This would classified as 'blasphemous' by you guys, but none the less true.
As I just finished Dawkins new book, I found it interesting that he accepted Lamarckian Evolution. I realize most of the readers here do not know about Lamark or his Theory of Evolution, but alas, its up to you to read up about it if you are curious.
Of course, he does not accept the Total Theory of Lamarck, but certain areas of it. He shows this when speaking of the Evolution of Dogs, or rather, wolf to dogs, where he explicitly (indirectly) accepts Lamarcks own Theory, but only parts of it, as stated.
How do Bronze Dog react to this? I mean, I assume you wont pretend that Dawkin wrote something he did not believe (if you ever read the new book), or would you pretend its not 'true' as done with other realities? Just curious here, no insult intended, I just found it very interesting. I even think the Do portion of his book is available to read on Richard Dawkins net or whatever it is called.
Perhaps you could direct us to a page number, Gabe. I've got my copy right on my bookshelf.
There are lots of people who say there are things in God Delusion that simply aren't there. It usually involves taking quotes out of context or poor reading comprehension.
Oh, and if you're talking about epigenetics, no, that's not Lamarckianism.
You are doing me from behind with a pogo stick, epigenetic no lamarckian?
Have you READ lamarcks contribution? Thats ONE of the, few, hings he got right. And its funny how Dawkin emraces it, and henceforth, accepts Lamarck in the same way he accepts Darwin (which had some things wrong ad well).
Re-read the dog section of Richies book, ok, done?
Now read Lamarcks theory about, as you like Rich so much, 'Memetic' (it was Dawkins who made up the word you seem to keen on using if I remember) functions and see, just a slight, resemblance... Yes?
Exactly wht Richie is explaining in the Dog episode is what Lamarck did, now I did not say Lamarck was right, but certain AREAS of his theory was, indeed, correct (You technically do not become Lamarckian because you accept certain aspects, do you).
I fail to see anything about epigenetics that involves the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which, last I checked, was what Lamarckianism was about. DNA is still the basis of heredity. Epigenetics is just about genes that change their expression in response to the environment.
And since I can't press Ctrl+F on a book, perhaps you'd like to expedite my search by giving me a page number, or at least a chapter number.
Nevermind. That entry was only a bit of speculation on neurology: If dogs smelled in "color" or perhaps "pitch." It drifts into something of an analogy on perception and our "middle world".
I don't see any other index entries for dogs, and none for epigenetics or Lamarck.
Oh, and yeah, Dawkins is a cool guy with some useful ideas. I haven't read Selfish Gene yet, but I've gotten some pretty decent summaries and find it to be useful to think of genes as the selfish agents of evolution. I don't remember who said it (though I'll probably be looking it up, soon), but to put it pithily: "A chicken is an egg's way of making more eggs."
As for memes, they act a lot like genes: For example, religious memes tend to make copies of themselves by adding two components: A promise of a reward after death for spreading the meme, and a similar promise of eternal purposeless torture if you don't let that meme be dominant in your mind.
epigenetics that involves the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which, last I checked, was what Lamarckianism was about.
Exactly, thats what Lamarck said. Just because you accept parts of his view (fact) does not mean you acept all of it, you do not need to be ashamed of accepting him, which it seems you are even wanting to use different words to try to get away from accepting just what he said, or Dawkins in this point.
Taking Richies own example of the Wolf to Village Dog, he speaks directly about inheritance of acquired characteristics, just as the newly Scandinavian example, which also confirms Lamarck, using Chickens to test the Theory.
You have seen the latest study about that, have you not? It CONFIRMS (part) of Lamarcks Theory, the offspring of the Chickens gained abilities through their parents by adapting to the enviroment (I dont remember exactly what it was, they adapted to the stress and lack of stress of getting food and the children gained abilities to improve that, ie, less stress, or somesuch, dont take me word by word, was a long time ago I read about it).
Cheezes, whats so afraid of? Your Hero accepts him, why not you?
Nice choice in how you crop my line. Here it is again:
I fail to see anything about epigenetics that involves the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which, last I checked, was what Lamarckianism was about.
And I am unable to find what Dawkins said about it, allegedly in the God Delusion, since I couldn't find an index entry that pointed to anything relevant.
Care to furnish me with a book title and a page number?
As for latest study on epigenetics, cite it. Of course, epigenetics is apparently quite hot with the evo-devo crowd, so I would imagine there are probably hundreds of "latest" studies on it.
As for the last question, boy do you misunderstand what's going on.
1. Science is not a holy hierarchy of priests and saints. I don't just blindly follow what my heroes say. Or what they allegedly say.
2. You still haven't explained how epigenetics is tied into inheritance of acquired characteristics. If you'd provide me a direct citation, I'd be able to read Dawkins's explanation. I'd prefer that, since he generally provides better explanations than you have.
3. So far, it's sounding at the absolute most akin to calling vaccines "homeopathic" because this one tiny case vaguely looks like it obeys the "law of similars."
Jesus mother and Mary, you don't even know what the words you use mean? Cheezes Christ.
epigenetic means that something arises from "non-genetic" (external) factors, such as the mothers stress and worry, or somesuch.
Now, Lamarcks Theory hold ground here, just as the newest study does.
And no, how would I be able to give a page number? Dawkins does not REFERENCe Lamarck, he obviously deny him, just as you, but continue to USE his Theory, that was my point of the Wolf to Village Dog example, the entire section could be written by Lamarck Himself, there is no difference.
But you wish to use another word for it, to try to avoid Lamarck, interestingly enough. Wonder why.
Now, Lamarcks Theory hold ground here, just as the newest study does.
Non-sequitur. That's where the first disconnect is happening. Explain what epigenetics has to do with the passing down of acquired characteristics. The mother being stressed doesn't pass down that stress. It just releases some chemicals that change what the gene functions.
If (Chemical) is present, do X; Else do Y.
That's the gene that gets passed on and acts on the offspring's development. It's not "the mother grew X, therefore the child will grow X."
And no, how would I be able to give a page number? Dawkins does not REFERENCe Lamarck, he obviously deny him, just as you, but continue to USE his Theory, that was my point of the Wolf to Village Dog example, the entire section could be written by Lamarck Himself, there is no difference.
*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*
That's not what I'm asking! Where did Dawkins say whatever you say he's saying? With such poor reading comprehension ability, especially demonstrated here, I need to be able to look up what Dawkins actually said.
Woos misquote/fabricate things Dawkins allegedly said in The God Delusion, hence I ask for a reference. My copy is on the adjacent couch cushion.
But you wish to use another word for it, to try to avoid Lamarck, interestingly enough. Wonder why.
Because it's an entirely distinct phenomenon. It's kind of like how acupuncture people try to say that poking people with needles just about anywhere releases endorphins, therefore acupuncture, a hypothesis about manipulating mystical qi energy by poking needles in very precise locations, is valid.
The God Delusion? Dude, Dawkins new book is called The Greatest Show on Earth, welcome to '09 September....
Now when you aquired the book and read the dog section, no, you dont need to, when you read the FREE quote of the Greatest Show on Earth that I think even PZ Myers quoted or atleast linked to, then you can come back to me.
Now, you simple refuse to accept it, its funny, I dont know why. I mean, look at this: Explain what epigenetics has to do with the passing down of acquired characteristics. The mother being stressed doesn't pass down that stress.
This was an example, but sure, of course you wouldn't get it, I should have gotten that (pun intended). The mother reacts to external stress, say, limited food supply, this will trigger characteristics that may (or may not have) have arosen, say, the ability to preserve food longer so it would no longer need to stress for the time it waits for food (EXAMPLE, so please, as you seem to not understand them, or metaphors), that, my friend is epigenetic's, which you accepted.
This chicken has gained abilities through none internal (ie, external) abilities, that is, through his mothers own experience.
Like I said, this is still a 'new' area now, it seems to have blossomed up after been refuted by 'scientist' and now the 'scentist' throw themselves over it, therefore my Chicken example which was done and confrimed Lamarck.
Hard to accept, why? I dont know. I have no problem accepting fact, why do you?
Okay, looks like I misread the post that started all this. I do intend to pick up a copy of the new book, but I drifted towards thinking about God Delusion, since that's a favorite to misquote and misattribute. Sorry.
---
This was an example, but sure, of course you wouldn't get it, I should have gotten that (pun intended). The mother reacts to external stress, say, limited food supply, this will trigger characteristics that may (or may not have) have arosen, say, the ability to preserve food longer so it would no longer need to stress for the time it waits for food (EXAMPLE, so please, as you seem to not understand them, or metaphors), that, my friend is epigenetic's, which you accepted.
Yes.
This chicken has gained abilities through none internal (ie, external) abilities, that is, through his mothers own experience.
I wouldn't phrase it that way. Still not seeing Lamarck anywhere except in the most trivial, tilt your head and squint kind of way. If you want to call that Lamarckism, you might as well call vaccines "homeopathic" or every needle poke "acupuncture."
Like I said, this is still a 'new' area now, it seems to have blossomed up after been refuted by 'scientist' and now the 'scentist' throw themselves over it, therefore my Chicken example which was done and confrimed Lamarck.
1. You really have no idea how science works, do you? Science is a conservative force and criticizes all new ideas. The ones that don't get refuted are the ones that are accepted. Don't buy into the mainstream media narrative spin they put on every old piece of science.
Okay, looks like I misread the post that started all this. I do intend to pick up a copy of the new book, but I drifted towards thinking about God Delusion, since that's a favorite to misquote and misattribute. Sorry.
No doubt caused by my incompetence to form a sentence, am I right? You need an excuse do you not?
I wouldn't phrase it that way. Still not seeing Lamarck anywhere except in the most trivial, tilt your head and squint kind of way. If you want to call that Lamarckism, you might as well call vaccines "homeopathic" or every needle poke "acupuncture."
No, you would phrase it differently, I wonder how that changes this fact.. Oh, it doesn't, so why even say you would phrase it differently? I don't know.
Do you know, when I first read this section of the book (I saw it first on Pharyngula BEFORE I bough the book mindyou) I got the feeling, STRAIGHT AWAY, of Lamarck, why? Because it is sorta, youknow, The same as his Theory, thats how I saw it.
Reading the Entire book, and to be honest, sections of it was a bit damp, so to say. Other was excellent. Not to mince words, the entire book is a bashing on Creationist, a bit to much for my taste, it does not suit a book written by a Scientist and someone promoting Science, to have Creationistic Bashing straight in your face, in it, it just feels awkward, but beside that, its good.
Now, Lamarck's Theory says that that a animal (he stated Organism, not animal, but alas) can pass on characteristics that it acquired during his or hers lifetime to its offspring (children).
Now, the Chicken example is just that, its a perfect example of Lamarckism, thats the irony of all this, that you do not 'see' how a statement saying example the same as (simplified) Theory, is beyond me.
The offspring, that is, the Chicken, gains an ability (either by evolution or switching of genes) an ability because of his parents reaction to the enviroment it lives in, ie, Lamarckism.
"Stretching of the neck" does indeed come to mind, but never mind that, it does not change that the latest research has shown that Lamarck was indeed correct, Dawkins himself uses Lamarckism as an example (Wolf to Village Dog) and yet, he and others, such as you, deny your acceptance of it.
No doubt caused by my incompetence to form a sentence, am I right? You need an excuse do you not?
For this instance, it was my reading at fault, and me to blame.
No, you would phrase it differently, I wonder how that changes this fact.. Oh, it doesn't, so why even say you would phrase it differently? I don't know.
It doesn't change the fact that stress on the mother can cause the offspring to change gene expressions. The rephrase I was thinking about is strictly for clarity of the point, not the fact. The problem word would be "experience" as that denotes a neurological effect, not something along the lines of hormones.
Do you know, when I first read this section of the book (I saw it first on Pharyngula BEFORE I bough the book mindyou) I got the feeling, STRAIGHT AWAY, of Lamarck, why? Because it is sorta, youknow, The same as his Theory, thats how I saw it.
And I don't see it.
Now, Lamarck's Theory says that that a animal (he stated Organism, not animal, but alas) can pass on characteristics that it acquired during his or hers lifetime to its offspring (children).
True.
Now, the Chicken example is just that, its a perfect example of Lamarckism, thats the irony of all this, that you do not 'see' how a statement saying example the same as (simplified) Theory, is beyond me.
Except it's not. The mother's stressed, therefore she releases a hormone or something that changes a gene expression in her offspring. You haven't shown me how that mother has developed that same characteristic in her lifetime.
The offspring, that is, the Chicken, gains an ability (either by evolution or switching of genes) an ability because of his parents reaction to the enviroment it lives in, ie, Lamarckism.
Except that reaction (stress, hormones or whatever being released) is not the acquired characteristic the child is getting.
"Stretching of the neck" does indeed come to mind, but never mind that, it does not change that the latest research has shown that Lamarck was indeed correct, Dawkins himself uses Lamarckism as an example (Wolf to Village Dog) and yet, he and others, such as you, deny your acceptance of it.
I've heard that one from homeopaths going on about vaccines, and how, by dumb luck, they superficially resemble something his sympathetic magic of "Law of Similars" that essentially says you treat like with like, since, somehow, the body can't handle a double-copy of the same symptoms.
You don't seem to understand the problem I'm having with this labeling. It's about as remarkable as a broken clock being right twice a day. I'm willing to accept Lamarck might have been trivially right in limited cases, but I still don't see the connection between epigenetics and Lamarck.
Gabe: What BD is saying, in essence, is that the mother doesn't have the trait being passed down from the changes herself. The mother will just have something that sets off the trait in the child, instead of having the trait herself.
I'm willing to accept Lamarck might have been trivially right in limited cases, but I still don't see the connection between epigenetics and Lamarck
This is the key here, I think. Certain very recent studies are showing a passing resemblance between certain epigenetic phenomena and Lamarckian acquired characteristics, but that doesn't mean Lamarck was right. It means he made a guess without empirical backup that turned out to be somewhat like something scientists would find through empirical study many years later.
The types of things that can be passed to offspring through epigenetic factors, I might note, are nothing (as far as I know) as dramatic as the large-scale changes in phenotype that Lamarck explained with his theory. Something like a past famine correlated with a slightly higher rate of diabetes two generations later, likely due to epigenetic changes acquired during the famine and passed on to offspring, is nothing like the major physiological changes explained by Lamarck and by evolutionary theory. Moreover, epigenetic change and transmission are not necessarily adaptive, as Lamarckian evolutionary changes are; the particular genes switched "on" or "off" by methyl groups are a complex result of complex changes in the environment and they can always be changed back or completely reconfigured. They do not effect permanent change in the style of gametic mutations, and thus are much less subject to natural selection (if at all).
"As I just finished Dawkins new book, I found it interesting that he accepted Lamarckian Evolution. I realize most of the readers here do not know about Lamark or his Theory of Evolution, but alas, its up to you to read up about it if you are curious."
Wow, I'm impressed Gaybe took a different tack! He must have conceded defeat on the whole "racial superiority" thing. Gaybe, attacking Dawkins is a brave thing to do. And an extremely stupid one too, for folks like you. Is that Troll roast that I smell?
"This would classified as 'blasphemous' by you guys, but none the less true."
Sorry to urinate on your bonfire Gaybe, but Lamarckianism isn't blasphemy to science. Science isn't religion, as it relies on the scientific method to test assumptions. In theology you can make any old shit up and have it become unchallenged dogma. JS:)
"Reading the Entire book, and to be honest, sections of it was a bit damp, so to say. Other was excellent. Not to mince words, the entire book is a bashing on Creationist, a bit to much for my taste, it does not suit a book written by a Scientist and someone promoting Science, to have Creationistic Bashing straight in your face, in it, it just feels awkward, but beside that, its good."
Dude, that is what the book is for, bashing the stupid ideas of creationists by showing the FACTS made by way of scientific discoveries.
"Of course, he does not accept the Total Theory of Lamarck, but certain areas of it. He shows this when speaking of the Evolution of Dogs, or rather, wolf to dogs, where he explicitly (indirectly) accepts Lamarcks own Theory, but only parts of it, as stated."
Gaybe, are you on about the breeding of tamer silver foxes by Dimitri Belyaev (pages 73-76)? Is that your Lamarckian "heresy"?
I realize most of the readers here do not know about Lamark or his Theory of Evolution, but alas, its up to you to read up about it if you are curious."
What an arrogant, presumptuous little shitbag our racist is! He's the only one with enough book-learnins to know about fucking Lamarck (not "Lamark")! The rest of us is just dumb folks awaitin' for a drop 'a his wisdom.
Yeah, people who regularly defend evolutionary theory against its multifarious detractors have never heard of Lamarck. Only some shitbag racist who claims to have read Richard Dawkins' new book.
I will point out, at the very least, that Lamarck made testable predictions. For example, cut off a mouse's tail, and the children won't have one either. I forget how many mice this got tested on, but it never resulted in a single tailless mouse.
In Gaybe's defence his argument is basically; "Ha ha Dawkins is really a Lamarckianist, except he isn't a Lamarckianist and I've read Dawkins book, though I can't tell you the exact pages I read, that lead my skewed mind to convince me that that he explicitly indirectly IS a Lamarckianist,except when he isn't.Ha Ha! Blasphemous truth that gets you atheistic sciencey people all hot 'n' bothered ha ha, aren't I all white and superior!"
So it kinda makes a whole lotta sense if you're a racist idiot with not a jot of reason or logic. Maybe he thought he could get us all frothing with hisconfused non blasphemous non insult?
Thought: epigenetics is a form of stimulus-response that takes place across generations.
In essence, the stimulus is conditions that occur unpredictably, and the response is expression of genes that help one generation down the line. As such, epigenetics presents a tradeoff: more radical responses are possible, but delayed. Natural selection and epigenetics represent solutions to two different problems of changing conditions.
Natural selection is the best solution to the problem of unpredictable transitions between predictable conditions. Epigenetics addresses less drastic change that follows a specific pattern, but occurs sporadically.
If anyone's curious, the reason we don't have epigenetic memories is probably that the information content of the nucleus, high as it is, looks to be still too low for that purpose.
If anyone's curious, the reason we don't have epigenetic memories is probably that the information content of the nucleus, high as it is, looks to be still too low for that purpose.
No, it's because we haven't yet bred the Kwisatz Haderach and fed him a buttload of melange.
"Is it just me, or are Dune references on the rise?
There a new Dune meme making its way around that I'm not yet aware of?"
Yeah. I thought it appropriate to start the Dune meme rolling to mock Gaybe's idea that he was some kind of ubermensch. Kwisatz Haderach he ain't. He can't even string a coherent argument together. Examining Gaybe's gene line we'd see the deleterious effects on mental cognition that comes from too much inbreeding from a small gene pool of racist rednecks. JS;)
I'll say one thing for our untermensch. He hasn't had a frothing meltdown after I used #104U R TEH GAY!!! on him. I was hoping he'd go into full rant mode after I spelled his name Gaybe. Most of the Nazi fuckwits I've argued with have been vehemently anti gay, and scream with anger when their sexuality is questioned. I was going to try out some more woo merchant doggerel on him, but he has changed his angle of attack and it is now even easier to blow his puny posts out of the water.
"This would classified as 'blasphemous' by you guys, but none the less true."
Posted by MW Chase: "I will point out, at the very least, that Lamarck made testable predictions. For example, cut off a mouse's tail, and the children won't have one either. I forget how many mice this got tested on, but it never resulted in a single tailless mouse."
Looks like your support for Lamarckian inheritance has suffered a major blow Gabe.
Try The Blind Watchmaker on for size. Dawkins does a pretty good job of demolishing lamarckism as not just an idea that has no supporting evidence, but as an idea that, even if it WERE true, would NOT stand as a replacement for natural selection in the least.
For example, let's assume the idea that a giraffe stretching it's neck actually did cause it's decendants' necks to be a little longer. The very first question you have to ask is WHY would it make the decendent's necks longer? There would have to be some sort of explanation, and it would have to be one based in something like natural selection. Secondly, it at best can only explain only the bluntest most rudamentary of changes. "Using something makes it bigger" may work to explain a long neck or large muscles, but how does it explain the intricate shape of the eye or the complicated array of chemical interactions that make up the internal structure of a cell? In what way can one's eyes be "used" more in places to make the cornea shaped just so?
Further, there are clear cases where it's best when something often used is reduced in size. How exactly does the body know what is "best" for each part?
Those limited cases where "using something makes it bigger" are cases like excersizing muscles. However, explaining it as some universal truth answers nothing, and invokes, at best, a mystical "sense of what is best for a creature" that the body would have to somehow possess. It can't explain intricate structure the way natural selection can, and there is zero evidence for it. A blacksmith's son won't have stronger arms than normal. He'll have to excercize just as much to get to that point.
Natural selection, on the other hand, does a great job of explaining WHY excercize makes muscles grow and sunlight makes one get a tan. There is a specific chemical reaction in the skin that responds to sunlight. This isn't just how any old substance reacts in the light, this is a process selected for over generations.
Muscles becoming stronger is just a simple example of "only grow what is needed to save energy". There is nothing inherant in using a muscle that would make it become stronger. Think of any robot arm you've seen. Do they become stronger over time? Nope, they tend to wear out. A very specific and complicated process had to be adapted in order to have that result. The real question isn't how does it become stronger, it's why aren't we already super strong from the moment we're born?
There's actually a number of experiments that show that certain genes are directly responsible for inhibiting muscle growth, in the case of the experiment I saw, in mice. Clearly there was good cause for humans to not be at "peak physical performance" at all times. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what that might be, energy! If you don't HAVE to run very far or do as much to get food, you don't grow muscles, and thus don't need as much food. This not only makes things easier on an animal solo, but in the case of humans, someone doing "paper work" or it's stone age equivilant would not be taking up as many resources in the tribe. This would boost the survival rate of that group, most likely sharing those genes, and as a natural result those genes would be more likely to be passed on.
Gabe, lamarckism is a dead concept for a good reason. It never had any evidence supporting it, and further, it was completely incapable of explaining the complexity of life. It's major flaw is that it has to, by it's very nature, assume another process simply to allow itself TO operate, unless one invokes mysticism.
Gabe, lamarckism is a dead concept for a good reason. It never had any evidence supporting it
Indeed, to bad for you that Dawkins do not agree and accepts Lamarckism as seen in the book, The Greatest Show on Earth (you should read it), and that is what this is all about.
Now back to Bronze:
You don't seem to understand the problem I'm having with this labeling..... I'm willing to accept Lamarck might have been trivially right in limited cases, but I still don't see the connection between epigenetics and Lamarck.
I do, thanx to the King of Ferrets, understand your issue with this (thankyou Ferret).
It seems its more of semantics rather then actual science, you do not want to accept Lamarckism bur rather, a modified version of it you call something else, say "Dawkinism", even when this says the same. Okay, fine, lets look at it then.
Lets see what others said: This is the key here, I think. Certain very recent studies are showing a passing resemblance between certain epigenetic phenomena and Lamarckian acquired characteristics, but that doesn't mean Lamarck was right.
Ah, yes, and here someone do accept it, but then attacks the rest of Lamarckism, which everyone else did, and I did in my first post. It seems odd that you forgotten that I do not accept 'Lamarckism', but certain parts of it.
What you need to understand is that Lamarck, just as Darwin, was wrong in many many ways, but just as Darwin, some of it was right, I do not see you saying Darwin was wrong because some of his views where completely of the tracks, do we now?
The best way to approach this, I guess, is by Ferrets comment: What BD is saying, in essence, is that the mother doesn't have the trait being passed down from the changes herself. The mother will just have something that sets off the trait in the child, instead of having the trait herself.
I see, this is worth debating. First we make up a completely random and MADE UP scenario (so please, the rest of you that want to have excuses, get a life), lets use the stress phenomena.
Stress causes the Chicken to trigger already existing genes so her offspring gets them. It is that simple, she also had these genes, but they where simple not active because it was not needed, now, Stress factor and all, it is in use, and her offspring will reap the benefits.
How hard is this to understand? Its quite simple, its Lamarckism, that is, parts of it.
No one is promoting Lamarckism, but we should not pretend that Lamarck was not correct on SOME ISSUES, just as Darwin was, and just as Darwin, he got some things wrong, but we do not speak of does now, do we, only the trolls here do, talking about neck streching and want to get the topic out of context.
Seriously now. I thank King of Ferrets for a decent approach atleast, you seem to be one of few, even if I suspect you will go back to the crowd as soon as gets tough.
"It seems its more of semantics rather then actual science, you do not want to accept Lamarckism bur rather, a modified version of it you call something else..."
Your main problem, untermensch, is that you're just prevaricating. you know fuck all about biology and have provided no proof that you've even read Dawkins latest book. Your perceptions are so skewed by racial paranoia that you believe that the president of the USA is going to give you AIDS. You expect us to believe that you can see an underlying current of Lamarckianism in Richard Dawkins writing? You are merely perceiving your skewed ignorant delusions. You are playing a distraction game. You utterly failed to show that you are in any way superior to any black, red, yellow or sky blue with pink dots skinned person. Stop your stupid and incoherent prevarications and get to the real questions that we brang up or be branded a total coward. How are you supposedly superior to even a snail, you incoherent retard?
I don't praise Lamarckianism as a useful theory for the same reason I don't praise broken clocks for being right twice a day.
I don't praise dead leech-wielding allopaths for being right to categorize people into different, personalized types like modern medicine does.
I don't praise Homeopathy's Law of Similars for being right to prevent a disease with a piece of disease causing germs.
Even if you do manage to show some self-perpetuating epigenetic acquired trait, I still won't go out of my way to praise Lamarck and make it sound like more than accidental correctness.
"What you need to understand is that Lamarck, just as Darwin, was wrong in many many ways, but just as Darwin, some of it was right, I do not see you saying Darwin was wrong because some of his views where completely of the tracks, do we now?"
What you need to understand ,untermensch, is that both Lamarck and Darwin are long dead. The science of evolution has moved on beyond both Lamarck and Darwins' wildest dreams. These are old theories. Give us some modern stuff or be labelled a bullshitting cretinist.
"Ah, yes, and here someone do accept it, but then attacks the rest of Lamarckism, which everyone else did, and I did in my first post. It seems odd that you forgotten that I do not accept 'Lamarckism', but certain parts of it."
You don't even understand any of the outmoded theory of Lamarck. You've merely tied to paint Dawkins with what you call "Lamarckianism", but you couldn't explain what that was unless you googled it.
"No one is promoting Lamarckism, but we should not pretend that Lamarck was not correct on SOME ISSUES, just as Darwin was, and just as Darwin, he got some things wrong, but we do not speak of does now, do we, only the trolls here do, talking about neck streching and want to get the topic out of context."
Don't try to pretend that you understand anything about either Darwin or Lamarck. You've shown only bluster, not knowledge of these old scientific theorists.
You couldn't even write what DNA stands for without googling it.
Face it, you sad wanker, you are totally out of your depth and are bullshitting to try to recover from the humiliation that you got from being unable to support your racist fantasies. You only display the Nazi stupidity of skewed pseudoscientific bullshittery. Woo wanker! So you've read The Greatest Show on Earth have you? Page 216 has an asterisked note, can you reproduce it for us? Page 243 has a title in bold a quarter of the way down the page. Tell us what it is. Page 454 has a book listed under what name that is sixth down. What name is it? Come on then Gabe, answer these questions or show yourself a bullshitter. EITHER PUT UP OR SHUT UP YOU NAZI LOSER.
I didn't expect any really. He is full of bullshit and too cowardly to try to back up his complete twittery. Gabe, you're a sad little racist retard of a loser. You are superior in no way to any other human being. In fact I could make a good case to say that you are inferior to the rest of humanity. Which is thw whole point of your racism.
Only recently have I been reminded of Blasphemy day on the 30th. Anyone got ideas for something I should post?
44 comments:
Jesus getting a pie in the face! Just because.
If you're struggling for inspiration, why not use the inspirations you've had before?
Create a post linking to your previous blasphemous posts- because every day should be Blasphemy Day!
I may just do both your ideas. :)
This would classified as 'blasphemous' by you guys, but none the less true.
As I just finished Dawkins new book, I found it interesting that he accepted Lamarckian Evolution. I realize most of the readers here do not know about Lamark or his Theory of Evolution, but alas, its up to you to read up about it if you are curious.
Of course, he does not accept the Total Theory of Lamarck, but certain areas of it. He shows this when speaking of the Evolution of Dogs, or rather, wolf to dogs, where he explicitly (indirectly) accepts Lamarcks own Theory, but only parts of it, as stated.
How do Bronze Dog react to this? I mean, I assume you wont pretend that Dawkin wrote something he did not believe (if you ever read the new book), or would you pretend its not 'true' as done with other realities? Just curious here, no insult intended, I just found it very interesting. I even think the Do portion of his book is available to read on Richard Dawkins net or whatever it is called.
Let me know your thoughts on it.
Gabe
Perhaps you could direct us to a page number, Gabe. I've got my copy right on my bookshelf.
There are lots of people who say there are things in God Delusion that simply aren't there. It usually involves taking quotes out of context or poor reading comprehension.
Oh, and if you're talking about epigenetics, no, that's not Lamarckianism.
You are doing me from behind with a pogo stick, epigenetic no lamarckian?
Have you READ lamarcks contribution? Thats ONE of the, few, hings he got right. And its funny how Dawkin emraces it, and henceforth, accepts Lamarck in the same way he accepts Darwin (which had some things wrong ad well).
Not epigenetic, seriously now, Dog...
Here's how it's not Lamarckian.
Perhaps you should try explaining yourself, and why you think it is Lamarckian. You know, like you've promised to do elsewhere on different topics.
Oh Jesus.
Re-read the dog section of Richies book, ok, done?
Now read Lamarcks theory about, as you like Rich so much, 'Memetic' (it was Dawkins who made up the word you seem to keen on using if I remember) functions and see, just a slight, resemblance... Yes?
Exactly wht Richie is explaining in the Dog episode is what Lamarck did, now I did not say Lamarck was right, but certain AREAS of his theory was, indeed, correct (You technically do not become Lamarckian because you accept certain aspects, do you).
Anything else?
I fail to see anything about epigenetics that involves the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which, last I checked, was what Lamarckianism was about. DNA is still the basis of heredity. Epigenetics is just about genes that change their expression in response to the environment.
And since I can't press Ctrl+F on a book, perhaps you'd like to expedite my search by giving me a page number, or at least a chapter number.
Pages 372-3. Seems I forgot there was a convenient index. Proceeding with the reading.
Nevermind. That entry was only a bit of speculation on neurology: If dogs smelled in "color" or perhaps "pitch." It drifts into something of an analogy on perception and our "middle world".
I don't see any other index entries for dogs, and none for epigenetics or Lamarck.
Oh, and yeah, Dawkins is a cool guy with some useful ideas. I haven't read Selfish Gene yet, but I've gotten some pretty decent summaries and find it to be useful to think of genes as the selfish agents of evolution. I don't remember who said it (though I'll probably be looking it up, soon), but to put it pithily: "A chicken is an egg's way of making more eggs."
As for memes, they act a lot like genes: For example, religious memes tend to make copies of themselves by adding two components: A promise of a reward after death for spreading the meme, and a similar promise of eternal purposeless torture if you don't let that meme be dominant in your mind.
epigenetics that involves the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which, last I checked, was what Lamarckianism was about.
Exactly, thats what Lamarck said. Just because you accept parts of his view (fact) does not mean you acept all of it, you do not need to be ashamed of accepting him, which it seems you are even wanting to use different words to try to get away from accepting just what he said, or Dawkins in this point.
Taking Richies own example of the Wolf to Village Dog, he speaks directly about inheritance of acquired characteristics, just as the newly Scandinavian example, which also confirms Lamarck, using Chickens to test the Theory.
You have seen the latest study about that, have you not? It CONFIRMS (part) of Lamarcks Theory, the offspring of the Chickens gained abilities through their parents by adapting to the enviroment (I dont remember exactly what it was, they adapted to the stress and lack of stress of getting food and the children gained abilities to improve that, ie, less stress, or somesuch, dont take me word by word, was a long time ago I read about it).
Cheezes, whats so afraid of? Your Hero accepts him, why not you?
Epigenetic neck-stretching?
(I'm sorry! I meant to stay out of the argument, but I couldn't help it...)
Nice choice in how you crop my line. Here it is again:
I fail to see anything about epigenetics that involves the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which, last I checked, was what Lamarckianism was about.
And I am unable to find what Dawkins said about it, allegedly in the God Delusion, since I couldn't find an index entry that pointed to anything relevant.
Care to furnish me with a book title and a page number?
As for latest study on epigenetics, cite it. Of course, epigenetics is apparently quite hot with the evo-devo crowd, so I would imagine there are probably hundreds of "latest" studies on it.
As for the last question, boy do you misunderstand what's going on.
1. Science is not a holy hierarchy of priests and saints. I don't just blindly follow what my heroes say. Or what they allegedly say.
2. You still haven't explained how epigenetics is tied into inheritance of acquired characteristics. If you'd provide me a direct citation, I'd be able to read Dawkins's explanation. I'd prefer that, since he generally provides better explanations than you have.
3. So far, it's sounding at the absolute most akin to calling vaccines "homeopathic" because this one tiny case vaguely looks like it obeys the "law of similars."
Jesus mother and Mary, you don't even know what the words you use mean? Cheezes Christ.
epigenetic means that something arises from "non-genetic" (external) factors, such as the mothers stress and worry, or somesuch.
Now, Lamarcks Theory hold ground here, just as the newest study does.
And no, how would I be able to give a page number? Dawkins does not REFERENCe Lamarck, he obviously deny him, just as you, but continue to USE his Theory, that was my point of the Wolf to Village Dog example, the entire section could be written by Lamarck Himself, there is no difference.
But you wish to use another word for it, to try to avoid Lamarck, interestingly enough. Wonder why.
Gabe:
epigenetic means that something arises from "non-genetic" (external) factors, such as the mothers stress and worry, or somesuch.
Duh. Non-genetic factors altering gene expression.
Now, Lamarcks Theory hold ground here, just as the newest study does.
Non-sequitur. That's where the first disconnect is happening. Explain what epigenetics has to do with the passing down of acquired characteristics. The mother being stressed doesn't pass down that stress. It just releases some chemicals that change what the gene functions.
If (Chemical) is present, do X;
Else do Y.
That's the gene that gets passed on and acts on the offspring's development. It's not "the mother grew X, therefore the child will grow X."
And no, how would I be able to give a page number? Dawkins does not REFERENCe Lamarck, he obviously deny him, just as you, but continue to USE his Theory, that was my point of the Wolf to Village Dog example, the entire section could be written by Lamarck Himself, there is no difference.
*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*
That's not what I'm asking! Where did Dawkins say whatever you say he's saying? With such poor reading comprehension ability, especially demonstrated here, I need to be able to look up what Dawkins actually said.
Woos misquote/fabricate things Dawkins allegedly said in The God Delusion, hence I ask for a reference. My copy is on the adjacent couch cushion.
But you wish to use another word for it, to try to avoid Lamarck, interestingly enough. Wonder why.
Because it's an entirely distinct phenomenon. It's kind of like how acupuncture people try to say that poking people with needles just about anywhere releases endorphins, therefore acupuncture, a hypothesis about manipulating mystical qi energy by poking needles in very precise locations, is valid.
The God Delusion? Dude, Dawkins new book is called The Greatest Show on Earth, welcome to '09 September....
Now when you aquired the book and read the dog section, no, you dont need to, when you read the FREE quote of the Greatest Show on Earth that I think even PZ Myers quoted or atleast linked to, then you can come back to me.
Now, you simple refuse to accept it, its funny, I dont know why. I mean, look at this: Explain what epigenetics has to do with the passing down of acquired characteristics. The mother being stressed doesn't pass down that stress.
This was an example, but sure, of course you wouldn't get it, I should have gotten that (pun intended). The mother reacts to external stress, say, limited food supply, this will trigger characteristics that may (or may not have) have arosen, say, the ability to preserve food longer so it would no longer need to stress for the time it waits for food (EXAMPLE, so please, as you seem to not understand them, or metaphors), that, my friend is epigenetic's, which you accepted.
This chicken has gained abilities through none internal (ie, external) abilities, that is, through his mothers own experience.
Like I said, this is still a 'new' area now, it seems to have blossomed up after been refuted by 'scientist' and now the 'scentist' throw themselves over it, therefore my Chicken example which was done and confrimed Lamarck.
Hard to accept, why? I dont know. I have no problem accepting fact, why do you?
Okay, looks like I misread the post that started all this. I do intend to pick up a copy of the new book, but I drifted towards thinking about God Delusion, since that's a favorite to misquote and misattribute. Sorry.
---
This was an example, but sure, of course you wouldn't get it, I should have gotten that (pun intended). The mother reacts to external stress, say, limited food supply, this will trigger characteristics that may (or may not have) have arosen, say, the ability to preserve food longer so it would no longer need to stress for the time it waits for food (EXAMPLE, so please, as you seem to not understand them, or metaphors), that, my friend is epigenetic's, which you accepted.
Yes.
This chicken has gained abilities through none internal (ie, external) abilities, that is, through his mothers own experience.
I wouldn't phrase it that way. Still not seeing Lamarck anywhere except in the most trivial, tilt your head and squint kind of way. If you want to call that Lamarckism, you might as well call vaccines "homeopathic" or every needle poke "acupuncture."
Like I said, this is still a 'new' area now, it seems to have blossomed up after been refuted by 'scientist' and now the 'scentist' throw themselves over it, therefore my Chicken example which was done and confrimed Lamarck.
1. You really have no idea how science works, do you? Science is a conservative force and criticizes all new ideas. The ones that don't get refuted are the ones that are accepted. Don't buy into the mainstream media narrative spin they put on every old piece of science.
2. What exactly do you mean by "new?"
3. Where's Lamarck in the example?
Okay, looks like I misread the post that started all this. I do intend to pick up a copy of the new book, but I drifted towards thinking about God Delusion, since that's a favorite to misquote and misattribute. Sorry.
No doubt caused by my incompetence to form a sentence, am I right? You need an excuse do you not?
I wouldn't phrase it that way. Still not seeing Lamarck anywhere except in the most trivial, tilt your head and squint kind of way. If you want to call that Lamarckism, you might as well call vaccines "homeopathic" or every needle poke "acupuncture."
No, you would phrase it differently, I wonder how that changes this fact.. Oh, it doesn't, so why even say you would phrase it differently? I don't know.
Do you know, when I first read this section of the book (I saw it first on Pharyngula BEFORE I bough the book mindyou) I got the feeling, STRAIGHT AWAY, of Lamarck, why? Because it is sorta, youknow, The same as his Theory, thats how I saw it.
Reading the Entire book, and to be honest, sections of it was a bit damp, so to say. Other was excellent. Not to mince words, the entire book is a bashing on Creationist, a bit to much for my taste, it does not suit a book written by a Scientist and someone promoting Science, to have Creationistic Bashing straight in your face, in it, it just feels awkward, but beside that, its good.
Now, Lamarck's Theory says that that a animal (he stated Organism, not animal, but alas) can pass on characteristics that it acquired during his or hers lifetime to its offspring (children).
Now, the Chicken example is just that, its a perfect example of Lamarckism, thats the irony of all this, that you do not 'see' how a statement saying example the same as (simplified) Theory, is beyond me.
The offspring, that is, the Chicken, gains an ability (either by evolution or switching of genes) an ability because of his parents reaction to the enviroment it lives in, ie, Lamarckism.
"Stretching of the neck" does indeed come to mind, but never mind that, it does not change that the latest research has shown that Lamarck was indeed correct, Dawkins himself uses Lamarckism as an example (Wolf to Village Dog) and yet, he and others, such as you, deny your acceptance of it.
It is odd.
Gabe:
No doubt caused by my incompetence to form a sentence, am I right? You need an excuse do you not?
For this instance, it was my reading at fault, and me to blame.
No, you would phrase it differently, I wonder how that changes this fact.. Oh, it doesn't, so why even say you would phrase it differently? I don't know.
It doesn't change the fact that stress on the mother can cause the offspring to change gene expressions. The rephrase I was thinking about is strictly for clarity of the point, not the fact. The problem word would be "experience" as that denotes a neurological effect, not something along the lines of hormones.
Do you know, when I first read this section of the book (I saw it first on Pharyngula BEFORE I bough the book mindyou) I got the feeling, STRAIGHT AWAY, of Lamarck, why? Because it is sorta, youknow, The same as his Theory, thats how I saw it.
And I don't see it.
Now, Lamarck's Theory says that that a animal (he stated Organism, not animal, but alas) can pass on characteristics that it acquired during his or hers lifetime to its offspring (children).
True.
Now, the Chicken example is just that, its a perfect example of Lamarckism, thats the irony of all this, that you do not 'see' how a statement saying example the same as (simplified) Theory, is beyond me.
Except it's not. The mother's stressed, therefore she releases a hormone or something that changes a gene expression in her offspring. You haven't shown me how that mother has developed that same characteristic in her lifetime.
The offspring, that is, the Chicken, gains an ability (either by evolution or switching of genes) an ability because of his parents reaction to the enviroment it lives in, ie, Lamarckism.
Except that reaction (stress, hormones or whatever being released) is not the acquired characteristic the child is getting.
"Stretching of the neck" does indeed come to mind, but never mind that, it does not change that the latest research has shown that Lamarck was indeed correct, Dawkins himself uses Lamarckism as an example (Wolf to Village Dog) and yet, he and others, such as you, deny your acceptance of it.
I've heard that one from homeopaths going on about vaccines, and how, by dumb luck, they superficially resemble something his sympathetic magic of "Law of Similars" that essentially says you treat like with like, since, somehow, the body can't handle a double-copy of the same symptoms.
You don't seem to understand the problem I'm having with this labeling. It's about as remarkable as a broken clock being right twice a day. I'm willing to accept Lamarck might have been trivially right in limited cases, but I still don't see the connection between epigenetics and Lamarck.
Gabe: What BD is saying, in essence, is that the mother doesn't have the trait being passed down from the changes herself. The mother will just have something that sets off the trait in the child, instead of having the trait herself.
I'm willing to accept Lamarck might have been trivially right in limited cases, but I still don't see the connection between epigenetics and Lamarck
This is the key here, I think. Certain very recent studies are showing a passing resemblance between certain epigenetic phenomena and Lamarckian acquired characteristics, but that doesn't mean Lamarck was right. It means he made a guess without empirical backup that turned out to be somewhat like something scientists would find through empirical study many years later.
The types of things that can be passed to offspring through epigenetic factors, I might note, are nothing (as far as I know) as dramatic as the large-scale changes in phenotype that Lamarck explained with his theory. Something like a past famine correlated with a slightly higher rate of diabetes two generations later, likely due to epigenetic changes acquired during the famine and passed on to offspring, is nothing like the major physiological changes explained by Lamarck and by evolutionary theory. Moreover, epigenetic change and transmission are not necessarily adaptive, as Lamarckian evolutionary changes are; the particular genes switched "on" or "off" by methyl groups are a complex result of complex changes in the environment and they can always be changed back or completely reconfigured. They do not effect permanent change in the style of gametic mutations, and thus are much less subject to natural selection (if at all).
"As I just finished Dawkins new book, I found it interesting that he accepted Lamarckian Evolution. I realize most of the readers here do not know about Lamark or his Theory of Evolution, but alas, its up to you to read up about it if you are curious."
Wow, I'm impressed Gaybe took a different tack!
He must have conceded defeat on the whole "racial superiority" thing.
Gaybe, attacking Dawkins is a brave thing to do. And an extremely stupid one too, for folks like you.
Is that Troll roast that I smell?
JS;)
Gabe, you really have no grasp of nuance, do you? Your black and white worldview is rather tenuous, don't you think?
So, did you give up on making a case for white superiority? I suspect this new game of gotcha you're playing is just another distraction.
Prove me wrong.
"This would classified as 'blasphemous' by you guys, but none the less true."
Sorry to urinate on your bonfire Gaybe, but Lamarckianism isn't blasphemy to science.
Science isn't religion, as it relies on the scientific method to test assumptions. In theology you can make any old shit up and have it become unchallenged dogma.
JS:)
"explicitly (indirectly)"
Praytell my good man, how can one be both explicit AND indirect?
Methinks 'tis an oxymoron, and you Gaybe a moron, ha ha!
JS;)
"Reading the Entire book, and to be honest, sections of it was a bit damp, so to say. Other was excellent. Not to mince words, the entire book is a bashing on Creationist, a bit to much for my taste, it does not suit a book written by a Scientist and someone promoting Science, to have Creationistic Bashing straight in your face, in it, it just feels awkward, but beside that, its good."
Dude, that is what the book is for, bashing the stupid ideas of creationists by showing the FACTS made by way of scientific discoveries.
"Of course, he does not accept the Total Theory of Lamarck, but certain areas of it. He shows this when speaking of the Evolution of Dogs, or rather, wolf to dogs, where he explicitly (indirectly) accepts Lamarcks own Theory, but only parts of it, as stated."
Gaybe, are you on about the breeding of tamer silver foxes by Dimitri Belyaev (pages 73-76)?
Is that your Lamarckian "heresy"?
JS:)
Yeah, Gabe. Page number or you haven't read the book.
My favorite part is this:
I realize most of the readers here do not know about Lamark or his Theory of Evolution, but alas, its up to you to read up about it if you are curious."
What an arrogant, presumptuous little shitbag our racist is! He's the only one with enough book-learnins to know about fucking Lamarck (not "Lamark")! The rest of us is just dumb folks awaitin' for a drop 'a his wisdom.
Yeah, people who regularly defend evolutionary theory against its multifarious detractors have never heard of Lamarck. Only some shitbag racist who claims to have read Richard Dawkins' new book.
What a fuck.
I will point out, at the very least, that Lamarck made testable predictions. For example, cut off a mouse's tail, and the children won't have one either. I forget how many mice this got tested on, but it never resulted in a single tailless mouse.
In Gaybe's defence his argument is basically;
"Ha ha Dawkins is really a Lamarckianist, except he isn't a Lamarckianist and I've read Dawkins book, though I can't tell you the exact pages I read, that lead my skewed mind to convince me that that he explicitly indirectly IS a Lamarckianist,except when he isn't.Ha Ha! Blasphemous truth that gets you atheistic sciencey people all hot 'n' bothered ha ha, aren't I all white and superior!"
So it kinda makes a whole lotta sense if you're a racist idiot with not a jot of reason or logic.
Maybe he thought he could get us all frothing with hisconfused non blasphemous non insult?
JS;)
Thought: epigenetics is a form of stimulus-response that takes place across generations.
In essence, the stimulus is conditions that occur unpredictably, and the response is expression of genes that help one generation down the line. As such, epigenetics presents a tradeoff: more radical responses are possible, but delayed. Natural selection and epigenetics represent solutions to two different problems of changing conditions.
Natural selection is the best solution to the problem of unpredictable transitions between predictable conditions. Epigenetics addresses less drastic change that follows a specific pattern, but occurs sporadically.
If anyone's curious, the reason we don't have epigenetic memories is probably that the information content of the nucleus, high as it is, looks to be still too low for that purpose.
If anyone's curious, the reason we don't have epigenetic memories is probably that the information content of the nucleus, high as it is, looks to be still too low for that purpose.
No, it's because we haven't yet bred the Kwisatz Haderach and fed him a buttload of melange.
Is it just me, or are Dune references on the rise?
There a new Dune meme making its way around that I'm not yet aware of?
"Is it just me, or are Dune references on the rise?
There a new Dune meme making its way around that I'm not yet aware of?"
Yeah. I thought it appropriate to start the Dune meme rolling to mock Gaybe's idea that he was some kind of ubermensch.
Kwisatz Haderach he ain't. He can't even string a coherent argument together. Examining Gaybe's gene line we'd see the deleterious effects on mental cognition that comes from too much inbreeding from a small gene pool of racist rednecks.
JS;)
I'll say one thing for our untermensch. He hasn't had a frothing meltdown after I used #104U R TEH GAY!!! on him. I was hoping he'd go into full rant mode after I spelled his name Gaybe.
Most of the Nazi fuckwits I've argued with have been vehemently anti gay, and scream with anger when their sexuality is questioned.
I was going to try out some more woo merchant doggerel on him, but he has changed his angle of attack and it is now even easier to blow his puny posts out of the water.
JS;)
Posted by untermensch Gabe:
"This would classified as 'blasphemous' by you guys, but none the less true."
Posted by MW Chase:
"I will point out, at the very least, that Lamarck made testable predictions. For example, cut off a mouse's tail, and the children won't have one either. I forget how many mice this got tested on, but it never resulted in a single tailless mouse."
Looks like your support for Lamarckian inheritance has suffered a major blow Gabe.
JS:)
Try The Blind Watchmaker on for size. Dawkins does a pretty good job of demolishing lamarckism as not just an idea that has no supporting evidence, but as an idea that, even if it WERE true, would NOT stand as a replacement for natural selection in the least.
For example, let's assume the idea that a giraffe stretching it's neck actually did cause it's decendants' necks to be a little longer. The very first question you have to ask is WHY would it make the decendent's necks longer? There would have to be some sort of explanation, and it would have to be one based in something like natural selection. Secondly, it at best can only explain only the bluntest most rudamentary of changes. "Using something makes it bigger" may work to explain a long neck or large muscles, but how does it explain the intricate shape of the eye or the complicated array of chemical interactions that make up the internal structure of a cell? In what way can one's eyes be "used" more in places to make the cornea shaped just so?
Further, there are clear cases where it's best when something often used is reduced in size. How exactly does the body know what is "best" for each part?
Those limited cases where "using something makes it bigger" are cases like excersizing muscles. However, explaining it as some universal truth answers nothing, and invokes, at best, a mystical "sense of what is best for a creature" that the body would have to somehow possess. It can't explain intricate structure the way natural selection can, and there is zero evidence for it. A blacksmith's son won't have stronger arms than normal. He'll have to excercize just as much to get to that point.
Natural selection, on the other hand, does a great job of explaining WHY excercize makes muscles grow and sunlight makes one get a tan. There is a specific chemical reaction in the skin that responds to sunlight. This isn't just how any old substance reacts in the light, this is a process selected for over generations.
Muscles becoming stronger is just a simple example of "only grow what is needed to save energy". There is nothing inherant in using a muscle that would make it become stronger. Think of any robot arm you've seen. Do they become stronger over time? Nope, they tend to wear out. A very specific and complicated process had to be adapted in order to have that result. The real question isn't how does it become stronger, it's why aren't we already super strong from the moment we're born?
There's actually a number of experiments that show that certain genes are directly responsible for inhibiting muscle growth, in the case of the experiment I saw, in mice. Clearly there was good cause for humans to not be at "peak physical performance" at all times. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what that might be, energy! If you don't HAVE to run very far or do as much to get food, you don't grow muscles, and thus don't need as much food. This not only makes things easier on an animal solo, but in the case of humans, someone doing "paper work" or it's stone age equivilant would not be taking up as many resources in the tribe. This would boost the survival rate of that group, most likely sharing those genes, and as a natural result those genes would be more likely to be passed on.
Gabe, lamarckism is a dead concept for a good reason. It never had any evidence supporting it, and further, it was completely incapable of explaining the complexity of life. It's major flaw is that it has to, by it's very nature, assume another process simply to allow itself TO operate, unless one invokes mysticism.
Gabe, lamarckism is a dead concept for a good reason. It never had any evidence supporting it
Indeed, to bad for you that Dawkins do not agree and accepts Lamarckism as seen in the book, The Greatest Show on Earth (you should read it), and that is what this is all about.
Now back to Bronze:
You don't seem to understand the problem I'm having with this labeling..... I'm willing to accept Lamarck might have been trivially right in limited cases, but I still don't see the connection between epigenetics and Lamarck.
I do, thanx to the King of Ferrets, understand your issue with this (thankyou Ferret).
It seems its more of semantics rather then actual science, you do not want to accept Lamarckism bur rather, a modified version of it you call something else, say "Dawkinism", even when this says the same. Okay, fine, lets look at it then.
Lets see what others said: This is the key here, I think. Certain very recent studies are showing a passing resemblance between certain epigenetic phenomena and Lamarckian acquired characteristics, but that doesn't mean Lamarck was right.
Ah, yes, and here someone do accept it, but then attacks the rest of Lamarckism, which everyone else did, and I did in my first post. It seems odd that you forgotten that I do not accept 'Lamarckism', but certain parts of it.
What you need to understand is that Lamarck, just as Darwin, was wrong in many many ways, but just as Darwin, some of it was right, I do not see you saying Darwin was wrong because some of his views where completely of the tracks, do we now?
The best way to approach this, I guess, is by Ferrets comment: What BD is saying, in essence, is that the mother doesn't have the trait being passed down from the changes herself. The mother will just have something that sets off the trait in the child, instead of having the trait herself.
I see, this is worth debating. First we make up a completely random and MADE UP scenario (so please, the rest of you that want to have excuses, get a life), lets use the stress phenomena.
Stress causes the Chicken to trigger already existing genes so her offspring gets them. It is that simple, she also had these genes, but they where simple not active because it was not needed, now, Stress factor and all, it is in use, and her offspring will reap the benefits.
How hard is this to understand? Its quite simple, its Lamarckism, that is, parts of it.
No one is promoting Lamarckism, but we should not pretend that Lamarck was not correct on SOME ISSUES, just as Darwin was, and just as Darwin, he got some things wrong, but we do not speak of does now, do we, only the trolls here do, talking about neck streching and want to get the topic out of context.
Seriously now. I thank King of Ferrets for a decent approach atleast, you seem to be one of few, even if I suspect you will go back to the crowd as soon as gets tough.
Did the mother express the trait that the chick expresses?
"It seems its more of semantics rather then actual science, you do not want to accept Lamarckism bur rather, a modified version of it you call something else..."
Your main problem, untermensch, is that you're just prevaricating. you know fuck all about biology and have provided no proof that you've even read Dawkins latest book. Your perceptions are so skewed by racial paranoia that you believe that the president of the USA is going to give you AIDS. You expect us to believe that you can see an underlying current of Lamarckianism in Richard Dawkins writing? You are merely perceiving your skewed ignorant delusions.
You are playing a distraction game.
You utterly failed to show that you are in any way superior to any black, red, yellow or sky blue with pink dots skinned person.
Stop your stupid and incoherent prevarications and get to the real questions that we brang up or be branded a total coward. How are you supposedly superior to even a snail, you incoherent retard?
I don't praise Lamarckianism as a useful theory for the same reason I don't praise broken clocks for being right twice a day.
I don't praise dead leech-wielding allopaths for being right to categorize people into different, personalized types like modern medicine does.
I don't praise Homeopathy's Law of Similars for being right to prevent a disease with a piece of disease causing germs.
Even if you do manage to show some self-perpetuating epigenetic acquired trait, I still won't go out of my way to praise Lamarck and make it sound like more than accidental correctness.
"What you need to understand is that Lamarck, just as Darwin, was wrong in many many ways, but just as Darwin, some of it was right, I do not see you saying Darwin was wrong because some of his views where completely of the tracks, do we now?"
What you need to understand ,untermensch, is that both Lamarck and Darwin are long dead. The science of evolution has moved on beyond both Lamarck and Darwins' wildest dreams. These are old theories. Give us some modern stuff or be labelled a bullshitting cretinist.
"Ah, yes, and here someone do accept it, but then attacks the rest of Lamarckism, which everyone else did, and I did in my first post. It seems odd that you forgotten that I do not accept 'Lamarckism', but certain parts of it."
You don't even understand any of the outmoded theory of Lamarck. You've merely tied to paint Dawkins with what you call "Lamarckianism", but you couldn't explain what that was unless you googled it.
"No one is promoting Lamarckism, but we should not pretend that Lamarck was not correct on SOME ISSUES, just as Darwin was, and just as Darwin, he got some things wrong, but we do not speak of does now, do we, only the trolls here do, talking about neck streching and want to get the topic out of context."
Don't try to pretend that you understand anything about either Darwin or Lamarck. You've shown only bluster, not knowledge of these old scientific theorists.
You couldn't even write what DNA stands for without googling it.
Face it, you sad wanker, you are totally out of your depth and are bullshitting to try to recover from the humiliation that you got from being unable to support your racist fantasies.
You only display the Nazi stupidity of skewed pseudoscientific bullshittery. Woo wanker!
So you've read The Greatest Show on Earth have you?
Page 216 has an asterisked note, can you reproduce it for us?
Page 243 has a title in bold a quarter of the way down the page. Tell us what it is.
Page 454 has a book listed under what name that is sixth down. What name is it?
Come on then Gabe, answer these questions or show yourself a bullshitter.
EITHER PUT UP OR SHUT UP YOU NAZI LOSER.
What no answer from the untermensch?
I didn't expect any really. He is full of bullshit and too cowardly to try to back up his complete twittery.
Gabe, you're a sad little racist retard of a loser. You are superior in no way to any other human being. In fact I could make a good case to say that you are inferior to the rest of humanity.
Which is thw whole point of your racism.
JS:)
Post a Comment