off-spring off 12 infected monkeys had brain development similar to schizophrenics. Non-infected monkeys did not.

SO it would appear that viruses have a very potent effect on human development now and in history. So now the nature vs nurture argument perhaps needs to add illnesses and pregnant mothers eating habits etc to the mix of why humans turn out the way they do. Simple ...not.

Not quite off the point but a slime mold apparently has the intelligence to "move" toa food source. The interesting report this week was that if faced with two equidistant sources it would split equally to go after them!

[John Kettler]

dieseltaylor,

If you're interested in retrotransposons, I believe you'll find my article (starts on page 34) of interest. http://www.scribd.com/doc/5992893/atlantis-rising-magazine-no-52-lost-truth-the-great-pyramid Ph.D. biochemist Colm Kelleher's work "Retrotransposons as Engines of Human Bodily Transformation." Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 13, no1,1999, 9-24. 23 May 2005 suggests retrotransposons are something truly profound. I took his concept and put it in a broad context. Here's the link to his paper

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:GC6wQfmskYwJ:www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_13_1_kelleher.pdf+retrotransposons+as+engines&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a HTML version's not the best, but it doesn't require a download. PDF's here http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_13_1_kelleher.pdf

Regards,

John Kettler

[dieseltaylor]

Thanks JK. Very interesting to see the work on transposons and to realise how science has moved on from my day. Whether this is taught in schools now I have no idea.

I do find it difficult to accept imediate effects, if they happen, as being anything other than chemical.

[John Kettler]

dieseltaylor,

You're welcome! As for what's being taught in schools now, I don't know either. Hadn't heard of retrotransposons until they showed up as part of a list of potential articles from my magazine editor and publisher. Found Kelleher's research fascinating. As you saw in the water stuff, vibration and frequencies can have profound impacts. And the Indian agricultural work indicates the effects can be lasting over successive generations. Personally, I never bought the notion that we were arbitrarily handed all kinds of surplus DNA and brain capacity, since Nature simply doesn't work that way. Also, overengineering us, as seems to be the standard view, is a huge waste of resources for the organism, requiring lots of extra energy and material to provide it. Has to be there for some reason, and retrotransposons provide the best explanation I've seen to date. Stands to reason that once we "wake up" we'll need massive improvements in all sorts of areas, and that's where having our "hard drives" practically empty and with lots of "slots" available for expansion in our genomes makes all the sense in the world.

Regards,

John Kettler