Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Kratom Eye
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
Lamarck was MOSTLY right...
    #8226104 -

i posted this in the science/tech forum but felt since this would be appropriate to philosophy as so many of us can hold one area of thought as gospel....

So Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is credited with the giraffe example of 'evolutionary adaptations', where if the giraffe couldn't reach food in a high up tree that it could lengthen its neck by reaching for the food.

His theory, at heart, was basically, "The organism interacts with the environment".

so let me go to some more background and what is widely recognized before I get to my point.

Darwin is credited with Natural Selection where the strong survive blablabal... species undergo differential success in reproduction. or the unequal ability for species to reproduce.

So for the giraffe, its offspring that were born with a beneficial phenotype to that environment(high trees=giraffe has long neck) then that will be the most successful.

OK, now that we have that out of the way lets get to the good shit and smack all those know-it-all anthropologists in the head! :laugh:

So there's a field out n about today called epigenetics and it's basically about EVERYONE starts out with a blank slate genotype which the environment turns on/off various gene pathways and you get the observed phenotype as a result! I hope that makes sense because if it didn't then I HAVE AN EXAMPLE!!! WHOA LEARNING IS FUN

So recently there have been studies done on pregnant primates and rodents. The pregnant animals were put under a stressful environment and, as a result, released weak androgens from their adrenals. Basically whatever the mother has in her body will run through the developing embryo. The offspring, as a result of maternal stress, were more aggressive which would make them more suited to the stressful environment that the mother was expose to.

then this epigenetics can be further exemplified with... -environmental estrogens being credited for precocious puberty in females.
-DDT(a pesticide that is a synthetic estrogen) ..just think... ok it's great and kills mosquitoes, which are very small, but ALL life is at that size in development in the womb/egg/as an embryo/whatever in its earliest development!
-DES (look it up, horrible and another example)
-Perchlorate on the thyroid... the perchlorate atom is similar in size to iodine and given a high enough concentration can block iodine uptake by the thyroid gland.
-Hormones given to animals!!!while they don't necessarily affect an adult, their susceptibility to prepubescents is much greater

ANYHOW

So, Lamarck may have not been on the ball with the giraffe, but damn was his theory right on the ball.

And if you think about phenotypic plasticity, ohhhh fuck yes was he right. And he recieved nothing but disrespect from everyone.

To say Natural Selection is the end all be all is ignorant. I totally agree with Darwin but I think the integration of Lamarck's idea would be an a much fuller idea of what really going on.

anyhow, hoped you enjoyed my lil ramble, so next time you're in an anthropology class and that professor yaps about Lamarck being a quack, you'll know what to say.


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Lamarck was MOSTLY right... [Re: Cracka_X]
    #8226598 -

I've known this for awhile. Interesting stuff. I think it's a combination of both natural selection and epigenetics, mostly the latter though.
Epigenetics made me realize that all this toxic shit the government allows (and in some cases encourages!) us to consume really does impact the genetic blueprint of Americans. I'll keep it short, but I think that they have an agenda to turn us into middles sheep that are dependent on big pharma and what not. The New World Order is well on its way to complete domination.

Take MSG for example, known neuro-toxin. Everyone knows that damaged nerves = more stupids, less intelligence. Why not just ban the shit and have a healthier, happier, and smarter population? Cause they want us to be dumb that's why. We're easier to manage that way. Studies have shown that there is a correlation between quality of diet and the tendency to be violent. Imagine that, if the gov were to promote REAL health then they could be fighting crime at the same time.

I could go on for hours about this. I'm actually going to write +50 page paper about all this. I'll post it when I'm done, but that won't be for another year.

Sorry I just kinda jacked the thread. I'll post something cool about epigenetics later.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Lamarck was MOSTLY right... [Re: Cracka_X]
    #8226611 -

I (sort of) understand that chemicals in the environment can/will effect genes in their developmental stages, but what does that have to do with the giraffe reaching for the higher branches?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Lamarck was MOSTLY right... [Re: Cracka_X]
    #8226736 -

Biology of Perception

This is just one of eight. They don't get really good until about four or so. He lays out the fundamentals of epigenetics and explains how the environment is what causes certain genes to be expressed. It may seem slow at first and it is rather long, but it is well worth the time.

edit: I brings the video to you

Edited by ChiefGreenLeaf (04/02/08 12:29 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Lamarck was MOSTLY right... [Re: ChiefGreenLeaf]
    #8226788 -

Link's broken

Edit: Interesting! I'm compelled to hear more :grin:

Edited by Cameron (04/02/08 12:33 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Lamarck was MOSTLY right... [Re: Cracka_X]
    #8226841 -

Quote:
His theory, at heart, was basically, "The organism interacts with the environment".


Umm... no. His theory was much more complex than that and involved things such as spontaneous generation, alchemy, teleology, and more.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Lamarck was MOSTLY right... [Re: ChiefGreenLeaf]
    #8227639 -

I've heard about him. He wrote a book called Biology of Belief. I feel him.

Mushman,
umm... his theory was based off of Buffon's speculation that the organism interacts with the environment. He tried to explain the mechanisms of this through whatever was popular at the time.. IE: alchemy, teleology, spontaneous generation....

If you look concepts like phenotypic plasticity, methylation of DNA from the environment blabla point mutations then you'd see he was trying to get at the same thing but he had to use the tools of the time. He didn't have molecular studies going on or a genome to work with.

Lamarck was mostly right. and his theory, in it's MOST basic form(at heart) is the organism interacts with the environment.


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Lamarck was MOSTLY right... [Re: Cracka_X]
    #8227811 -

The problem I have with this theory is that none of the genetic damage you use as examples is heritable. Evolution relies upon heritable genetic variations, not one-off expressions in reaction to environmental cues.

Not to mention, genetic research has shown that our genotype is definitely NOT a blank slate, though it may have unexpressed potentials. (For example, the heritable breast cancer gene may remain unexpressed in the absence of other carcinogenic cues.)

The genetic blueprint we inherit from our parents definitely has some plasticity, but it is fallacious to claim that the environment is responsible for more than a small percentage of what is expressed. And, as we cannot pass on these environmentally-cued variations to our offspring, they cannot be deemed evolutionary traits.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Lamarck was MOSTLY right... [Re: Veritas]
    #8228032 -

I should have given this example....


Ok so you're pregnant and there's a famine. There's critical periods in your embryo's development that need a certain threshold of nutrients to come out "normal". You don't meet the embryo's requirements, and by malnourishment you've altered this future offspring for the worse. Say your malnourishment affected the offspring's gene pathways for puberty. ok... without getting too involved into this... Whatever the mother has circulating in her will affect the embryo. If the mother is malnourished, the embryo will be starved of essentials for development. This, in turn, will be permanent for the offspring and the offspring's offspring and so on...


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Lamarck was MOSTLY right... [Re: Cracka_X]
    #8228092 -

That is way too vague an example. Unless the baby's genetic code was altered by malnutrition, as expressed via the baby's sperm or ovum, this would not be heritable.

A more-relevant example would be Down syndrome, in which the aged/damaged ovum result in a chromosomal disorder in the offspring. This disorder is heritable by the next generation, though it was not present in the mother.

Edited by Veritas (04/02/08 10:51 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Lamarck was MOSTLY right... [Re: Cracka_X]
    #8228422 -

Quote:
umm... his theory was based off of Buffon's speculation that the organism interacts with the environment. He tried to explain the mechanisms of this through whatever was popular at the time.. IE: alchemy, teleology, spontaneous generation....


The idea that the organism interacts with the environment is a basic tenet of biology. That is like saying Dalton was correct about the atom because he believed atoms combined to form molecules.

Sure, he uses Buffon's Law, but there is a huge difference between Buffon's Law and Lamarck's Theory of Evolution. Buffon thought that species had a "centre of origin" and that species changed when they moved away from this centre of origin into different climates. Lamarck accepts this and then postulates a mechanism by which this change happens, adaptive force. Lamarck also incorporated Aristotle's idea of a Great Chain of Being (scala naturae) into his theory, and thus believed that organisms increased in complexity over generations.

Lamarck's Theory of Evolution is wrong about pretty much everything, although he came close to our current understanding of biological evolution with his idea of an adaptive force. The core of Lamarckism is that organisms are constantly evolving towards perfection by inheriting the acquired characteristics of their parents.

Quote:
If you look concepts like phenotypic plasticity, methylation of DNA from the environment blabla point mutations then you'd see he was trying to get at the same thing but he had to use the tools of the time. He didn't have molecular studies going on or a genome to work with.


Lamarck believed in a rudimentary type of inheritance that is very different from methylation of DNA.

Darwin had no knowledge of the gene, either. In fact, until the modern evolutionary synthesis, Mendelian inheritance was seen as an opposing theory to Darwinian evolution.

Edited by MushmanTheManic (04/02/08 12:34 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Lamarck was MOSTLY right... [Re: Veritas]
    #8228439 -

Veritas said:
That is way too vague an example. Unless the baby's genetic code was altered by malnutrition, as expressed via the baby's sperm or ovum, this would not be heritable.


It is inheritable, but epigenetics does not alter the actual DNA sequence - just the way that the genes are expressed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Lamarck was MOSTLY right... [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #8228464 -

How would it be transmitted via sperm or ovum if the DNA is not altered?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Lamarck was MOSTLY right... [Re: Veritas]
    #8228532 -

Erm... I gonna have to look at my notes for that one.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Lamarck was MOSTLY right... [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #8228539 -

I'm interested.  I have not studied epigenetics, but have engaged in a fairly in-depth independent study of genetics and evolution.  Let me know what your notes say. :smile:

EDIT:  My quick-and-dirty internet search indicates that epigenic inheritance appears to be caused by chromosomal damage/mutation, rather than DNA alteration.  The example of Down Syndrome, which I used earlier, is apt in describing this type of "soft" inheritance.

Edited by Veritas (04/02/08 03:34 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Lamarck was MOSTLY right... [Re: Veritas]
    #8232050 -

Mushman:

Ok if you wanna go word for word, I'm entirely wrong. But from my perspective, his idea, as you stated, on adaptive force is what I'm going on. You talk about lamarck's theory was a rudimentary type of inheritance. well for that time yes, I'm not trying to say lamarck is the end all be all of evolution but I think it's unfair to say he was 100% wrong.

Quote:
Not to mention, genetic research has shown that our genotype is definitely NOT a blank slate, though it may have unexpressed potentials. (For example, the heritable breast cancer gene may remain unexpressed in the absence of other carcinogenic cues.)



ok, well what's the environment that facilitates a developing embryo? How is this embryo nourished and maintained. What if the mother doesn't have enough food? Considering the primary follicles(which will later mature to an oocyte) are in their final maturation stages, which involves DNA synthesis with meiosis. So if there's not a prime environment conducive to this or there's some type of endocrine disrupting contaminant that mimics a hormone essential for some stage in development, then the later matured oocyte will be altered and it's genotype will be different. Therefore, it is heritable, and if the altered offspring are capable of reproducing, then they will inherit these "defects".

Sorry for being vague, but I hope that added some clarity.


Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Veritas said:
That is way too vague an example. Unless the baby's genetic code was altered by malnutrition, as expressed via the baby's sperm or ovum, this would not be heritable.


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



It is inheritable, but epigenetics does not alter the actual DNA sequence - just the way that the genes are expressed.


please, and I'm not trying to be a prick, but you have to look past everything being black and white. There's A LOT OF GRAY. Black and white is easier to explain and comprehend at first but it really doesn't do science any justice in what is ACTUALLY happening.

I'm talking about reproductive endocrinology here. Hormone concentrations are altered and/or nutrition is decreased and change the oocyte when it was developing. IE: methylations, point mutations...

Quote:
That is way too vague an example. Unless the baby's genetic code was altered by malnutrition, as expressed via the baby's sperm or ovum, this would not be heritable.

A more-relevant example would be Down syndrome, in which the aged/damaged ovum result in a chromosomal disorder in the offspring. This disorder is heritable by the next generation, though it was not present in the mother.



Ok, now that there's some background here...

Pregnant mother during famine has a daughter. Since the maturation of the oocyte and follicle happen in utero, this would affect meiosis.(mutations and whatnot). 7 months into pregnancy, daughter/embryo undergoes meiotic arrest. As a female is born with all her eggs so whatever happened during that critical time of meiotic chaos right before it stopped is the end all be all for that female's eggs.

I agree with the down syndrome example. I guess I'm thinking more towards reproduction.


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Lamarck was MOSTLY right... [Re: Veritas]
    #8232062 -

Quote:
chromosomal damage/mutation, rather than DNA alteration.


You make it sound as if they're completely different.


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Lamarck was MOSTLY right... [Re: Cracka_X]
    #8232127 -

Lamarck's mistake was that he tried to apply his ideas to individual organisms, rather than groups of organisms. When applied to groups, his ideas make total sense.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.


Edited by Tchan909 (04/03/08 03:05 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Lamarck was MOSTLY right... [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #8232922 -

Tchan909 said:
Lamarck's mistake was that he tried to apply his ideas to individual organisms, rather than groups of organisms. When applied to groups, his ideas make total sense.


:smile:
I mean, ya can't blame him for trying to explain what was going on.  It was a bit narrow minded, but eh, maybe he wanted a paper or at least to get in the spot light.

this is kinda off topic but you may like it...
There were two groups of ppl/scientists that referred to themselves as either Spermists or Ovists.

The idea was that if you open up a sperm, on the spermist side, then you would find a little person or humunculus, and the egg was just necessary for incubation.  Then ovists believed the egg contained a little person.

The paternalistic society/scientists were geared much more toward researching the male. 

It's very recent that the ovary is now seen as extremely complex and scientist know sooooooooooooooooo little about what's going on with it.  I think it's ironic how the paternalistic society put so much effort toward the male to find out that it's pretty simple.(not quite, but compared to the ovary, it's extremely simple)


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Lamarck was MOSTLY right... [Re: Cracka_X]
    #8233052 -

Cracka_X

What is your opinion on charities, helping the weak, etc... in the context of Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" theory?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* offspring of mental silence a6754 1,913 16 12/29/10 10:08 PM
by a6754
* Behavior and Environment.
( 1 2 3 all )		 Icelander 2,164 44 04/21/09 03:43 PM
by Mr. Mushrooms
* Idealism and the environment Silversoul 1,987 13 12/17/06 12:00 AM
by Deviate
* Why are people destroying the environment?
( 1 2 all )		 lines 2,024 21 10/22/10 02:25 PM
by Poid
* Free Association Writing/Environment Thread Evan_1107 1,787 14 07/10/06 11:51 PM
by Evan_1107
* Fear and Psyche
( 1 2 all )		 castaway 1,786 20 06/11/03 06:16 PM
by castaway
* natural environment.... OldWoodSpecter 627 8 02/06/05 02:26 PM
by shroomydan
* I grew up in a religious environment Signo 993 18 08/30/04 01:49 PM
by tekramrepus

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,747 topic views. 1 members, 394 guests and 57 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.