/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2275964]

<span class="math">{\bf TL;DR}[/spoiler] Though evolution in the Darwinian sense is obviously dominant, Lamarck wasn’t 100% wrong (but still pretty wrong).

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 potential 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].

[Anonymous No.2275969]

One of the premises of Lamarckism is the inheritance of acquired traits – Individuals inherit the traits of their ancestors. As described above this has been demonstrated in both single and multi-cellular organisms including humans.

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 Something that at one time may seem outdated (like Lamarckian evolution) might be shown to be more accurate than you thought.

(pic related, but not quite accurate)

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.

[Anonymous No.2275980]

OP you are right. Diabetes for example is an expression of the methylation of certain genes after a big famine in the next two generations.

[Anonymous No.2275991]

>>2275980
Well there you go :)

[Anonymous No.2275998]

>8:25
>8:30
>8:33
How stupid do you think we are? Answer precisely, please, because everyone knows /sci/ is some level of stupid.

[Anonymous No.2276005]

>>2275998
Excuse me?

[Anonymous No.2276009]

OP is still a faggot, as was Lamark

[Anonymous No.2276014]

>>2276009

[Anonymous No.2276023]

>>2275998
0/10

[Anonymous No.2276032]

I think you're just nitpicking, OP. That effect in the vast majority of cases has almost nothing to do with evolution.

[Anonymous No.2276039]

>>2276032
A mechanism for gene expression regulation that doesn't affect the genotype, and is heritable. How the fuck does that not have anything to do with evolution?

[Anonymous No.2276044]

>>2276039
And besides, the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics is obviously very related to evolution.

[Anonymous No.2276067]

>mfw this disproves darwin

[Anonymous No.2276082]

[Anonymous No.2276086]

>>2276082
SUUUULUUUUUU!

[Anonymous No.2276093]

>>2276067
>>2276082

[Anonymous No.2276095]

OP, I agree wholeheartedly. Lamarckism isnt totally wrong. We have these things called epigenes that activate and suppress our genes. During our lifetimes we can alter our primarily active genes and essentially 'mutate'. What most people don't know though is that once epigenetic changes are made via chemical intake from enviromental or dietary interactions, that they are saved and passed down to their offspring. So If I eat so much vitamin B that activated Epigene DC1435 which switched a gene on that made me more prone to get angry. My children would now be more prone to get angry.

Its insane. What we do in our lifetime very well affects our children and grand children.

[Anonymous No.2276101]

>>2276095
Not OP but methylation is epigenetic as well.

[Anonymous No.2276118]

>>2275964
>>2275969
I'm not particularily interested in biology but thanks for a fine post.

[Anonymous No.2276122]

>>2276082
Troll...factor.........five..... Mr. Sulu.

Troll factor nine. Aye sir.

[Anonymous No.2276126]

>>2276118
Thanks!

[Anonymous No.2276144]

Anyone try Lamarckian Poker?

[Anonymous No.2276151]

This is what they use their long necks for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7HCIGFdBt8

[Anonymous No.2276156]

>>2276151
If I had a long neck like that I'd try to suck my own dick.

[Anonymous No.2276159]

/sci/ confirmed for dickless nerds who compensate by pretending they're big scientists and when their views get threatened in the least bit they shout for their mommy

[Anonymous No.2276161]

I think the sheer fact that some very, uh, *specific* organisms (like giraffes and ant-eaters) developed in such a short time is proof enough for Lamarckism.

[Anonymous No.2276167]

>>2276161
It's not though.

[Anonymous No.2276168]

>>2276159
/sci/ confirmed for dickless undergraduates who need to assert their dominance by speaking in a condescending manner and ignoring the discussion at hand.

[Anonymous No.2276170]

>>2276167

Yeah, after all, evolution is just a theory (an guess).

[Anonymous No.2276176]

>>2276168

There's no discussion, everyone's just calling OP a faggot like usual. That's just post-2008 4chan for you.

[Anonymous No.2276178]

>>2276170
It's not though.

[Anonymous No.2276179]

>>2275964
>>2275969
Thanks for a good post. /sci/ needs more people like you.

>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 patterns3 and it has also been shown to be heritable in both single and multicellular organisms4, and recent developments suggest that it’s heritable in mammals as well5.

You need to emphasise the fact that actions during your lifetime can effect changes in gene expression, and that the resulting changes can interact with an organism's survivability and propogation. Coz until >>2276095 I didn't understand how this vindicated Lamarck at all. (I don't know anything about epigenetics)

[Anonymous No.2276188]

>>2276176
One person did that. Did you read the thread?

[Anonymous No.2276194]

>>2276179
Thanks for the protip.

[Anonymous No.2276221]

Wow an actual post that includes references. This must be a first on /sci/

[Anonymous No.2276254]

THIS IS WHAT YOUR EVOLUTION HAS DONE. SCIENCE HAS GONE TOO FAR.

[Anonymous No.2276260]

>>2276221
My heart stopped.

[Anonymous No.2276290]

Nigger.

[Anonymous No.2276311]

>>2276254

[Anonymous No.2276338]

>>2276290
And so the balance is reached.

[Anonymous No.2276357]

I have believed in Lamarckian evolution for as long as I remember, and until someone makes a computer simulation demonstrating that Darwinian evolution is actually possible to produce the kind of relatively rapidly directed changes apparent in the fossil record, I always will believe in Lamarckian evolution.

[Anonymous No.2276363]

>>2276357
0/10

[Anonymous No.2276559]

Back to page one to combat the trolls and philosophy majors.

[Anonymous No.2276596]

[Anonymous No.2276622]

Are you guys sure this isn't some copypasta, and therefore a troll post?

[Anonymous No.2276626]

>>2276622
Haven't seen it before

[Anonymous No.2276635]

>>2276622
How is it a troll post lol?

[Anonymous No.2276938]

This is what your precious evolution science has done!

[Anonymous No.2276991]

Mathematicians have said that any event with odds of 10 to the 50th power or over is impossible even within the entire time frame of the supposed billions of years popularly assigned for the age of the universe.

The odds of an average protein molecule coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 65th power. That's just one protein molecule! Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of them.


so put that in your pipe and smoke it atheist fags

[Anonymous No.2276995]

>>2276991
0/10

Pick a different thread faggot.

[Anonymous No.2277031]

>>2276995
LOLOL the faggot deleted his thread and started his own.

[Anonymous No.2277062]

Bump for science

[Anonymous No.2277065]

I suggest everyone in this thread research epigenetics. Non-DNA induced changes in a phenotype that behaves in a Lamarckian manner. Look it up. It's legit. It's a game changer.

[Anonymous No.2277071]

>>2277065
Methylation <span class="math">is[/spoiler] epigenetics, is it not?

[Anonymous No.2277074]

You are now aware that Norway starved during the second world war, which caused the inhabitants to change their gene expressions to go into starvation mode, which included putting on more fat. You are also now aware that the children born after the war had a much higher rate of obesety. Additionally, you are now aware that the second generation after the war are unusually tall and thin.

tl;dr I think OP is a stand up guy.

[Anonymous No.2277079]

>>2277071

Yeah, that would be classified as epigenetics. But there's more, and epigenetics is the key word to look up if you want to study similar phenomena.

[Anonymous No.2277084]

>>2277079
Thanks for the suggestion

[Anonymous No.2277092]

>>2275969
>To conclude, be skeptical of your own ideas.

You don't need to say this. It's already the cornerstone of the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.2277094]

>>2277065

Or eukaryotic gene regulation in general. Shit gets heavy.

[Anonymous No.2277100]

Look up Richard Semon, OP. Specifically, a work called "Mnemic Psychology." (1909, I think). Alternately, a book about his work called either "Stranger Behind the Engram" or "Forgotton Pioneers: Richard Semon and the Theory of Memory". (different titles, same book).

He developed some pretty incredible theories of 'memory as heredity' using a Lamarkian basis. It was totally ignored for a century until some work in the 1990s in linguistics and psychology (exemplar theory) confirmed a lot of his ideas about engram-complexes and homophony.

[Anonymous No.2277108]

>>2277092
Yes, obviously, but not here on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.2277164]

Here's a decent Time article on epigenetics to get the curious started.

http://www.gpnworld.com/newscenter/newsarticle.asp?a=726

Basic, but worth the read.

[Anonymous No.2277172]

>>2277164
>implying I'm going to read a times article when OP linked us to 5 scientific papers

[Anonymous No.2277225]

>>2277172

It's a good starting point for a laymen, which this board is full of. More of a hype article than anything.

[Anonymous No.2277226]

Awesome A+ post OP.

[Anonymous No.2277421]

OP here, thanks for awesome comments.