3 ms·

Recent studies show there may actually be some limited transmission of epigenetic information: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/inheritance/

by jforman 15y ago

Recent studies show there may actually be some limited transmission of epigenetic information: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/inheritance/ http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/inheritan... Our understanding is still very limited, though. And yes, it is kind of ironic that Lamarck is getting a jab in after all this time :)

paganel 15y ago
> Our understanding is still very limited, though. And yes, it is kind of ironic that Lamarck is getting a jab in after all this time :) Who knows, maybe next thing we'll find is that the concept of "race" is not only a "social construct"?
gldalmaso 15y ago
I always thought that the scientific community accepted Darwin's random-mutation factor way too easily and without challenge. It never seemed very credible to me. The more I watched wild life documentaries the more Larmackism grew on me.
- Mvandenbergh 15y ago
  Actually Darwin didn't know anything about random mutations, as in fact he didn't know about DNA or even genes. The Origin of Species is about observed results: "descent with modification" rather than about mechanism. In any case, I'm not too sure about the scientific community being so easily accepting of Darwin. It's true that evolution (that is, the gradual changes in the characteristics of populations) was nearly universally accepted relatively quickly, but natural selection as a mechanism was not. In fact, for some decades in the late 19th and early 20th centuries natural selection was widely regarded as a minor contributor to evolution. This was not a matter of anyone believing that natural selection didn't occur, but simply an argument over the relative magnitudes of different forces. Alternative drivers of evolution included neo-Lamarckism. Notably, estimates of the age of the Earth at the time were very much lower than our current ones and many scientists believed (correctly) that natural selection was too slow a process to have produced the variety of life observed over a 10-100 million year timespan.
- septicmadman 15y ago
  It wasn't accepted so easily at all. Multiple evolutionary studies concluded mutation is sufficient to explain the majority (if not all) of variation seen in a species. This is further supported by historical studies showing consistent mutation rates overtime. There are different mechanisms that result in population wide changes, but that doesn't exclude random mutations (in the general sense, be it point mutations or transpositions) from being the progenitor of all new genetic information. In what way does it not seem credible?
- jforman 15y ago
  I can't tell if you're joking or not, but just to be clear: traditional genetics' utility for explaining natural variation among individuals represents an enormous increase in scientific understanding, and is supported by tens of thousands of scientific papers and countless benefits to society. It's somewhat absurd to compare the credibility of genetics as a field to what is still almost entirely conjecture.
  - gldalmaso 15y ago
    I never said genetics as a whole is not credible, it's the random part that I think is off, just to clarify. From our brief history of mankind, I don't think there's enough information and hard fact to either prove or refute the random factor, as far as I know it is just accepted. I could also be wrong since I'm not all that up to date in this matter.
    - jforman 15y ago
      The mechanisms of traditional genetics, which include (at a simplified level) random variation at the base-pair level, are extremely well understood. The impact of this potential new mechanism of inheritance is unknown, but it will only add to our current understanding of how things work. It will not tear down our understanding.

by jforman 15y ago

paganel 15y ago

> Our understanding is still very limited, though. And yes, it is kind of ironic that Lamarck is getting a jab in after all this time :) Who knows, maybe next thing we'll find is that the concept of "race" is not only a "social construct"?

gldalmaso 15y ago

I always thought that the scientific community accepted Darwin's random-mutation factor way too easily and without challenge. It never seemed very credible to me. The more I watched wild life documentaries the more Larmackism grew on me.

Mvandenbergh 15y ago
Actually Darwin didn't know anything about random mutations, as in fact he didn't know about DNA or even genes. The Origin of Species is about observed results: "descent with modification" rather than about mechanism. In any case, I'm not too sure about the scientific community being so easily accepting of Darwin. It's true that evolution (that is, the gradual changes in the characteristics of populations) was nearly universally accepted relatively quickly, but natural selection as a mechanism was not. In fact, for some decades in the late 19th and early 20th centuries natural selection was widely regarded as a minor contributor to evolution. This was not a matter of anyone believing that natural selection didn't occur, but simply an argument over the relative magnitudes of different forces. Alternative drivers of evolution included neo-Lamarckism. Notably, estimates of the age of the Earth at the time were very much lower than our current ones and many scientists believed (correctly) that natural selection was too slow a process to have produced the variety of life observed over a 10-100 million year timespan.
septicmadman 15y ago
It wasn't accepted so easily at all. Multiple evolutionary studies concluded mutation is sufficient to explain the majority (if not all) of variation seen in a species. This is further supported by historical studies showing consistent mutation rates overtime. There are different mechanisms that result in population wide changes, but that doesn't exclude random mutations (in the general sense, be it point mutations or transpositions) from being the progenitor of all new genetic information. In what way does it not seem credible?
jforman 15y ago
I can't tell if you're joking or not, but just to be clear: traditional genetics' utility for explaining natural variation among individuals represents an enormous increase in scientific understanding, and is supported by tens of thousands of scientific papers and countless benefits to society. It's somewhat absurd to compare the credibility of genetics as a field to what is still almost entirely conjecture.
- gldalmaso 15y ago
  I never said genetics as a whole is not credible, it's the random part that I think is off, just to clarify. From our brief history of mankind, I don't think there's enough information and hard fact to either prove or refute the random factor, as far as I know it is just accepted. I could also be wrong since I'm not all that up to date in this matter.
  - jforman 15y ago
    The mechanisms of traditional genetics, which include (at a simplified level) random variation at the base-pair level, are extremely well understood. The impact of this potential new mechanism of inheritance is unknown, but it will only add to our current understanding of how things work. It will not tear down our understanding.