So, Lamarck was right after all. Do we owe him an apology?

[mynah]

Perhaps, perhaps not. Most probably to some degree - but to what degree, and how do we determine it? Is it in the interest of mankind to determine it, anyway? What purpose (and, perhaps more importantly, whose) would it serve? Would it even serve a purpose?

[freeztar]

Sorry for butting in here, but I simply don't understand why genetic predisposition doesn't explain the general trends observed above. We can always dicker over environmental factors, learned attributes, and other evo-devo distractions, but none of those things will be possible if the subject human being is not favorably endowed with genetic inheritance. (Environmental factors and learned attributes are not what kept Stephan Hawking out of the NBA.)

 

Why is it do you think that a majority of black children can not swim? Surely the same genetic disposition that makes them great basketball players would enable them to swim. Could it be that black children are not being taught to swim by their parents?

 

Why don't poor people play golf?

[Larv]

Why is it do you think that a majority of black children can not swim? Surely the same genetic disposition that makes them great basketball players would enable them to swim. Could it be that black children are not being taught to swim by their parents?

 

Why don't poor people play golf?

There is such a thing as potential in sports, which comes along genetically. A child's potential to swim fast or to play good basketball or golf is what moves across generations, not the child opportunities to learn. So, we're back to aptitudes, heritable aptitudes.

[freeztar]

There is such a thing as potential in sports, which comes along genetically. A child's potential to swim fast or to play good basketball or golf is what moves across generations, not the child opportunities to learn. So, we're back to aptitudes, heritable aptitudes.

 

I completely disagree. You are attempting to rule out environmental factors as if they are meaningless. As I tried to show before, they are not!

[Don Blazys]

To: mynah,

 

Quoting mynah:

Don Blazys:

Blacks dominate basketball, but why?

Is it because they are more likely to take up the sport,

or that they have some innate genetic advantage?

Why does India produce so many good mathematicians?

Why are whites overrepresented among Nobel prize winners -

and why are so many of them Jewish?

Why are marathons mostly won by East Africans,

and the shorter Olympic biggies by athletes of West African descent?

Why do whites mostly win the swimming medals?

Why do Chinese score highest in IQ tests?

 

I don't think there is one answer to all these questions...

 

I agree.

There are certainly more than just a few factors that are responsible

for these subtle differences between us as a species,

and for all we know, epigenetics just may be one of them.

That's why this question is so very interesting, and needs to be explored.

 

A long time ago, (but not in a galaxy far, far away),

when I first learned about evolution,

my first impression was that it was far too crude and simplistic a theory

to explain why there exist so many

subtle differences in the human population.

(After all, differences as subtle as, say..., the ability to sing in tune

have virtually no bearing on the general ability of humans

to aquire food, shelter and other things necessary for survival.)

 

I have heard singers who studied and practiced singing virtually their entire lives,

and still can't carry a tune, while others, (such as the late Jim Morrison,)

sound great the first time they try, so the ability to sing with beauty

is not something that can be taught or learned.

 

The real question is...

if singing beautifully is not necessary to survival,

then why should that relatively rare ability even exist?

 

Certainly it is not so that males who look like Billy Joel

can get females who look like Christy Brinkley.

 

Babe Ruth, when asked to teach other players how to hit baseballs clean out of stadiums

did offer some suggestions, such as "keep your eye on the ball",

but insisted that ultimately, the skill could be neither taught, nor learned.

 

Nolan Ryan says the same thing about throwing a 100+ MPH fastball.

 

I have always remained steadfast in my opinion that, if anything,

the workings of the universe, nature, and especially life, are efficient,

so it seemed to me like such a waste of effort and energy

when I first read that aquired skills can not be passed on through genes.

 

I absolutely loathe waste, so this really bothered me. (It still does!)

Thus, I began to wonder if perhaps "experiments" such as

cutting off the tails of mice in order to "test" Lamarcks theories were perhaps

grossly misguided, poorly designed, and therefore not at all valid.

 

After all, the giraffes in question "consciously struggled" to extend their necks,

and the elephants in question "consciously struggled" to extend their trunks,

while those hapless mice exerted no effort whatsoever in losing their tails!

 

Perhaps then, it is the "creative aspect"

of fighting, stiving or struggling to achieve, not only "survival skills",

but skills in things such as sports, science, and the arts

that somehow activates some subtle epigenetic mechanism

and causes subtle changes that may or may not ultimately result in

the myriads of subtle differences between us as a species.

 

On a side note, I'm beginning to feel a bit guilty.

Perhaps Michaelangelica feels that this thread has been "hijacked".

If that's the case, then maybe we should start a new thread on the subject of

epigenetics and how it might help explain the subtle differences between us.

 

Don.

[Larv]

I completely disagree. You are attempting to rule out environmental factors as if they are meaningless. As I tried to show before, they are not!

And what are the genes suppose to do with those environmental factors? Just pretend that they don't matter if the environmental factors change? You're trying to make music on a piano without striking any keys. It takes genes to make "meaning" out of changing environmental factors, if "meaning" relates in any way to heritable characteristics.

[freeztar]

And what are the genes suppose to do with those environmental factors? Just pretend that they don't matter if the environmental factors change? You're trying to make music on a piano without striking any keys. It takes genes to make "meaning" out of changing environmental factors, if "meaning" relates in any way to heritable characteristics.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Can you rephrase it?

[Larv]

And what are the genes suppose to do with those environmental factors? Just pretend that they don't matter if the environmental factors change? You're trying to make music on a piano without striking any keys. It takes genes to make "meaning" out of changing environmental factors, if "meaning" relates in any way to heritable characteristics.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Can you rephrase it?

Yes, I didn’t phrase that very well. What I meant to say is that changing environmental factors, in and of themselves, do not force a change in an organism or its population without first engaging the organism’s or its population’s genetic potential for change.

 

But I must admit my bias here for genetic supremacy. I blame it on Dawkins and Hamilton. Furthermore, I haven’t yet been persuaded by the evo-devo folks, who want to eschew digital genetics in favor of chemical and physical analogues. I just don’t know how genetic predisposition can be so carelessly dismissed.

[Galapagos]

But why does there even need to be a Baldwin Effect, other than to serve the needs of evo-devo theorists? Why can’t it simple be a matter of genetic aptitude?

The Baldwin Effect is meant to be a Darwinian means by which an organism can effect its fitness(by learning, or acting in the present) in a way that natural selection can then act on.

It is a Darwinian process that appears to be the inheritance of acquired traits. It has existed since long before evolutionary developmental biology was relevant enough to earn the title evo-devo. As Dan Dennett noted in the following passage from "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"(p 79-80), the idea has been much debated throughout the past century, and does indeed seem to have some merit:

The Baldwin Effect, under several different names, has been variously described, defended, and disallowed over the years, and recently independently rediscovered more times (e.g., Hinton and Nowland 1987). Although it has been regularly described and acknowledged in biology textbooks, it has typically been shunned by overcautious thinkers, because tey thought it smacked of the Lamarckian heresy(the presumed possibility of inheritance of acquired characteristics...). This rejection is particularly ironic, since... it was intended by Baldwin to be-- and truly is -- an acceptable substitute for Lamarckian mechanisms.

 

Look, if you want to bred dogs to learn tricks it’s much better to breed smart dogs with smart dogs. Their aptitude to learn tricks will be a matter of their genetic inheritance. There doesn't need to be a Baldwin Effect. A trick can be seen as a Dawkinsian extended phenotype.

 

The Extended Phenotype was about the genotype of an organism being expressed in other organisms(many examples of parasitism were given by Dawkins) and the environment(things like termite mounds and beaver dams). I fail to see how this describes the phenomena described under the the title the Baldwin Effect, and Dawkins apparently did also when writing "The Extended Phenotype", as he discusses the Baldwin Effect 3 separate times(pgs 44, 169, and 172 in the 1999 reprint) without declaring it to be part of the Extended Phenotype. Specifically, he mentions it in a discussion of how August Weismann formulated the Baldwin Effect before Baldwin himself did as an alternative to some soft-inheritance/Lamarckian mechanisms proposed by some of his contemporaries.

 

 

If that's the case, then maybe we should start a new thread on the subject of

epigenetics and how it might help explain the subtle differences between us.

 

epigenetic=/= soft-inheritance or the inheritance of acquired traits. In some cases, epigentic markers have been observed to survive meiosis, but these are the exception, not the rule. Epigenetics mostly pertains to individual ontogeny; most of epigenetic factors that are heritable are heritable in somatic, or cellular lineages, not reproductive, generational lineages.

As I mentioned above, a few cases have been observed of soft-inheritance, but they were for the most part reversible, and in certain types of organism where the germ-line cells are derived in such a way that the epigenetic factors could be preserved(most of the examples I've seen are in plants). In mammals specifically(you discussed how your ideas explained so much about humans), the epigenetic markers are removed in a process called erasure, and are replaced during individual ontogeny(some are gender specific, hence why human beings cannot be born from one parent), so your ideas about human evolution fall flat on their face.

 

 

I will now simply quote a passage(p 699-701) from "The Growth of Biological Thought" by Ernst Mayr regarding the decline of soft inheritance in biological thought.

There are three ways to refute an inheritance of acquired characters. The first is to show that the mechanisms by which it is supposed to operate are impossible. This was primarily Weismann's approach. There is nothing in the structure and division of cells that would make an inheritance of acquired characters possible. In fact, in certain organisms(Weismann specifically cites Hydroids) the future germ cells are segregated at very early larval stages after only a few cell divisions and are "put on ice", so to speak, until the reproductive process is initiated. There is no possible way by which the influences on the remainder of the organisms could be transmitted to the nuclei of the segregated germ cells.

 

This observation led Weismann in 1885 to his theory of the "continuity of the germ plasm,", which states that the "germ track" is separate from the body(soma) track from the very beginning, and thus nothing that happens to the soma can be communicated to the germ cells and their nuclei. we now know that Weismann's basic idea-- a complete separation of the germ plasm from its expression in the phenotype of the body-- was absolutely correct. His intuition to postulate such a separation was faultless. However, among two possible ways for effecting this he selected the separation off the germ cells from the body cells, while we no know that the crucial separation is that between the DNA program of the nucleus and the proteins in the cytoplasm of each cell.

 

A second way to refute an inheritance of acquired characters is by experiment. If there is an inheritance of acquired characters, then something must be conveyed from the afffected part of the body to the germ cells. The old theory of use an disuse, in which even Darwin believed mildly, could be tested by a total disuse of a structure(Payne's experiments); alternatively , if any body part sends gemmules to the germ cells, then amputation of this body part through many successive generations would result in a gradual size reduction of this organ. Finally, if changes of the phenotype in plants due to cultural conditions were heritable, selective breeding from the largest and smallest individuals of pure lines should produce progressive results. Beginning with Hoffmann and Weismann, such experiments were conducted up to the 1930s and 40s and the results were uniformly negative(see also Galton, Romanes, and Castle and Phillips). In other words, the theory failed every test of its validity.

The third way of refuting the theory of the inheritance of acquired characters is to show that the phenomena that are claimed to require the postulate of an inheritance of acquired characters can be explained equally well or better on the basis of the Darwinian theory. Much of the evolutionary literature of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s was devoted to this third approach(see part II).

 

For more on epigenetics specifically, I would recommend this article by evolutionary developmental biologist PZ Myers, as it is some very readable writing from an expert.

 

Pharyngula: Epigenetics

[Larv]

Galapagos, I greatly appreciate your well-considered response. And thanks for reminding me of what Dennett said about the Baldwin Effect. It is not yet clear to me how it trumps genetic predisposition, but your post certainly is helpful. When I read your reference to Ernst Mayr and his rejection of pure heritability I am reminded of the great war in the North Atlantic that continues even today: it is a war of theoretical supremacy over evolutionary thinking. Harvard and Oxford are fighting on the frontlines, opposite sides, of course. Dawkins, especially, has made a good case for “the long reach of the gene.” That is what I generally intended by referencing his “extended phenotype.” You make a good argument, though, that it is unrelated to the Baldwin Effect.

 

Galapagos, would you care to refute this argument?

 

Only the digital genotype moves forward in time as it jumps from generation to generation. While there are genotypes for the phenotypes of eggs and sperm, of course, (restricting the case to this kind of reproduction), all other phenotypes gain their analogue manifestation from nothing more than digital genotypes. That is because the passage between generations is so narrow that only genetic information gets through.

[HydrogenBond]

One way to look at epigenic effects is, behavior, even if man-made, will create environmental potentials at various natural levels.

 

The marathon runner willfully places themselves in an environment that requires a lot of running; practice. In a loose way this is no different to the DNA, than an animal group who ends in an environment with fast predators. Selective advantage for the animal group will go to the critters who develop the genetic ability to run faster or longer. There is nothing to say genetics can not create selective advantage in artificial environments by being fooled to think this is a natural stress.

 

If humans do a lot of reading, this creates stress on the eyes in a way animals don't normally have to cope with, unless they are constantly hunting for ants. If an animal species livelihood depended on looking closely for ants and separating those from beetles, some animal would evolve a selective advantage. In the case of reading, it may not be a reading gene, but better eyes for reading making reading easier as a spin-off.

 

It we take the visual mechanics of reading into the brain, processing this visual information also creates a stress within the brain that is not much different than an animal having to differentiate between various forms of food. Selective advantage in nature would go to the animal who can make their food choice the fastest. With humans the reading food is more complicated, but can also result in selective advantage for natural systems in that artificial environment. This will be passed on so the mechanics gets easier and easier. After that, practice using better hardware make the task easier and appear more natural.

 

If you look at a child and sports, if he is coordinated he can be molded into many of the various sports easier, with each sport requiring particular body system combinations as the raw material. Fast visual recognition is needed for baseball, etc, or you will never be able to hand-eye a 100 mph fastball or see the seams of a curveball. Golf does not need fast eye resolution but some specialty spatial physics. Their children are more likely to get the genetic hardware from their parents and have the benefit of education from someone who can teach them at a high level. Now it looks like the entire effect was passed on.

[Michaelangelica]

Michaelangelica:

 

 

 

Don Blazys: Blacks dominate basketball, but why? Is it because they are more likely to take up the sport, or that they have some innate genetic advantage? Why does India produce so many good mathematicians? Why are whites overrepresented among Nobel prize winners - and why are so many of them Jewish? Why are marathons mostly won by East Africans, and the shorter Olympic biggies by athletes of West African descent? Why do whites mostly win the swimming medals? Why do Chinese score highest in IQ tests?

 

I don't think there is one answer to all these questions...

IMHO all these can be explained by social factors.

Chinese score highest in IQ tests? which ones?

All IQ tests are culture specific, and pretty meaningless anyway. What does high IQ predict? -You are LESS likely to get a PhD?

"Whites" have the resources to have pools, trainers and government money behind them. Ethiopians 'run' because they have no other facilities, sometimes not even shoes. Similarly, i would imagine black poverty in the USA, would restrict access to many sports.

Show me the stats about Nobel prizes.

Of course I do agree that superior Irish genes and tolerance to high levels of Guinness have meant that no Englishman has won a prize for English literature, whereas the Irish have many. :hyper:

(Remeber the movie "Cool running" (?) about the Jamaican Olympic bob sled team?)

Does India produce more good Female mathematicians across all castes and socio-economic groups? Compared to what?

[mynah]

Social factors and access to facilities are certainly important - but it is hard to believe that lack of opportunity alone explains the paucity of really good white 100 m track stars.B)

[Don Blazys]

Some high schools and colleges are predominently white,

others are predominantly black.

 

However, just about every high school and college

has a basketball team.

 

Thus, in the case of black superiority in basketball,

"social factors" have nothing to do with it.

 

Indeed, conditions as they are probably favor

the players from the richer schools.

 

Yet, blacks still dominate basketball.

 

There must be a reason.

A reason that can be explained by science.

 

However, with all the namby pamby political correctness

that has so permeated our educational systems,

truth doesn't even matter any more.

 

Now it's all about "feelings".

 

:singer:"feelings ...nothing more than feelings..."

 

It makes me want to vomit.

 

Don.

[freeztar]

It makes me want to vomit.

 

So Lamarck was right? Do we owe him an apology?

[Don Blazys]

Quoting freeztar

So Lamarck was right? Do we owe him an apology?

 

If we are to be fair, honest and open minded,

then we should at least admit that "the jury is still out".

 

There is simply not enough data and information to either

accept or dismiss Lamarck's ideas.

 

Thus, those who did dismiss his ideas did so prematurely

and for that they do indeed owe him an apology.

 

To claim that the present day "Darwinian" model of evolution

adequately explains the incredible diversity of life on this planet

along with the vast number of subtle or "regional" differences

that clearly exist within the same species is simply the height of arrogance.

 

Even though they congregate in schools, fish are actually quite stupid.

Yet they have "free will" and the power to make "decisions".

They "will" themselves to swim and "choose" where they will go.

They have a rudimentary "intelligence" in that they "recognize" their enemys,

and "know" where to find food and shelter.

 

For that matter, even bacteria, viruses and liberal democrats

can be viewed as exhibiting a certain "form of intelligence".

 

So, how do we know that "intangiables" such as "will" and "intelligence"

don't exist and are not factors at the genetic (and/or epigenetic) level as well.

 

It may well be that what we view as "evolution" is simply

the product of another "form of intelligence" specific to genes

and that life itself is "experimenting" in order to realize its vast potential.

 

For all we know, there may yet be discovered some subtle mechanism

whereby a "decision" (prompted by a "genetic or epigenetic recognition"

of some condition that constantly requires the organism to struggle

or fight in a particular manner) is made at the genetic or epigenetic level that

the aquisition of some particular trait (such as the long neck of a girraffe)

would constitute a viable "direction" or "course of action"

for that particular species to take.

 

This is, of course, only "wild speculation" on my part,

but the answering of questions such as:

"What is life?"

"How did it begin?"

"How and why is it so incredibly diverse?"

is still in it's infancy, so "speculation" is really all we've got.

 

Don.

[freeztar]

If we are to be fair and open minded,

then we should at least admit that "the jury is still out".

 

There is simply not enough data and information to either

accept or dismiss Lamarck's ideas.

 

Thus, those who did dismiss his ideas did so prematurely

and for that they do indeed owe him an apology.

 

To claim that the present day "Darwinian" model of evolution

adequately explains the incredible diversity of life on this planet

along with the vast number of subtle or "regional" differences

that clearly exist within the same species is simply the height of arrogance.

 

Well, no, actually.

 

Modern evolutionary theory borrows from Darwin's ideas. Darwin's ideas are in no way a crutch for modern Evolutionary Theory.

 

Evolution has been passed around as an explanation for all sorts of cultural phenomena. It's simply not meant to be that. Evolutionary theory is very good at describing biological systems. When we extend this to culture, we run this risk of defamation. The science is so far sound. Let's keep it that way. :)

 

So, was Lamarck right? Well, it seems not. But, as Don says, it would be perhaps a little presumptive to say he was wrong (at least his most notorious idea).

 

For all we know, there may yet be discovered some subtle mechanism

whereby a "decision" (prompted by a "genetic recognition" of some condition

that constantly requires the organism to struggle or fight in a particular manner)

is made at the genetic level that the aquisition of some particular trait

(such as the long neck of a girraffe) would constitute a viable "direction"

or "course of action" for that particular species to take.

 

This is, of course, only "wild speculation" on my part,

 

I'm obliged to go along with your last sentence until you can provide support for the preceding text.

but the answering of questions such as:

"What is life?"

"How did it begin?"

"How and why is it so incredibly diverse?"

is still in it's infancy, so "speculation" is really all we've got.

 

Don.

 

We have quite a bit more than mere speculation. Science has shown how we can assemble life from naturally occuring elements. (See the wiki on Abiogenesis)

 

Science has yet to demonstrate abiogenesis at a level that will prove acceptable, yet the theory is there.

It's just a matter of time, imho. :)

 

Moore's Law might apply to more than computer hardware. ;)