Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Bogey Moment with PZ Myers

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

It is interesting to see how evolutionists respond to failures of their theory. For all their talk of following the evidence and adjusting to new data, evolutionists find all kinds of ways to resist learning from their failures. Consider one of the major failures of evolution, its view of the very nature of biological change. Twentieth century evolutionary theory held that biological change is a rather simple process that is blind to the needs of the organism. As Julian Huxley, grandson of Darwin confidant T. H. Huxley, put it, mutations “occur without reference to their possible consequences or biological uses.”   Read more

Comments
So one example of epigenetics is the calico (and tortoiseshell) cats. How is that inheritance of an acquired trait? The calico trait wasn't from the parent if one was black and one orange (the genes came from the parents, but not the trait). This has nothing to do with Lamarckism, it has to do with Mendelian inheritance mixed in with X chromosome inactivation. Kittens from the cat may or may not be calico (depending on the father) but this has nothing to do with the use or disuse of the fur. Therefore PZ is correct in saying epigenetics is not Lamarckism.hdx
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
#22 You are right of course and thank you for the correction. Lamarckism is more specific than the inheritance of acquired traits. It is the inheritance and disinheritance of traits acquired and lost through use and disuse. Neither the inheritance of acquired traits nor Lamarckism are the same as epigenetics which might well be used to pass on traits that were not acquired but formed at birth.Mark Frank
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
Martin Garnder
Feh, Gardner.anonym
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
@19 and to all those saying Lamarckism is the inheritance of acquired traits: The idea of inheritance of acquired traits has been around long before Lamarck, and even Darwin believed a little in the inheritance of acquired traits (and hence his incorrect pangenesis theory to explain it). I quoted the two main ideas of Lamarck. Both those ideas are incorrect. Lamarck's main idea is that traits (for example as organ sizes) are passed on to offspring based on its use and disuse due to needs within the environment. This is not the same as epigenetics.hdx
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
It almost goes without saying that if some of the inter-war "Lamarckians" finally have some of their experimental results vindicated - and especially if Kammerer is among them - then there will be crow. A couple of examples: p. 244- in Peter J. Bowler's Evolution: The History of an Idea http://books.google.com/books?id=0rcm3XVkWcwC&pg=PA244 Chapter 12, "Lysenkoism" in Martin Garnder's Fads and Fallacies http://books.google.com/books?id=TwP3SGAUsnkC&pg=PA140 (the book which is something approaching the founding text of the contemporary skeptical movement: http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm )anonym
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
#19 Epigenetics includes mechanisms that alter the DNA and mechanisms that do not. Have you read posts #5 and #6? There is clearly a fundamental difference between your definition of epigenetics and that in Science. Perhaps you would care to make your definition explicit and gives its source?Mark Frank
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
#10 "2.Inheritance of acquired traits. ... I really don’t see any connection between epigenetics and Lamarkism." The denial of evolutionists is amazing. In epigenetics you have biological change occurring rapidly (eg, within a few generations or less) in response to environmental pressures, and it can be inherited. That's "Inheritance of acquired traits." It is not neo Darwinism (which is not observed). Epigenetics includes mechanisms that alter the DNA and mechanisms that do not.Cornelius Hunter
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
#17 "Obviously it is." Uhm - I think you should read comment #14.Mark Frank
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Mark Frank, PZ said "epigenetics is NOT Lamarkism". Obviously it is. What else do you want?Joseph
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
From Wikipedia: "Epigenetic features may play a role in short-term adaptation of species by allowing for reversible phenotype variability. The modification of epigenetic features associated with a region of DNA allows organisms, on a multigenerational time scale, to switch between phenotypes that express and repress that particular gene. When the DNA sequence of the region is not mutated, this change is reversible. It has also been speculated that organisms may take advantage of differential mutation rates associated with epigenetic features to control the mutation rates of particular genes."ellazimm
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Wasn't the same P.Z. Myers recently exulting that a small group of lizards introduced to Pod Mrcaru http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/still_just_a_lizard.php responded to (presumably) their changed diet by rapidly developing cecal valves? Even though the valves developed much more rapidly than anyone expected differential reproductive success plus random variation to be able to generate such a feature from scratch? In what way is that event not almost as supportive of "Lamarckism" as inducing midwife toads to develop nursing pads? Surely it's not just that the Pod Mrcaru events were presented to Dr. Myers as "rapid evolution" rather than "Lamarckism"?anonym
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
I'm having flashbacks of Clinton defining "is."SpitfireIXA
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
#12 Joseph What he is saying in the article is that epigenetics often (maybe always, but I doubt it) leads to Lamarckian inheritance. This is quite different from saying they are the same thing.Mark Frank
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
Epigenetics: Genome, Meet Your Environment As the evidence accumulates for epigenetics, researchers reacquire a taste for Lamarckism: (second to last paragraph)
"Epigenetics has always been Lamarckian. I really don't think there's any controversy," Doug Ruden
Joseph
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
polyphyly
Duh. I meant multiple origins of life.anonym
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
Lets see what Lamarck wrote: 1.Law of use and disuse.
"In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears."
2.Inheritance of acquired traits.
"All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young."
Finally
The environment affects the shape and organization of animals, that is to say that when the environment becomes very different, it produces in course of time corresponding modifications in the shape and organization of animals. It is true if this statement were to be taken literally, I should be convicted of an error; for whatever the environment may do, it does not work any direct modification whatever in the shape and organization of animals. But great alterations in the environments of animals lead to great alterations in their needs, and these alterations in their needs necessarily lead to others in their activities. Now if the new needs become permanent, the animals then adopt new habits which last as long as the needs that evoked them.
I really don't see any connection between epigenetics and Lamarkism.hdx
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
Dr. Hunter seems to have provided an abbreviated quotation from Dr. Myers. Here is a fuller version, from Pharyngula, scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/maybe_the_media_should_intervi.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink:
Epigenetics is not Lamarckism! Also, Begley doesn't seem to understand that the institution of science is extremely conservative, and rightly so: we 'man the barricades' because science isn't like the Huffington Post, letting any wacky idea sail through unchallenged. There is a demand for rigor: show us the data, do the experiments, repeat until you've got a case that can't be shot down by a lone skeptical first year grad student. Postulating reptoids guiding human evolution isn't going to be credible until someone shoots one and writes a paper about the dissection, and Lamarckism is going to be sneered at until someone does the experiment that shows it. I don't think academia has been neglecting this field because of dogma, either. Epigenetics is hot right now (and again, it's NOT Lamarckism!), and there's some interesting work going on in the field of eco-devo. I also think that a replication of Kammerer's work that demonstrated an actual effect would be easily publishable — I'd be interested in reading it, for sure. We're all the evolution police. It isn't as sinister as Begley seems to imply: we just demand a little more evidence than speculation.
Larry Tanner
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
Begley's article http://www.newsweek.com/id/215563 quite carefully does not define epigenetics as the inheritance of acquired traits, or even as the mechanism by which acquired traits are inherited. She does suggest (by reporting Vargas) that epigenetics may prove to be a mechanism by which acquired traits are inherited. What she does seem to get wrong is not underlining the difference between inheritance of acquired traits and "mere" developmental plasticity as demonstrated by examples like the face-licking rats. In higher-rent areas it seems they have a better argument for why "it isn't Lamarckism!": http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2009/03/lamarck-didnt-say-it-darwin-did.html Apparently nearly everyone believed in some form and degree of inheritance of acquired traits back in the day (including Darwin), and so the distinctive thing about Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's thinking was actually his belief in a form of orthogenesis (also involving polyphyly). So to define 'Lamarckism' as the inheritance of acquired traits is historically inaccurate. But of course that is the definition of 'Lamarckism' that Modern Synthesis biologists were using when they were almost uniformly dismissive of 'Lamarckism'.anonym
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
You don't have to change the DNA to affect it. For example cellular differentiation is epigenetics- that is the cells are different not because they contain different DNA but because that DNA is affected by external pressures- ie chemicals. But anyway DNA methylation, doesn't change the DNA sequence but can affect the gene expression.Joseph
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
From Science: " . . . epigenetics -- the study of heritable changes in gene function that occur without a change in the DNA sequence . . . " http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/plus/sfg/resources/res_epigenetics.dtlellazimm
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
From Wikipedia: " . . . the term epigenetics refers to changes in phenotype (appearance) or gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence . . ."ellazimm
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
Mark Frank, Read "Evolution in Four Dimensions" and you will see that you are wrong. Epigenetics effects the DNA. Epigenetics is an acquired trait that can then be passed on to the offspring- again read about the agouti mice. And also epigenetics fits in very well with Dr Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues".Joseph
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
I am sorry but epigenetics is not Lamarckism. Epigenetics is inheritance through a mechanism other than DNA. Lamarckism is inheriting acquired characteristics. You can have Larmarckism without epigenetics and epigenetics without Larmarckism. It is true that in those cases where there is evidence for Larmarckism then a plausible mechanism is epigenetics and what evidence there is for Larmarckism has mostly (but not exclusively) arisen during studies of epigenetics. But this is quite different from saying they the same thing. More interestingly - epigenetics and Larmarckism are both examples of natural mechanisms for evolution that do not rely on RM+NS.Mark Frank
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
PZ sez "epigenetics isn't Lamarkism"? Let's see Larmarkism is the inheritance of acquired traits. With epigenetics organisms can inherit acquired traits (agouti mice). It is obvious that the two have nuthin' in common- that is if you are a complete dolt.Joseph
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
PZ sez "epigenetics isn't Lamarkism"? Let's see Larmarkism is the inheritance of acquired traits. With epigenetics organisms can inherit acquired traits (agouti mice). It is obvious that the two have nuthin' in common- that is if you are a complete dolt.Joseph
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply