About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory

This has never been controversial. Normally, natural selection is given as the means by which the environment affects the genome. Again, this is well accepted. Was there?You are attributing this idea of a wrinkle to Dennett, who I would describe as a pan-selectionist. There have always been critics of the pan-selectionist view, with Gould as perhaps the best known.

I think zi ko is a proponent of the Gaia Hypothesis. I had never heard of such a thing before but it was brought up in my Ecology lecture the other day as one way that people view interactions of the environment and organisms. When my professor mentioned it, zi ko's line of thinking immediately came to mind.I had though zi ko's views were kinda whack, but apparently he is not alone. There is a whole "hypothesis" that he seems to have drawn his ideas from. I thought maybe this would provide some insight into his position.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : misspelled zi ko

Yes. The Gaia hypothesis have some similarities with my views. Leaving out teleological thoughts, i think the whole Universe is a model of intercommuniation, where information exchange is the real essense and the defining expression of life. So the Universe is really alive. In sequence life in Earth, as the end result of this intercommunication depends on this information exchange.Nothing at this sense is random, as randomness itself is a natural, amongst others, sometimes more economical mechanism, to stabilise life ( eg. to preserve communication). . Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

In an entirely limited fashion. Epigenetic changes cannot build on each other. The primary form of epigenetics is methylation. A CpG island is either methylated or it is not. That's it. That's all it can do. Chromatin modifications have more scope and, in a very limited sense, one modification can enable another, but it cannot build new functionality or enable new modifications in the way DNA can.Remember that the very most epigenetic modification can do is enable or disable existing genetic components, or vary their levels of expression. I don't want to diminish the importance of these features - expression regulation is extremely important - but they don't compare to the ability of genetic change to form entirely new proteins, duplicate proteins, form hybrid proteins, and so on. Sure, I just wanted to emphasise that epigenetics is not Lamarckism.

Who can denay by evidence that this modification is really limited and stops at a level that fits your preconcieved ideas. Maybe the time scale available to make sure deductions about their action on DNA is limited.

Perhaps you'd like to define what you mean by epigenetics, because what I mean by epigenetics is what biologists mean by epigenetics and they do not alter DNA sequences. It seems you want to go beyond anything we actually know or have evidence before.Tell me, Zi ko, in your own words, what is epigenetic modification and how does it - at the molecular level - operate?

This Gaia hypothesis or "Mother Earth" is the premise of the movie Avatar, that earth is actually alive. I don't see how you can actually remove teleological thoughts from that idea though. Perhaps you think if you say there is no separate divine being but the universe as a whole is alive, then that gets around the teleological aspect of the hypothesis. I don't see it that way, but instead makes the universe itself and all that is a part of it a divine being.But that is not the topic of the thread, so I won't keep going about it.As far as epigenetics goes, there is a lot of work being done in this area and they are finding that epigenetic marks are somewhat inheritable and can affect future generations. Article from 2010 This may indeed affect selective pressure as gene expression is modified. Some scientists have referred to this as a type of Lamarckian inheritance, but it certainly is not Lamarckian in the tradition sense of the term (as pointed out by several other posters).From one of your quotes in Message 1As has been pointed out several times, there is a significant difference between "alter the expression" and "alter the sequence". I think we will discover more and more about epigenetics and its role in the evolutionary process, but I don't see how you can use this to support your idea of guided mutations, since epigenetics does not change DNA sequences (at least is not known to).I also don't see where you have provided the basic tenets of this New Lamarickian Synthesis. It just seems as the same old argument that mutations are not random but guided by the environment and nobody on this forum but you sees this connection.There is also another problem with this idea. You suggest that the entire universe is alive as a united entity (or at least that is part of the Gaia hypothesis). This would mean that abiotic features are actually part of this living being and can play a role in guiding mutations. How do abiotic features guide mutational changes in DNA? If they aren't acting with a conscious effort, aren't these changes just random with respect to the needs of the individuals?HBD

Right. There is not yet proof of epigenetics altering the basic structure of DNA. But we read in WIKIE:" ...then some epigenetic changes are inherited from one generation to the next.[12] This raises the question of whether or not epigenetic changes in an organism can alter the basic structure of its DNA (see Evolution, below), a form of Lamarckism."
So the question at least had been raised.
We know that up to now nobody had described a random mutation in action leading to a new species and the explanation given by Modern Synthesis Theory in multicellular organisms is the big timescale necessary for this to be seen. So random mutations in metazoa is an unfalsifiable theory. This explanation can be given for guided mutations. Maybe we will be luckier than Darwinists were. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

No. You started the thread, you pony up the evidence.My prediction is that you will do what you always do and say:'do you expect me, an non scientist provide the evidence?'If I'm wrong I will buy you a bag of balloons.ABE: See?Edited by Larni, : The very next post.

So can we agree that none of us can bring the needed evidence? It would be a very good start. Of course it pains,especially for you anderstandably, as after 250 years of intense research, the results are so meagre for the randomness of mutations. After all a theory or a hypothesis does not always need to bring the needed evidence.
Do you think it is realistic or even normal to expect a non specific scientist or even a specific one to provide all you want to be persuated, which i don't intent to. On the OP I related some work done in the field. Can you comment on them?

Hi Zi Ko,One doesn't argue that unless someone has evidence that unicorns don't exist that therefore they do. And one doesn't argue that unless someone has evidence that mutations aren't guided that therefore they are.If you wanted to discuss the case for random mutations then you should have proposed that topic, but you didn't. Please make your case by presenting the evidence for Lamarckian synthesis instead of asking others for the evidence against.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.Edited by Admin, : Improve bad writing.

Needed evidence for what? Your OP suggested that there is a "New Lamarckian Synthesis." But you have presented no indication of what that theory may be. The only thing you have suggested is epigenetic inheritance. It has been explained that epigenetics is not the same thing as mutation. Now you complain that no one is presenting the evidence for mutations being random. Yes it is realistic! You have made the claim, now back it up. Personally, I wouldn't have to have hard, empirically proven evidence in order to consider the possibility. I have even argued for non-random mutations in the past. I still think there may be more to the situation than meets the eye, and there may indeed be some non-random component to evolution. But you have presented nothing at all. This is about the extent of your supporting statements: "Epigenetics may be inheritable." And from that you conclude there is a "New Lamarckian Synthesis." I might be able to agree with this to a point. It does seem as though the concept of random mutations is insufficient to explain the large scale evolutionary changes we observe in the fossil record. But the evidence that there is for random mutations is rather compelling. The evidence for guided mutations is virtually non-existent. Epigenetics is not the same thing as guided mutations. Period.So what you need to do is build a case for whatever point it is you are trying to make. Do a little bit of study on the process of critical thinking in order to learn how to better form your arguments. If you want your ideas to overturn mainstream scientific thought, I say more power to ya! But you have to build your case with premises, not just wishful thinking.HBD

Oh for fuck sake.Yet again you refuse to post any evidence (as I predicted).I've said this before: you are taking the position of a fuckwit.

No, I mean direct environmental effect on deep DNA. I quote from TIME MAGAZINE, "WHY YOUR DNA ISN'T YOUR DESTINY by JOHN CLOUD:
"The stress of fear, lack of food, lack of mating opportunities etc., are the main causes of soft or deep changes. As these stresses are empathetically transmitted not only to life peers, but to extant population in wild areas, and to proximal generations , the resultant beneficial mutations are fairly quickly established, reducing the time needed by natural selection to do its work. This long time effect is the main cause of speciation as it expresses deep survival needs."

I just read up a little bit (a very little bit) on epigenetic inheritance to understand how it creates heritable changes if the underlying DNA sequence remains unchanged, and one of the examples was DNA methylation. As explained by Wikipedia: If we define mutations as changes to the DNA sequence of nucleotides then this kind of change is not a mutation, but it *is* a change in the DNA, it *is* heritable, and it *can* be caused by the environment. The Wikipedia article on Epigenetics argues at one point that if the genetic code represents the DNA sequence then the "epigenetic code" represents the total state of the cell.Wikipedia mentions of the environment affecting epigenetic factors mostly mean the local cell environment. For single-celled non-communal organisms one could argue that the environment can guide evolution directly, but anything above this level is much more complicated. Most epigenetic discussion that I read was about internal chemical changes during fetal and juvenile development that turn processes on and off. For any external environmental changes to influence internal cellular processes in, say, a mammal would likely require a long chain of internal effects.Zi Ko should pick an example of epigenetic inheritance so we have something concrete to talk about.--Percy