Neo lamarckism: Give it a chance...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-12-2012, 01:52 PM
RE: Neo lamarckism: Give it a chance...
Did a quick search on lamarckism. Are you suggesting that I could, if I were an accomplished golfer, pass on the ability to play golf to my offspring? In one generation? Because that would be fucking awesome. I'd have more kids to try this out.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 02:05 PM
RE: Neo lamarckism: Give it a chance...
(02-12-2012 01:52 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Did a quick search on lamarckism. Are you suggesting that I could, if I were an accomplished golfer, pass on the ability to play golf to my offspring? In one generation? Because that would be fucking awesome. I'd have more kids to try this out.
Lamarckism states that for necessity organisms change some traits and that those traits are passed to the next generation. This is obviously not true.

What I've proposed to discussion was different. Using you're example, imagine that there are a set of genes that determine if you stinck or be an ace in golf. In theory, you'll be able to modify zygotes, in order to give a tremendous new-generation of golfers. This directed mutation is what it makes resemble lamarckism.

The fact that genetic therapy allows directed mutation can, per example, antecipate changes in the environment, which it cannot be achieved by random mutation. And this greatly alters the evolutionary dynamics. Nonetheless, in the end of the day it will be evolution and selection will always be the judge.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 04:49 PM (This post was last modified: 02-12-2012 04:58 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Neo lamarckism: Give it a chance...
(02-12-2012 12:47 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  
(02-12-2012 12:39 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Kurzweil calls it the Singularity, but fucker is usually deliberately provocative. Evolution got us here, but we don't need it anymore. It is inefficient and clumsy. Evolution is like a club to technology's laser scalpel. Technology advances at an ever increasing rate, evolution can't keep up.
Technology is a product of evolution. Thus what I think is that evolution evolved, but is still evolution!

Think I'm down with that, I mean technology has changed the fundamental mechanisms of action. It ain't natural selection no more, it's informed, artificial, specific selection now at the genetic expression level. Soon we will have much finer-grained control over this with nanobots running through our bloodstreams delivering drugs to specific sites. ... But I got no philosophical issue with seeing that as just evolution evolving. That sits better in my gut than my initial casual dismissal. Scientific theories are either continually refined or are just dropped. Religious "theories" are ever resistant to refinement or even reconsideration and consequently are already dying. Most are just fucking stillborn. Wink

Breathing - it's more art than science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2012, 12:19 AM
RE: Neo lamarckism: Give it a chance...
Hey, Tia.

I go back to what I asked initially. Soooooo, you're talking about genetic engineering right? I mean, genetic engineering, genetic modification, gene therapy, these are all deliberate acts of physically altering a DNA molecule in order to alter the genome. There is nothing in evolution that precludes this except for the Lamarck/Weismann argument; which is bullshit. Of course we can change a genome. We do it all the time. That's why I have giant flavourless strawberries in the middle of winter.

I get what you mean by alter the dynamic, but that's redundant. Variation is caused by mutation. Whether that mutation is deliberate or accidental is utterly irrelevant in terms of selection and the evolutionary process. We're no more altering the evolutionary process by engineering genomes than we're altering gravity with airplanes and parachutes. We're taking advantage of a process, not altering it. The only reason we can take advantage is BECAUSE it always works the same.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
03-12-2012, 09:00 AM
RE: Neo lamarckism: Give it a chance...
(03-12-2012 12:19 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Tia.

I go back to what I asked initially. Soooooo, you're talking about genetic engineering right? I mean, genetic engineering, genetic modification, gene therapy, these are all deliberate acts of physically altering a DNA molecule in order to alter the genome. There is nothing in evolution that precludes this except for the Lamarck/Weismann argument; which is bullshit. Of course we can change a genome. We do it all the time. That's why I have giant flavourless strawberries in the middle of winter.

I get what you mean by alter the dynamic, but that's redundant. Variation is caused by mutation. Whether that mutation is deliberate or accidental is utterly irrelevant in terms of selection and the evolutionary process. We're no more altering the evolutionary process by engineering genomes than we're altering gravity with airplanes and parachutes. We're taking advantage of a process, not altering it. The only reason we can take advantage is BECAUSE it always works the same.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Here's another example of how evolutionary dynamycs matter:

Random variation: Adapt or perish paradigm.

Directed variation: Ability to antecipate.

I really don't see it as redundant.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2012, 11:31 PM
RE: Neo lamarckism: Give it a chance...
Hey, Tia.

Our role in the evolutionary process has always been active. Always. We are agents of selection. If we take a more active role, it really doesn't change anything. It's not as earth-shattering as we might think. More to the point, like I said, I get what you're saying about changing the dynamic, but we aren't really changing any dynamic. The relationship between mutation, variation and selection is exactly the same regardless of how the mutation occurs. So if anything, we're modifying our role in mutations and taking advantage of the system (just like planes take advantage of aerodynamics and trampolines take advantage of gravity) but we are in no way shape or form altering the system.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  The Existence Of Chance Tim_Kiebooms 13 759 08-03-2013 04:24 PM
Last Post: Chas
Forum Jump: