/sci/ - Science & Math

Entropy / negentropy fluctuation.

Order arises at the cost of increased disorder in the rest of the universe, be it proton, atom, atoms of heavier elements, molecules, organic molecules up into macroscopic structures of which life is the end point so far.

Uh, how the fuck can there be a debate for 3/4 of the things there

Fucking america, THINGS THAT ARE WRONG HAVE EQUAL MERIT

There is no debate.
Lamarckism is outdated, Neo Darwinism is the same as Darwinism but we added genetics and Creationism is still not science.

You better skip it and smoke some shit, that would be way more interesting

>>2444568
Lamarck all the way.
We'll see who's laughing when the metal spikes I've grafted to my bone are passed down and my descendants become killing machines.

This thread is now about coming up with reasonable-sounding arguments in favour of Lamarckism that OP can use to troll everyone tomorrow.

>>2444640
Parents with extracted wisdom teeth are more likely to have children without them.

>>2444661
Gay parents are more likely to have gay children.

How about Last Thursdayism?

Obligatory copypasta:

A while ago someone posted a thread in which he asked the question that if we (humans) all would start flapping our hands, we would develop wings in a couple of million years.

A shitstorm of bashing Lamarckism ensued.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing against Darwin’s ideas of evolution by the means of natural selection (and I certainly don’t think the scenario above is realistic), but you guys shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss Lamarckism as a viable mechanism of evolution. I will attempt to explain.

First of all, it is well known that some single celled organisms (prokaryotes<span class="math">^{1}[/spoiler] as well as eukaryotes<span class="math">^{2}[/spoiler]) possess the ability to transfer genes between individuals by forming a ‘bridge’ between the cytoplasm of the two organisms and exchanging little strings of DNA. This is called horizontal gene transfer. This makes it possible for organisms to acquire new traits (like resistance to antibiotics) that subsequently get passed on to offspring.

You might think, “oh well, multi cellular organisms don’t possess this ability”, and you’d (probably) be right. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t other mechanisms by which acquired traits can be passed on to offspring.

DNA methylation is the process of adding a methyl group to certain places on the DNA strand. It has been shown to effect genetic expression patterns<span class="math">^{3}[/spoiler] and it has also been shown to be heritable in both single and multicellular organisms<span class="math">^{4}[/spoiler], and recent developments suggest that it’s heritable in mammals as well<span class="math">^{5}[/spoiler].

To conclude, be skeptical of your own ideas. Something that at one time may seem outdated (like Lamarckian evolution) might be shown to be more accurate than you thought.

>>2444696
References:
1. Jain et al., (1999), Horizontal gene transfer among genomes: The complexity hypothesis.
2. Blanchard & Lynch, (2000), Organellar genes: why do they end up in the nucleus?
3. Jaenisch & Bird, (2003), Epigenetic regulation of gene expression: how the genome integrates intrinsic and environmental signals.
4. Jablonka et al., (1992), Evidence, mechanisms and models for the inheritance of acquired characters.
5. Rakyan & Beck, (2006), Epigenetic variation and inheritance in mammals.

>>2444696
Your points simply provide evidence that backs up evolution by reproduction and mutation coupled with natural selection. In no way do the habits of an animal affect the DNA of that animal's offspring, unless the habits include tanning with gamma rays.

>>2444724
Epigenetic inheritance is by definition NOT genetic. The point is that acquired traits are heritable, even though they don't affect the genome (in mammals at least), and thus no random mutation is required.

>>2444724

Before the thread dies, gimme an argument I can own the creationists with. A real nasty one.

time of death 20:56

Noo, I will try!

>>2444979
Yes!!

>>2444696
W... what? I'm going to have to do some reading...

>>2444864
The argument is that Evolution is real.
Basically.
But, an interesting thing is to not look back on evolution, but forward. With regards to human society, that is.
We are effectively devolving. Discuss.

>>2444864
Why bother? Creationists are, by definition, in denial. Don't underestimate denial.

>>2444993
>We are effectively devolving.
There's no suck thing. /Discussion.

>>2445001
What do you mean?
We take care of people with all kinds of backwards genes, genetic diseases, fat people, short people, weak people, thick people, allergies etc.

Because there is no natural selection any more due to the success of human civilisation, we are filling the gene pool with loads of shit genes.

>>2445001
Maybe we are devolving. Think about our society, for an instance. We're not learning with our mistakes. We're killing our planet, thus destroying the natural selection by forcibly adapting to our environment. /Discuss

>>2445026
point proven

>>2445033
>devolving
fullretard.jpg

>>2445026
>>2445033

THAT ISN'T DEVOLUTION. EVOLUTION DOESN'T HAVE A "DIRECTION" TO BE EVOLVING TOWARDS/AWAY FROM.

DEVOLUTION DOESN'T EXIST.

>>2445033
Exactly. We no longer need to breed the fittest, strongest, most durable humans to survive, because we have developed intelligence instead. But we are, in a way, getting smarter collectively, as more people are educated...

>>2445026
>shit genes
There are no shit genes, only genes best suited to the environment. If anything genetic diversity is increasing, which is beneficial for adaptive flexibility, should the environment change.

>>2445057
Ok, so maybe strictly devolution is the wrong word, but you get the idea. We are no longer collectively evolving, and we are re-adding the shit back into the gene pool. It's as opposite to evolution as you're gonna get.

>>2444766
Alright, I stand corrected. I read the Wikipedia entry, and it seems that most epigenetic changes "reset" each generation, such as stem cells becoming specific types of cells. The epigenetic change that affected subsequent generations the article mentions seems to have been caused by malnutrition. And the change mentioned is only the health of the descendants, at the most specific being the rate of cardiovascular death. I agree it's obvious that the famine had an effect on people's descendants, but the effect is so non-specific (mortality rates and infant weight) that I don't think it supports to idea of trans-generational adaptation. I use the word adaptation, because I agree that a small evolutionary step has occurred, but it doesn't seem to be a reaction to and compensation for the triggering event.

>>2445096
You should have a look at reference 4 and 5

>>2445064
>>No shit genes
>>Genetically inherant disorders/diseases

>>2445094

NO MORE THAN A POPULATION OF CAMELS THAT MOVES TO A TROPICAL RAIN FOREST IS "OPPOSITE-EVOLVING" BY LOSING THEIR HUMP.

GENETIC HEALTH IS PURELY A FUNCTION OF ENVIRONMENT. IF AN ENVIRONMENT REQUIRES CERTAIN TRAITS (A HUMP, WORKING EYES) THEN GENES THAT DON'T ACCOMPLISH THOSE ARE UNSUITABLE, BUT IF AN ENVIRONMENT DOESN'T REQUIRE THOSE TRAITS, THEY'RE SUITABLE AGAIN.

>>2445094
>We are no longer collectively evolving, and we are re-adding the shit back into the gene pool.
How the fuck is that a bad thing?
>There are no shit genes [...] If anything genetic diversity is increasing, which is beneficial for adaptive flexibility, should the environment change.

Lamarckianism would make a great mechanic for a fantasy series

Seriously

Make it steampunk, set it in the 1700s/1800s when Lamarckianism has some level of credibility for added flair

Get on it

I know this is stupid, but do you guys remember wall-e? Planet earth was filled with thrash, and humans forcibly made an extreme adaptation: they ran away to space, and became fat. If that were to happen, we would die pretty soon. We would "deteriorate" and perish.

>>2445118
...I see what you mean.
But I hardly see how having Huntingtons would be useful if an environmental change occured.

>>2445124
>didn't read: >>2444696

>>2445140

YOU REALLY NEVER KNOW, MAN. NATURE IS A FICKLE, SADISTIC BITCH WHO SPENT EXACTLY AS MUCH TIME AND EFFORT LOVINGLY HAND-CRAFTING RABBITS AS SHE DID VENOMS THAT AREN'T LETHAL, BUT INFLICT SUCH HORRIFIC PAIN THAT VICTIMS KILL *THEMSELVES* BEFORE IT RUNS ITS COURSE.

IT WOULDN'T SHOCK ME AT ALL IF THERE WAS A "SHIT ALL YOUR GUTS OUT IN SIXTY SECONDS" TOXIN THAT ONLY PEOPLE WITH HUNTINGTON'S ARE IMMUNE TO.

>>2445140
Ok, so what about the over >9000 genetically inherent disorders that we have?
Nature would have to work overtime to make sure that every human being dies out if they aren't retarded.

>>2445140
Funny that you should mention an incurable and untreatable disease. But let's take cickle-cell anemia for instance. You would consider it a 'shit' genotype, because on average homozygous individuals with this disease live shorter and have serious pain throughout their lives, yet, it provides protection against malaria. This is why these genes are so prevalent in areas were malaria is common. The point here is that the environment determines what good genes are. Lots of different genes means lots of different possibilities for adaptation if the environment changes.

>>2445110
Crap. Was hoping to not have to read too much. I was even hoping the article wouldn't be available without a subscription, so I could ask you to sum it up. But it's available.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1420-9101.1998.11020159.x/pdf
I'm going to step out of this discussion. I don't feel much like reading some articles right now, and I'm developing a headache. But I'll look into this later. Thanks for the info.

>>2445168
That is a good point, yes. But it is sort of a minority.

>>2445167
see >>2445167

>>2445026

>genetic diseases, fat people, short people, weak people, thick people, allergies etc.

>Because there is no natural selection any more due to the success of human civilisation, we are filling the gene pool with loads of shit genes.

You are very fucking retarded if you think that people who fit your description have tons of offspring.

>>2445141
did I need to to state that Lamarckianism would make a great gimmick for a fantasy novel, bro?

I don't think I did.

Imagine taking Lamarckianism to an extreme and making that a core mechanic in a fantasy series was basically all I was saying.

>>2445178
No problem, and might I complement you on your gracious way of handling yourself in a discussion? We need more of you on /sci/.

>>2445180
*sigh*
How do you know that? Do you know the effect of every single genotype in every single environment?

>>2445185
Thats not what I meant at all.
I simply meant that these people are SURVIVING, and wouldn't have done before we developed significant civilisation.

>>2445187
I think it would make a better place in a science fiction novel- like there was a massive technology advance that allowed lamarckian evolution to happen- say it was from medical nanobots.
I think that would be pretty badass.

>>2445187
>set it in the 1700s/1800s when Lamarckianism has some level of credibility
>implying it doesn't have any credibility
But it does, sort of.

>>2445194
No, but you don't hear about many having positive side effects, yet we know about SSA.
I'm not saying there aren't any others.

>>2445195

>I simply meant that these people are SURVIVING, and wouldn't have done before we developed significant civilisation.

The increased survival of the genetically inferior has nothing to do with evolution. They are unlikley to pass on their defective genes so the length of time they live is irrelevent to the conversation.

>Lamarckism, Darwinism, Neo Darwinism

High schoolers, high schlooers everywhere.

Bitches don't know about the nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution.

>>2445200
It does but I clearly meant when it was more in vogue in the scientific and popular culture, that's all I was trying to imply bro sorry if you think I was implying anything more than that

I was saying it would make a cool mechanic for a steampunk setting since it was more in vogue in that time frame and what not.

So you could have like artistocrats who are like extremely obese due to generations of being fat and corrupt, inventors with massive brains because of their history of education and experimentation, blacksmiths with massive arms from hammering all day, etc.

Take it right to the edge of absurdity and ride that line you could have a real cool setting on your hands

Just something I've thought since first introduced to Lamarckianism in Anth 101

Hey guys I was just passing by the neighborhood when suddenly I dropped this and...

OOPS

>>2445212
I don't suppose you'd have a neat little theory to apply to self-replicating molecules which explains why some are preferred over others when they self-replicate?
There's one called darwin who had a good shot at the fundamental ideas, even if he didn't really get the unit of selection so right.

>>2445205
>I'm not saying there aren't any others.
Well than, I see you've conceded the argument. I believe we can all go home happy and satisfied with a fruitful discussion.

>>2445208
But they wouldn't have survived before, but now they do. So now they do reproduce, and pass their genes on.
Achondroplasia causes a form of dwarfism, and the Homozygous genotype is fatal (stillbirth). Things like being fat due to genes aren't. So these people get help from healthcare, and can make sticky and have children. The genes are passed on.
In the early days of man,disabled people for example would have been laughed at and probably left to die because it was retarded. If they ever grew up they would have been left out anyway because they couldn't pull their own weight.

Natural selection is the dominant paradigm in evolutionary biology.

There are small fragments trying to revive Lamarck's ideas, but they are in the minority and their ideas are nowhere near as accepted as the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Random genetic drift is also proposed as a mechanism (see Kimura) but it too is downplayed as a major mechanism in evolution.

Within the study of natural selection are the camps that argue the strength of it. They very from "adaptionists" (absolute strength) to people who think more like Gould. Other ideas trying to explain biodiversity are not as supported by evidence and few working evolutionary biologists give those ideas as much credence as they do natural selection as a means of evolutionary change.

Source: I am a graduate student in evolutionary biology.

>>2445234
Again, why would this be bad?

>>2445253
Ahw man, that was a great post until the appeal to authority.

Natural selection is the dominant paradigm in evolutionary biology.

There are small fragments trying to revive Lamarck's ideas, but they are in the minority and their ideas are nowhere near as accepted as the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Random genetic drift is also proposed as a mechanism (see Kimura) but it too is downplayed as a major mechanism in evolution.

Within the study of natural selection are the camps that argue the strength of it. They vary from "adaptionists" (absolute strength) to people who think more like Gould. Other ideas trying to explain biodiversity are not as supported by evidence and few working evolutionary biologists give those ideas as much credence as they do natural selection as a means of evolutionary change.

Source: I am a graduate student in evolutionary biology.

>>2445273
Ahw man, that was a great post until the appeal to authority.

>>2445234

>So now they do reproduce, and pass their genes on.


What part of no one wants to fuck a fat diseased person do you not understand?

Your entire line of reasoning is flawed anyways. If genetically inferior people exist, then that means their genes have been passed on before the advancements that allow them to live longer. So they advancements that allow them to live longer has nothing to do with their presence in the gene pool.

Because living longer is not the same as having offspring. And we go back to the fact that people who are genetically inferior are unlikley to have offspring because no one wants to fuck a disesed peice of shit.

>>2445280

The fallacy fallacy.

>>2445287
Hey, I'm not arguing against you. I just thought the mention of your education was kind of lame. The post would have done well without it.

>>2444568

>Creationism

>>2445287
The fallacy fallacy fallacy.

>>2445309

I could of been a bigger dick and mentioned where I go to school.

Saying I'm in grad school is no different than someone mentioning they are an undergrad, working in industry, or sadly, as /sci/ sees too often, in high school.

Being in grad school for this and publishing in the field makes me more knowledgeable than the OP of this thread, and yes, more knowledgeable than you. If it butthurts you, that's fine; I get paid to write papers about evolution.

>>2445333
>and yes, more knowledgeable than you
The funny thing is I'm also a grad student. You shouldn't mention it unless someone questions your authority, you know, like you just did.

>>2445333

>more knowledgeable than you

Since you think being in grad school makes you smart, apparently you are not smarter than most people.

You are paying for the "honor" of being there. It says nothing about your knowledge or abilities.

>>2445514

You have to have a lot of knowledge and ability in your subject area to get into grad school. Being in grad school does not make one smart but it sure as hell proves that one is.

Unless it's a really shitty grad school, in which case he's just an idiot with rich parents and no direction in life.

>>2445541

> Being in grad school does not make one smart but it sure as hell proves that one is.

No, it means he paid them. It doesn't prove intellegence of knwoledge of a particular field. It does prove he can meet the arbitrary requirements of whoever he paid to be there, whatever those may be.

>>2445725

In that case he falls into the "shitty grad school" category. Unless that's how things work in your country, in which case your education system is fucked up.

>>2445033
Read Dawkins' The Greatest Show On Earth. You display a profound lack of understanding of biological evolution by natural selection.

>>2445879
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. English isn't my first language, so sorry. But I'll follow your advice, thanks.

>>2446099
Sure. In short, you are describing what's known as "group selection". Let me paraphrase an example by Dawkins.

Consider a tree. Why does it grow tall? To get light to live. Why does it need to grow tall? Because the other trees grow tall to try and take 'its' sun light. It grows tall as a response to try and get sun light for itself. However, growing tall has costs. It takes more energy to maintain that tall trunk. Thus, growing tall in order to get light is /worse off for every single individual/.

Consider the Forest Of Friendship, where every tree 'agrees' to only grow 10 ft tall. Everyone will still get the same amount of sun light, and it's even more efficient! However, eventually a mutation will happen which will cause a single tree to say "Fuck it. I'm growing taller and taking my neighbor's sun light." And that selfish tree will grow better and reproduce better until that kind of tree outcompetes the "nice" trees into extinction.

Group selection was so debunked like 30 years ago in Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.

Let me again paraphrase Dawkins: Evolution by natural selection will always select the most fit individual (or gene), /even if/ that means that the entire species will go extinct. There will be no prudent hunter lions because natural selection will select the non-prudent hunter every time, up until the very last lion and the extinction of lions.

>>2446132
Note that I'm simplifying a bit. I'm ignoring kin selection and reciprocal altruism, but let's leave that for the more advanced courses. Dawkins covers both in The Greatest Show On Earth.