[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 21 KB, 239x291, ld.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4952153 No.4952153 [Reply] [Original]

A thought occured to me today after watching a short introductory video on epigenetics.

We all learned in high school that Lamarck hypothesised that traits were passed down according to use/disuse, "if your dad was a weightlifter then you'll get his muscles", but that this was disproven by natural selection. Now epigenetics from what I understood are genetic tags that can be changed over the life of an organism through its behavior or environment, altering how genes are expressed, and also that these tags can be inherited.

Does this mean Lamarck was at least partially right? Or am I misunderstanding something?

>> No.4952165
File: 66 KB, 155x197, 1299612049.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4952165

He was wrong and you need to do more research. Not only that, where has the principles of genetic disposition been disproven? Gonna need some evidence.

>> No.4952166

very, very partially. its not really Lamarckian becasue for example not eating for a long time should according to Lamarckian make your children use less energy or something, but in reality it causes them to become suseptable to hart attacks. so the effect isnt always directly related to the actions.

>> No.4952169

Epigenetics, from what I understand, is everything to do with genes that is not hereditary. There are things that can alter our genes and cause spontaneous development, and they're usually external.

>> No.4952176

Lamarck was wrong, but something similar turned out to be the case in some limited cases.

>> No.4952234

>>4952153
You're right in that epigenetics have raised a lot of questions in the scientific community concerning Lamarck's theory, but epigenetics really only have a significant influence on microevolution while changes on a macro scale are Darwinian (i.e. natural selection of random mutations+Mendelian genetics). Lamarck's theory assumed that different species could evolve solely by the "use/disuse" mechanism.
In general though, what you learn in High-school biology about evolution and genetics is drastically over simplified.

>>4952169
>Epigenetics, from what I understand, is everything to do with genes that is not hereditary.
Not really, from what I understand the genetic material itself doesn't change, but gene expression changes are heritable. Turns out "junk" DNA is junk after all.

>> No.4952258

>>4952165
>He was wrong and you need to do more research
just get out. people like you are why /sci/ is shit.

>> No.4952266

>>4952234
DNA is NOT junk*
ugh

>> No.4952296

>>4952258
>implies i should provide evidence for my opposition.
>Opposes the opposition with no evidence.

And a herpa derpa doo too you too.

>> No.4952321

>>4952296
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
you didn't post any evidence for me to argue against. what are you asking me to have evidence for? It's not even about not posting evidence, it's about the pretentious attitude. Your type does nothing to contribute to discussions. If someone's thinking is wrong, say why they're wrong. If you truly understand it, it shouldn't be that much of a problem. either that or ignore the thread, what's the point of saying "you're wrong, research why". might as well not post. It seems quite a few people come to /sci/ just to wave their dicks around, most of you don't even understand the topic you claim others to be wrong in. you have the added bonus of doing it with a trip. /sci/ is not your personal ego boost. get out.

>> No.4952341

Epigenetics is new and just being properly investigated

------------------------

Everything above and below this line is poorly informed conjecture