Is the neo-Darwinian view of evolution dead and outdated?

[M. Helsdon]

"So is there any evidence for "Orthogenesis","Neo-Lamarckism" and "Process Structuralism""

I will give evidence for neo-Lamarckism and Saltationism, the others mechanisms later.


Evidence for Saltationism


Evidence of Repeated and Independent Saltational Evolution in a Peculiar Genus of Sphinx Moths

Saltational evolution in which a particular lineage undergoes relatively rapid, significant, and unparalleled change as compared with its closest relatives is rarely invoked as an alternative model to the dominant paradigm of gradualistic evolution. Identifying saltational events is an important first-step in assessing the importance of this discontinuous model in generating evolutionary novelty. We offer evidence for three independent instances of saltational evolution in a charismatic moth genus with only eight species.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004035


Saltational evolution of trunk segment number in centipedes

Saltational changes in segment numbers have likely occurred in arthropod evolution, especially if mechanisms of segment formation involve a multiplicative phase, as recently suggested in the evo-devo literature. Here we provide for the first time evidence of major phenotypic saltation in the evolution of segment number in a lineage of centipedes, with a newly discovered species of scolopender having segment numbers duplicated with respect to its closest relatives, and to all the remaining 700+ species of Scolopendromorpha known to date.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19469859


The proper place of hopeful monsters in evolutionary biology

Hopeful monsters are organisms with a profound mutant phenotype that have the potential to establish a new evolutionary lineage. The Synthetic Theory of evolutionary biology has rejected the evolutionary relevance of hopeful monsters, but could not fully explain the mechanism and mode of macroevolution. On the other hand, several lines of evidence suggest that hopeful monsters played an important role during the origin of key innovations and novel body plans by saltational rather than gradual evolution. Homeotic mutants are identified as an especially promising class of hopeful monsters. Examples for animal and plant lineages that may have originated as hopeful monsters are given.

http://evolocus.com/Publications/Theissen2006.pdf

Saltational evolution: hopeful monsters are here to stay

Since 150 years it is hypothesized now that evolution always proceeds in a countless number of very small steps (Darwin in On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle of life, Murray, London, 1859), a view termed "gradualism". Few contemporary biologists will doubt that gradualism reflects the most frequent mode of evolution, but whether it is the only one remains controversial. It has been suggested that in some cases profound ("saltational") changes may have occurred within one or a few generations of organisms. Organisms with a profound mutant phenotype that have the potential to establish a new evolutionary lineage have been termed "hopeful monsters". Recently I have reviewed the concept of hopeful monsters in this journal mainly from a historical perspective, and provided some evidence for their past and present existence. Here I provide a brief update on data and discussions supporting the view that hopeful monsters and saltational evolution are valuable biological concepts. I suggest that far from being mutually exclusive scenarios, both gradual and saltational evolution are required to explain the complexity and diversity of life on earth.

http://www.evolocus.com/publications/theissen2009.pdf


Evidence for neo-Lamarckism

An overview of some of the evidence can be found here:

http://www.alternativeinsight.com/Lamarck.html

Inheritance of susceptibility: Lamarckism revisited

The familial nature of susceptibility to rheumatic fever has been known for nearly three quarters of a century but even after massive ascertainments of affected families in 5 major cities, viz Toronto, Belfast, London, Glasgow and New York, a consensus on the exact mode of inheritance could not be reached. Reduced penetrance was suggested 40 years ago and still cited today even though the fit is poor. However with the sampling bias of the observed data resolved in the recently formulated geometric continuum v(affected-1) x P(sibship) (where O less than v----infinity) all those published ascertainments clearly show a unilocal Mendelian recessive mode of inheritance. Since rheumatic fever is clearly associated with streptococcal sore throat, I have therefore demonstrated the inheritance of an acquired trait. This Larmarckian concept is explained using simple numerical examples

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1631587

Lamarckian evolution of the giant Mimivirus in allopatric laboratory culture on amoebae

Acanthamoeba polyphaga Mimivirus has been subcultured 150 times on germ-free amoebae. This allopatric niche is very different from that found in the natural environment, where the virus is in competition with many other organisms. In this experiment, substantial gene variability and loss occurred concurrently with the emergence of phenotypically different viruses. We sought to quantify the respective roles of Lamarckian and Darwinian evolution during this experiment. We postulated that the Mimivirus genes that were down-regulated at the beginning of the allopatric laboratory culture and inactivated after 150 passages experienced Lamarckian evolution because phenotypic modifications preceded genotypic modifications, whereas we considered that genes that were highly transcribed in the new niche but were later inactivated obeyed Darwinian rules.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22919682

Spatial structure and Lamarckian adaptation explain extreme genetic diversity at CRISPR locus

Even within similar bacterial strains, it has been found that the clustered, regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) shows a large variability of spacers. Modeling bacterial strains with different levels of immunity to infection by a single virulent phage, we find that coexistence in a well-mixed environment is possible only when these levels are distinctly different. When bacterial strains are similar, one subpopulation collapses. In the case of bacteria with various levels of CRISPR immunity to a range of phages, small differences in spacer composition will accordingly be suppressed under well-mixed conditions. Using a numerical model of populations spreading in space, we predict that it is the Lamarckian nature of CRISPR evolution that combines with spatial correlations to sustain the experimentally observed distribution of spacer diversity.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22807565

Acquired Traits Can Be Inherited Via Small RNAs

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111205102713.htm

Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) researchers have found the first direct evidence that an acquired trait can be inherited without any DNA involvement. The findings suggest that Lamarck, whose theory of evolution was eclipsed by Darwin's, may not have been entirely wrong.

Inheritance of acquired traits in plants: Reinstatement of Lamarck

Since Lamarck proposed the idea of inheritance of acquired traits 200 years ago, much has been said for and against it, but the theory was finally declined after the 1930s... however observations strongly suggest that acquired traits can be heritable as far as the acquired methylation pattern is stably transmitted. This concept is consistent with the Lamarck’s theory of the inheritance of acquired traits, which therefore should be carefully reevaluated to reestablish his impaired reputation.

http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/psb/article/10803/?nocache=1504380950

A Comeback for Lamarckian Evolution?

Two new studies show that the effects of a mother's early environment can be passed on to the next generation.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/411880/a-comeback-for-lamarckian-evolution/

Other mechanisms

Evolution of adaptive phenotypic traits without positive Darwinian selection

Recent evidence suggests the frequent occurrence of a simple non-Darwinian (but non-Lamarckian) model for the evolution of adaptive phenotypic traits, here entitled the plasticity-relaxation-mutation (PRM) mechanism. This mechanism involves ancestral phenotypic plasticity followed by specialization in one alternative environment and thus the permanent expression of one alternative phenotype. Once this specialization occurs, purifying selection on the molecular basis of other phenotypes is relaxed. Finally, mutations that permanently eliminate the pathways leading to alternative phenotypes can be fixed by genetic drift. Although the generality of the PRM mechanism is at present unknown, I discuss evidence for its widespread occurrence, including the prevalence of exaptations in evolution, evidence that phenotypic plasticity has preceded adaptation in a number of taxa and evidence that adaptive traits have resulted from loss of alternative developmental pathways. The PRM mechanism can easily explain cases of explosive adaptive radiation, as well as recently reported cases of apparent adaptive evolution over ecological time.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22045380

 

[Aqueous Id]

Aqueous Id if this thread is to go forward then you are going to have to give cituations (scientific references eg. books/papers/websites), to back up your claims, so far and we get nothing.

I'm not making any claims. You are. At the moment I'm citing Darwin, and asking you to pose a question of science.

Drop this stupid political thing it makes you seem stupid and it ruins the thread.

I'm not worried about how I look. I'm attempting to direct this to an actual question of science, if you can formulate one. Drop this stupid "isms" thing and I'll stop addressing your politics. It was you who cited talkorigins. I think readers can decide for themselves the intelligence of doing that while denying you have a religious agenda.

Grumpy has given his personal opinion that evolution has not moved beyond neo-Darwinism but has given no scientific references to back this up.

Grumpy is on top of his game when it comes to science. He's probably waiting for you to enter into a science question, as am I.

The burden of proof is for you guys to show evidence now why you think evolution has not moved beyond neo-Darwinism becuase I have already cited over 6 scientific papers filled with evidence claiming it has written by professors of biology.

Nope, all the burden is on you. In fact, you still have the burden of relating this thread to science.

You rightly ask for a summary of the ideas of Koonin etc, of course it would be much easier if you actually read the scientific publications I cited, see their summary section, but yes I will do a summary (that will have to be for tomorrow now) but the main thesis is how evolution is not strictly gradual and that it can operate above, beyond, or without the gene level.

You keep assuming what I have and have not read. So far you are still demonstrating ignorance of Darwin. That makes Koonin et al moot. You need to lay a predicate.

And course how natural selection is not the only primary factor in evolution.

So? Is that the whole point of your thread? Ok. Then the answer is "so what?" Case closed.

I don't know where you lifted that from, what scientific source? Can you please cite your references and if possible peer-reviewed papers or stuff written by qualified evolutionary biologists?

Huh? No, I will not. I'm citing Charles Darwin. You need to do the same. That particular summary happens to be from a typical biology course. I'll look for it later. It doesn't matter. It's Darwin in a nutshell. You really need to familiarize yourself with Darwin, and you need to launch any discussion of evolution from the position of his work.

This talk origins article was written by John Wilkins an evolutionary biologist back in the 90s, it is slightly outdated but much of it still on target:

That's not the point. You went to a site specifically dedicated to summarized the debate about Creationism. The question is: why? You're trying to claim this is not a question for the politico-religious arena.

Ok so you asked for what Darwin said, here it is (adapted from Wilkins, 1998):

1. Transmutationism - that species change form to become other species.

2. Common descent - that similar species have common ancestors; the alternative is a view I can only call Parallel descent (a view held by Lamarck).

3. Struggle for existence - that more are born than can survive; the alternate view is sometimes called Commensualism.

4. Natural selection - that the relatively better adapted have more offspring, sometimes called Malthusianism.

(I would point out that in the 3rd edition of Origin of Species Darwin came to equate "Survival of Fittest" with "Natural Selection".

5. Sexual selection - that the more "attractive" organisms of sexual species mate more (and have more offspring), causing unfit traits to spread.

6. Biogeographic distribution - that species occur close by related species, explaining the distributions of various genera.

7. Heredity -

a. Darwin's own theory was called "pangenesis" and is no longer accepted.

b. Weismannism - the more modern view that genes don't record information about the life of organisms.

I'm not going to let you get away with that. If you're going to claim what Darwin said, you need to quote Darwin. You can't add anecdotes that he never said and leave it like that. That's dishonest.

Neo-Darwinism (in the 1940's-1970's) added the following:

1. Random mutation - the notion that changes in genes aren't directed towards "better" alternatives; in other words, that mutations are blind to the needs imposed by the ecology in which organisms find themselves.

2. Genetic drift/neutralism - the view that some changes in genes are due to chance or the so-called "sampling error" of small populations of organisms. Molecular neutralism is the view that the very structure of genes changes in purely random ways.

Anti-Darwinisms

Each of these "Darwinian" theories can be, and have been at some time in the past 150 years, challenged, and the end result called "anti-Darwinian". Anti-Darwinisms include:

Orthogenesis (linear evolution, aka Great Chain of Being thinking, the view that evolution proceeds in direct lines to goals, also sometimes called teleological evolution or progressionism): challenges 8 and 9. Examples: Lamarck, Nägeli, Eimer, Osborn, Severtsov, Teilhard. Often found as vague statements in more orthodox biology (in terms like "primitive" and "advanced" forms instead of the usual meanings in biology of older and derived.

Neo-Lamarckism (aka Instructionism, the view that the environment instructs the genome, and/or the view that changes occur to anticipate the needs of the organism): challenges 7b, 8 and 9. Examples: Haeckel, ED Cope, S Butler, Kropotkin, GBS Shaw, Kammerer, Koestler, E Steele, Goldschmidt.

Process Structuralism (aka Formalism, aka Laws of growth tradition, also called Naturphilosophie, deriving from Goethe and Oken - the view that there are deep laws of change that determine some or all of the features of organisms): challenges 3 to 5 and 10. Examples: Goethe, Geoffroy, D'Arcy Thompson, Goodwin, Salthe, Gould, Løvtrup.

Saltationism (in texts before about 1940 also called "Mutationism" or "Mutation Theory", the view that changes between forms occur all-at-once or not at all): challenges 11, and sometimes 2. Examples: Galton, TH Huxley, De Vries, TH Morgan, Johannsen, Goldschmidt (note however saltational evolution can describe events from epigenetics (Eva Jablonka et al), endosymbiosis (Margulis et al) or other evolutionary processes (Shapiro et al).

We don't care too much about opinions. This is a science thread, so let's go to the objective questions and the best evidence without all the grandstanding. If you want to grandstand, take this to a politics or religion forum.

Let me try a different tack since you're being so stubborn. I will pose the question of science that provoked Darwin's discovery of evolution:

Explain the presence of the finches Darwin found on Galapagos. What inferences can be drawn from this, according to best evidence? Tell us how this shaped Darwin's thinking, and the people in his immediate circle of influence. How have those inferences changed in light of better evidence, or have they changed at all?

Unless you refer to nature, not political stuff, you're not talking science. You're not even talking about science.

 

[M. Helsdon]

It was you who cited talkorigins. I think readers can decide for themselves the intelligence of doing that while denying you have a religious agenda.

You are acting like a loon. Talk.Origins is the leading anti-creationist website in the world, it is a website to LEARN about the evidence for evolution. How does talk.origins have a religious agenda? If anything their agenda is to get rid of the religious loons infesting science. The link I quoted from was written by a professor of evolutionary biology! Yet you reject it? I think it is you who is acting religious over these matters.

Nope, all the burden is on you

No, the burden is on you. I have just given another 10 or so SCIENTIFIC papers showing evidence for saltation and neo-Lamarckism at work and how evolution has moved beyond neo-Darwinism. The burden is on you to provide evidence on the contrary. So far you have cited 0 scientific publications to back up any of your wild claims.

Huh? No, I will not

Ok you have just admitted you have no interest in quoting or referencing any scientific publications. Your agenda is obviously anti-science. Please do not post on this thread anymore.

We don't care too much about opinions

This is hiliarious... are you a troll? I have cited over 20 scientific peer reviewed papers proving my points and all you dish out in your own personal opinions. As I said please don't post again! I have put you on ignore. You obviously have no interest in learning about evolution. Your behaviour seems to show that you are anti-evolution. I have no time for that! You have been given scientific papers but you have ignored every single one of them and offer nothing more than your personal opinions.

That particular summary happens to be from a typical biology course. I'll look for it later

Lol are you joking? On a science forum please if you are going to make a claim back it up with scientific sources yet you refuse to do that. You are offering nothing more than your personal opinion, so why should anyone here take you seriously? Do you understand how science works? It is not based on your personal beliefs, you know that right?

 

[M. Helsdon]

Grumpy is on top of his game when it comes to science.

I have yet to see this. He made fun of neo-Lamarckism and basically said it does not exist but I have just listed many scientific papers claiming it does exist. How is he going to refute the scientific evidence cited in those papers?

 

[Neverfly]

I have yet to see this. He made fun of neo-Lamarckism and basically said it does not exist but I have just listed many scientific papers claiming it does exist. How is he going to refute the scientific evidence cited in those papers?

Actually, you haven't.

What you've listed is a series of studies that show a possibility of support. Now, that's important. Let's discuss why...

Fossil Record- the fossil record demonstrates the course of evolution, over many millions of years. The primary demonstration is that the evolution of any creature is a very gradual process. This is across the board.

Occasionally, however, we see a leap. And as with these studies, we see what appears to be a case of Lamarckism. Yet, if Lamarckism was true, why is the overwhelming evidence showing such a gradual process?

Here's why the appearance is important: If there is an inactive but reactive gene already within a species, it can remain inactive but activated when the parent spawns offspring. For example, immunity can be activated due to alleles responding to environmental pressure. This is an evolved trait many animals share. It's not lamarckian in any way. So, if you perform a study to find out if Lamarckism is true, you may see what appears to be Lamarckism when the gene is activated, when in fact, it was run of the mill Darwinian style evolution. Note how these studies all focus on the same species each time. They've already been established to show this trait.
Yet the vast majority of studies done to put environmental pressure onto a species to alter their genes does not produce these results because most complex organisms cannot activate massive genetic alterations so readily. To put it simply, while the basics may be there, there is not enough code to account for the affect of a particular genes activation would have on the offspring. If you activated a certain gene that governs an aspect of immunity the genes required to govern other aspects in the complex animal are not present and the activation fails whereas with some simple organisms, those other aspect of immunity response genes are unnecessary or not present.

This is clear, again, due to the extensive fossil record.

To address your other claims- you said that "Neo-Darwinism" is crumbling... Over this? Isolated pockets of simple life forms that already contained the genes to show the adaptation in the known experiments?

Yes, you posted many links. But not one of them demonstrates actual Lamarcism. They only demonstrate a facsimile of what Lamarckism is actually about (Thus the name Neo-Lamarckism) and it's already understood how that happens.
You have not shown, as you claim, that ToE has moved beyond darwinism in any way whatsoever.

So, you have a link to TalkOrigins, I suggest that you read it. Understand what Evolution Theory is and what evidence supports it. You will find that a few cultures in petri dishes activating genes they already contain will have little impact.

 

[ElectricFetus]

IceAura I have not mistaken anything, the above points in my posts on Darwinism (written in red) were NOT written by me. They were written by evolutionary biologist John Wilkins. If you have beef it is not with me, but with a professional scientist in the field. Your entire post is just filled with personal opinion please back it up with some kind of evidence. Please cite references if you want to claim Wilkins is wrong.

Again this is an appeal to authority, a fallacy, not a logical argument! The claim of a "professional scientist" is not evidence in science, what is evidence is data presented by said scientist, can you post for us actually evidence, say an observation or expierment varifying the existance of of neo-lamakains for example? Has the experiement be repilcated? have alternate hypothesis been disproven? And finally do a majority of other evolutionary scientist agree upon these results?

You know world renound cosmologiest Stephen Hawkins says aliens are comming to get us, should we be scared the man is the most renound cosmologiest alive?

 

[M. Helsdon]

What you've listed is a series of studies that show a possibility of support

I have shown evidence for inheritance of acquired characteristics in plants, animals and humans. It has been observed, it is not just a "possibility". Did you even bother to read the links?

Occasionally, however, we see a leap. And as with these studies, we see what appears to be a case of Lamarckism. Yet, if Lamarckism was true, why is the overwhelming evidence showing such a gradual process?

You seem to be confusing Lamarckism with saltationism. Nobody is denying evidence for some gradual evolution, but as the papers on saltationism also show, saltational evolution is a reality.

You have not shown, as you claim, that ToE has moved beyond darwinism in any way whatsoever.

I have cited many scientific papers proving evolution has moved beyond neo-Darwinism you have just chosen to ignore them and not read them. Niche contruction, endosymbiosis, epigenetics, evo-devo, saltationism, inheritance of acquired characteristics are all evidence that evolution has moved beyond neo-Darwinism, see the cited papers.

On the topic of Lamarckism:

Is evolution Darwinian or/and Lamarckian?

Eugene V. Koonin and Yuri I. Wolf

Interestingly they classify HGT as Lamarckian:

Horizontal gene transfer: a major Lamarckian component

Arguably, the most fundamental novelty brought about by comparative genomics in the last decade is the demonstration of the ubiquity and high frequency of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) among prokaryotes, and a considerable level of HGT in unicellular eukaryotes as well. Prokaryotes readily obtain DNA from the environment, with phages and plasmids serving as vehicles, but in many cases, also directly, through the transformation pathway. The absorbed DNA often integrates into prokaryotic chromosomes and can be fixed in a population if the transferred genetic material confers even a slight selective advantage onto the recipient, or even neutrally. The HGT phenomenon has an obvious Lamarckian aspect to it: DNA is acquired from the environment, and naturally, the likelihood to acquire a gene that is abundant in the given habitat is much greater than the likelihood to receive a rare gene. The second component of the Lamarckian scheme, the direct adaptive value of the acquired character, is not manifest in all fixed HGT events but is relevant and common enough.

http://www.biology-direct.com/content/4/1/42

They come to the conclusion in their paper that Lamarckian evolution has a place in evolution. This is the evidence evolution has moved beyond a strict neo-Darwinian framework becuase the limited neo-Darwinan framework denied any role for Lamarckian processes. Please understand neo-Darwinism was presented in the 1940's we have come a long way since then, you accept this yes? So your statement about evolution not evolving beyond "Darwinism" makes no sense at all. We have discovered entire new evolutionary mechanisms since the 1940's and not all of them fit the bill as "Darwinian", infact all these mechanisms discussed in this thread are very "non-Darwinian".

It would help if users on this thread just accepted reality and accept that evolution evolves. Nobody is denying selection, we have just discovered much more about evolution. Just becuase evolution has moved beyond the neo-Darwinian framework does not say that the mechanisms in neo-Darwinism do not exist, of course drift, selection and mutation exist. But the evidence shows so do many other processes some of which may be more important than those things.

Science is not static and it is stupid to believe evolution only works via "Darwinism". Evolution is not limited and you have been given much evidence for many other evolutionary mechanisms at work besides the "neo-Darwinian" ones. The conclusion is that evolution is evolution, not "Darwinian" becuase many new factors are found in evolution especially in the last 20 years due to finds in developmental biology and it is not possible to fit these finds in science into a "Darwinian" framework. So instead of evolution being "Darwinian", saltationism and "Lamarckian" processes also have a role. So this is the new synthesis and that is exactly what many of the papers show.

 

[M. Helsdon]

can you post for us actually evidence, say an observation or expierment varifying the existance of of neo-lamakains for example?

I have already done that, I have cited about six papers showing how acquired characteristics have been inherited. It has been observed in plants for example. And theres also a few books on the subject if you want to have a serious read.

Lamarck's Signature: How Retrogenes are Changing Darwin's Natural Selection Paradigm by by E.J. Steele

This controversial book challenges the accepted theories on the genetic mechanism of evolution. The story these three biologists have to tell may very well upset the whole field of biology. The traditional view of evolutionwhich grew out of the work of Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin and is strongly supported by present-day scientists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gouldassumes we are at the mercy of our genes, which we inherit largely unchanged from our parents, except for rare random mutations which accumulated and lead to change over evolutionary time. Those genes are coded in the chromosomes of the sperm and egg cells of the parents, and so only changes to those two types of cell have any chance of being passed down to the parents' offspring. Any changes, accidents, or surgery to the rest of the parents bodies are not transmitted to the newborn. The theory of inheritance of acquired characteristicsif you build up your muscles your kids will be born with a propensity toward great strengthon the other hand, favored by Jean Lamarck in the nineteenth-century, was brought down by nineteenth-century science. But now, as this challenging and thrilling book shows, it looks as though, at least for certain structures in the bodys immune system, Lamarck may have been right after all. Based on their own ground-breaking work over the past two decades, as well as that of other molecular biologists, Steele, Lindley, and Blanden argue that for one adaptive body system there is strong molecular genetic evidence that aspects of acquired immunities developed by parents in their own lifetime can be passed on to their offspring. Certain to stimulate lively debate, Lamarcks Signature gives new life and scientific credibility to the Lamarckian heresy the notion of the inheritance of acquired characteristics

The Soma by Robyn Lindley

There is now extant scientific evidence suggesting that nature has evolved a number of molecular acquired inheritance mechanisms. It seems that Lamarck was right after all! In Soma, Dr Robyn Lindley provides us with an easy to understand and quite sobering account of what the new genetics is telling us... "What the mother ate, can determine whether mice pups have a yellow coat, a brown coat or a mottled yellow and brown coat." "You are what your parents ate. Well sometimes" "Smoking and chemicals in the work place can cause sperm damage for generations to come." "Repeated behaviours are inherited." ...and much more! We ignore the consequences at our peril. Learn why scientists now believe that acquired inheritance effects are real.

 

[ElectricFetus]

M. Helsdon.

Now can you cite their actually peer review journal publications? I would love to read the detials on this!

Now lets say a mechanism for inherting immunity does exist, such that mothers with immunity to malaria could make their children immune like they don't. Is there evidence that such a system works over all kinds of adaptation, or just immunity?

Also Dr Robyn Lindley quote "What the mother ate, can determine whether mice pups have a yellow coat, a brown coat or a mottled yellow and brown coat." is not proof or even evidence of lamarckanism. What is needed is proof that an individual can attapt to surivive, like the mother changes it coat color and then it transmits that change to is children which do the same to the next generation and so forth, and then you need evidence that this is not a special circumstance (like endosymbiosis), but that the parent can aquire just about any change and transmit it.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Why should the idea that there may be additional factors in evolution be such a problem?
Refusing to even look at the evidence?
This smacks of the Pope refusing to look through Galileo's telescope.
(an Urbano Myth?)

 

[Grumpy]

M. Helsdon

I have already done that, I have cited about six papers showing how acquired characteristics have been inherited.

No, you have cited six articles of varying degrees of self-promotion for several scientists, at least one of which(Shapiro)I know to be a pseudo-scientific hack. No valid evidence of traits acquired during a lifetime being inherited have ever been shown, PERIOD. And it is the burden of anyone claiming it's occurrence to provide evidence, not ours to show evidence of it's non-existence. The papers you cite make unsubstantiated claims and analysis, nothing more. Lamarckism is crap for science, deal with it.

It has been observed in plants for example

No, it has not.

I have shown evidence for inheritance of acquired characteristics in plants, animals and humans.

No, you have not, neither has any of your cites. The immune system is a whole group of traits that can be triggered(like the spines in the Three spined Stickleback, which has armor and spines in waters where a certain predator exists, and loses them when that predator is not present)depending on what the fetus is exposed to during development. And the genes for all of those traits were developed through the same Darwinian mechanisms as any other trait, it is the expression that is changing depending on what it is exposed to in the womb(epigenics). It only looks like Lamarckism to those ignorant of(or resistant to)the facts. You, yourself, have genes that exist in your genome for fighting diseases that you have not been exposed to(which may well be extinct), but that many of your ancestors were exposed to for many generations. Sickle cell anemia is a widespread "genetic fault" in African races that is actually a defense the genome developed to keep them alive long enough to reproduce in countries with rampant Malaria. It limits the untreated life of the individual to about 40 years, plenty of time to have offspring. Even people of African descent(recent)still have this gene and it's expression, though no longer needed, causes great harm to the individual. This expression rises and falls depending on the rate the population is exposed, and if the disease is universal the sickle cell people become dominant(through Darwinian attrition)while if the disease is absent we see the trait as a rare and tragic disease(through Darwinian population dynamics). Epigenics is within Darwinian science, Lamarckism is pseudo-science fueled by ignorance and scientific sloth(or ambition).

You seem to be confusing Lamarckism with saltationism. Nobody is denying evidence for some gradual evolution, but as the papers on saltationism also show, saltational evolution is a reality.

Saltation is a mechanism Darwinian evolution can use, though not as you think of it. It in no way nullifies our other knowledge of other mechanisms for change, it just adds another layer of complexity to what we already see is a very complex process.

I have cited many scientific papers proving evolution has moved beyond neo-Darwinism you have just chosen to ignore them and not read them

You have "proven" nothing. Proving things is not how science is done. You have presented scientists saying they have evidence and THEIR explanation of what it means. The problem is we already knew about the evidence and Darwinism handily explains the evidence without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Knowing only one of the Scientists you cite well(Shapiro), and knowing he is a complete loon(in his explanations, he's a big advocate of infanticide in this case), it doesn't say anything good about your ideas if they all agree with this kook. And we have not moved beyond Darwinism(neo or otherwise is just semantics), this is just nuts(and promoted by nuts).

Interestingly they classify HGT as Lamarckian

And they are seriously deluded to do so. Lamarckism says TRAITS acquired by an organism during it's lifetime are written into it's GENOME. Swapping a gene just removes the organism from the DARWINIAN process that developed that gene in another POPULATION. That is not Lamarckism, it is just the precursor of SEX by simpler means among simpler organisms. And sex is central to Darwinian explanations of INHERITED TRAITS. So, another fail.

Just becuase evolution has moved beyond the neo-Darwinian framework does not say that the mechanisms in neo-Darwinism do not exist, of course drift, selection and mutation exist. But the evidence shows so do many other processes some of which may be more important than those things.

And as those other important mechanisms are discovered, studied and tested they will be incorporated into our understanding of Evolution, that is what science does. But none of those mechanisms replace any part of the science of Evolution(as you and these hucksters are claiming). Nor do they in any way interfere with what we have found so far about evolutionary processes, or our basic understandings of these processes. Nor have they invalidated the accomplishments of Darwin over one hundred and fifty years ago. His work still stands unchallenged, much like Einstein in physics.

Grumpy

 

[M. Helsdon]

And they are seriously deluded to do so.

These are very anti-scientific remarks. You are calling professors of biology and genetics deluded and refusing to even read their papers. Are you a scientist and which peer reviewed publications do you have out? There is no reason to doubt the work of these scientists, they have been peer-reviewed they are not crank material, only creationists deny this evidence.

No, you have cited six articles of varying degrees of self-promotion for several scientists.

Ok, it's clear you havn't even clicked on the papers, it has nothing to do with self-promotion. I never cited a paper of Shapiro I cited his book which discusses natural genetic engineering, Shapiro is not a Lamarckian and I never claimed he was. See the first post for a summary of his views.

No valid evidence of traits acquired during a lifetime being inherited have ever been shown, PERIOD

It has been shown (see the first post on the top of this page), only your denialism is getting in the way of accepting this evidence.

Even see the post on Acquired traits inherited via small RNAs

Epigenics is within Darwinian science, Lamarckism is pseudo-science fueled by ignorance and scientific sloth(or ambition).

CITUATION needed. Please back up any of your claims with evidence, all I see from you is personal opinions! Either way I certainly will not be posting on this thread anymore. You have been given the scientific evidence but you deny it based on your personal beliefs. What the hell is "Darwinian science", everything is "Darwinian" to you is it? Nuts. How is HGT, endosymbiosis or niche construction "Darwinian"? They are totally non-Darwinian. You have been given the papers showing how evolution has moved beyond neo-Darwinism synthesis which discuss many of these "non-Darwinian" mechanisms but you ignore them.

A paper here written by two biologists which again proves the case of this thread:

Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis

This paper presents some of the recent challenges to the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary theory, which has dominated evolutionary thinking for the last sixty years. The focus ofthe paper is the challenge of soft inheritance - the idea that variations that arise during development can beinherited. There is ample evidence showing that phenotypic variations that are independent of variations in DNA sequence, and targeted DNA changes that are guided by epigenetic control systems, are important sources ofhereditary variation, and hence can contribute to evolutionary changes. Furthermore, under certain conditions, themechanisms underlying epigenetic inheritance can also lead to saltational changes that reorganize the epigenome. These discoveries are clearly incompatible with the tenets of the Modern Synthesis, which denied any significant role for Lamarckian and saltational processes. In view of the data that support soft inheritance, as well as other challenges to the Modern Synthesis, it is concluded that that synthesis no longer offers a satisfactory theoretical framework forevolutionary biology.

http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/soft1.pdf

Sorry Grumpy but science is not based on your personal beliefs, we have peer-reviewed scientific papers listing the evidence for Lamarckian and salational processes in evolution. They are a reality yet you reject all of this and call it delusion and even refuse to read them. Obviously some users on this forum are anti-evolution and I certainily will not be posting here again (please feel free to look over the papers cited in this thread to any other users if you are interesting in learning about this subject).

You may also want to email the biologists Snait B. Gissis and Eva Jablonka authors of a recent book on the evidence for Lamarckian evolution titled Transformations of Lamarckism: From Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology (Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology) (2011) that they are "deluded" "pseudoscientists", "cranks" or "hacks" (your words).

 

[M. Helsdon]

Nor have they invalidated the accomplishments of Darwin over one hundred and fifty years ago. His work still stands unchallenged

Just thought I would comment on this last point of yours. You honestly think that do you, you that all of Darwin's ideas stand unchallenged? Once again you are totally wrong:

1. Darwins' ideas of pangenesis (a mechanism of heredity) was challenged and it was found it does not exist.
2. Darwin mentioned "the creator" throughout his works and even wrote the "creator" breathed life into specific forms. This was challenged and rejected by scientists.
3. Darwin's ideas about the whole of nature being based on a "struggle" were challenged and have been proven to be wrong. Cooperation is a reality in evolution, see scientific publications on mutualism and endosymbiosis.
4. Darwin's version of the tree of life was challenged and is now universally rejected. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life and http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html
5. Darwin wrote that the Cambrian explosion never happened, this was challenged and he was to be proven wrong.
6. Darwin denied catastrophes and their role in evolution, this was challenged and we know they have occured (see the work of David Raup for example).
7. Darwin's ideas about constant gradualism was challenged and is now universally rejected. We know there is stasis but also periods of rapid change in evolution and that not all of evolution is gradual.
8. "While Darwin argued that competition was the key force driving evolution, a research team from the University of Bristol argues that "living space" is in fact the primary driver. Michael Benton, a co-author of the study, said his team concluded that "competition did not play a big role in the overall pattern of evolution."

"The new study proposes that really big evolutionary changes happen when animals move into empty areas of living space, not occupied by other animals,"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/darwin-wrong-evolution_n_692502.html

9. Darwin's theory of sexual selection was challenged for over 80 years (even self-described "neo-Darwinist" Julian Huxley rejected sexual selection!) and it is still being challenged by some scientists today.

10. The most important point. Darwin's ideas about natural selection have been challenged for over 150 years and they still are being challenged to this very day.

So your claim that Darwin's ideas have not been challenged and remain unchallenged is false. Science does not remain static. You have proven to me you do not know this subject. Good bye.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Lets review basically how things become fact, become execpt component or reality via the scientific methode:
1. evidence or observations are made
2. Someone makes a hypothesis/claim based on #1
3. The hypothesis is used to make predictions/ is tested, if the predictions/tests match the hypothesis it is now a theory
4. Others test and retest that theory, the theory stands up to the constant testing
5. Eventually the theory is tested, retested and refined until the only way for the theory to be drop is if new evidence were to come to light that was so grand, so incredible as to wipe out all the evidence generated from thousands of cycles of repeated testing and complete overturn our understand of reality.

Let try it shalt we? "There is an attraction between physical matter that we have named "gravity"" this one is not hard to test, you and drop and object and observe it fall to the ground, even rockets that reach escape velocity slow as they speed away, this one has been tested and retested some many times and in so many diffrent ways. Do you have another explination?

Lets see were lamarkianism is on this scale of becoming fact:
1. there observations that...
2. ... some have called evidence of lamarkanism

that is all.

Thanks for the article though I'll read it.

 

[Grumpy]

M. Helsdon

And they are seriously deluded to do so.

These are very anti-scientific remarks. You are calling professors of biology and genetics deluded and refusing to even read their papers

It wasn't intended as a comment on science, it was a comment on the delusion of science they obviously are working under. I repeat I READ ALL OF YOUR CITES(and more besides)before I posted my first post on this subject. Your cite of Shapiro shows the pseudo-scientific slant you are on. KNOWING that Shapiro is a hack and not reading anything in your other cites that support anything you have misunderstood to be true, well, Shapiro is as good as you ever got, it was all downhill(intellectually)from there. GIGO, I guess.

Ok, it's clear you havn't even clicked on the papers, it has nothing to do with self-promotion.

It is you that evidently haven't read your own cites. Each is sure that they have the "GREAT INSIGHT"tm to replace or falsify Darwin, and NONE of them actually do. Lamarckism is pseudo-science, saltations do happen, but are simply another way evolved traits are expressed or mutations succeed(look into the saltation that occurred to create Hammerhead sharks, it is believed that one mutation caused dozens of genes to express, bringing forth new morphology. Sharks have been a fertile ground for these types of changes, there are many truly bizarre morphologies in the fossil record), genes are often switched on or off during development in the womb or egg, but those expressions are echos of the original Darwinian development of those traits, not new traits(as you and your cites falsely claim).

No valid evidence of traits acquired during a lifetime being inherited have ever been shown, PERIOD

It has been shown (see the first post on the top of this page), only your denialism is getting in the way of accepting this evidence.

Even see the post on Acquired traits inherited via small RNAs

No, it has been claimed, but no one has shown any instance that violates the understanding we now have of genetics and inheritance. There simply are no "Acquired Traits". Even horizontal gene transfer is transferring a gene that evolution developed between closely related organisms(biologically). Did you know that bear mothers that have cubs during colder weather have more cubs with thicker, whiter fur? Evolution provides different templates for expression and the experience of the mother favors the particular set that gives white fur and heavy undercoat during fetal development. Once evolutionary selection forces act on those offspring you could have a massive change in the bear's morphology over a very few generations, with white Polar bears replacing genetically identical Brown bears in higher latitudes, or, as today, the Brown bear population growing as the Polar bears decline(due to global warming and ice melt). It was once thought that cross breeding was the cause of these changes, but Polar bears and Brown bears have never been known to interbreed naturally, it is the populations themselves that change, triggered by the severity of the winters the mothers experience. In the near future there will probably be few or no white bears left, but Polar bears will not be extinct and can reappear given colder conditions due to Darwinian approved gene expression. Bears have been through many glacial ages and they came by their white fur genes through normal evolution, as they developed their dark fur through the same mechanisms for more temperate climes. A mother that can "choose" either according to the conditions at the time of pregnancy has a great survival ability(for her offspring and her whole species)so such ability to switch is also a result of Darwinian principles. So what the hacks you cite call a saltation is actually just a series of genetic evolutionary advantages for two different environments that bear mothers evolved a mechanism to switch between.

Sorry Grumpy but science is not based on your personal beliefs, we have peer-reviewed scientific papers listing the evidence for Lamarckian and salational processes in evolution. They are a reality yet you reject all of this and call it delusion and even refuse to read them. Obviously some users on this forum are anti-evolution and I certainily will not be posting here again (please feel free to look over the papers cited in this thread to any other users if you are interesting in learning about this subject).

More blather from a pseudo-scientific perspective will not improve the dreck contained therein. Sorry you are running away, I was just getting started in on debunking this garbage and, who knows, you might actually learn how real science is done(hint, it does not consist of cherry picking the few cites you can find for your pseudo-scientific drivel).

Grumpy

 

[Neverfly]

M. Helsdon, It is you that evidently haven't read your own cites.

I concur with this considering his claim that the above has been used to demonstrate that Darwinian Evolution Theory has somehow failed and is 'crumbling.'
There simply is not much material out there, peer reviewed, that falsifies claims made. So his asking for citations and links vehemently strikes me as a tactic to give the illusion of validity to his arguments and later claim that those that supported mainstream theory had nothing to offer.

I smell a rat.

Sorry you are running away, I was just getting started in on debunking this garbage and, who knows, you might actually learn how real science is done(hint, it does not consist of cherry picking the few cites you can find for your pseudo-scientific drivel).

 

[Aqueous Id]

I concur with this considering his claim that the above has been used to demonstrate that Darwinian Evolution Theory has somehow failed and is 'crumbling.'

That would mean all science education is crumbling, which I suspect is where he was really headed.

There simply is not much material out there, peer reviewed, that falsifies claims made.

Plus he has a short memory. Only a few years ago Britain celebrated the 150th anniversary of Origin of the Species. It was perhaps the most accolades ever given to any scientist. National Academy of Sciences compares Darwin to Copernicus in the impact he has had on science. He seems to be envious of this. How psycho is that?

So his asking for citations and links vehemently strikes me as a tactic to give the illusion of validity to his arguments and later claim that those that supported mainstream theory had nothing to offer.

The silly aspect of this is, you can go to any authoritative source and find sources applying Darwin's theory, teaching it and explaining how Darwin ushered in the modern scientific era. So my point was: why bother? The updates to Darwin's theory, like DNA and the genome project, have not overturned the basic theory. And all of that is part of mainstream teaching too.

Helsdon was just trolling anyway, dumping prepared links, stoking the coals, and flaming on.

I smell a rat.

Yeah I think you saw it coming. Good call.

BTW Helsdon, (Hell's Done?) if you're still out there, my troll, the cite you were crying about (my post summarizing Darwin's theory) came for a WGBH Boston (PBS) education refresher course for teachers. You dumb cluck. There's also a National Academy of Sciences tribute to Darwin I was going to give you, but why bother? You obviously have no respect for actual hard work required to get an education.

BTW everybody else, Helsdon gets off trolling like this. I found him at amazon, same MO:

http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Ev...1VFILHXDE6V/61?_encoding=UTF8&asin=055277331X

I can't tell if he's peddling a book, or just foaming at the mouth. Or both?

 

[Neverfly]

Yeah I think you saw it coming. Good call.

Actually everyone did, yourself included. But until he confirmed it, I didn't say it directly.

He has an objective and is using distortion to press that objective and sadly, he's not the only one.

How much harm he can do on a science forum is somewhat limited. But when they hit mainstream media, it's a bigger problem.
Searching it up on Wikipedia and Discover magazine had similarly authored articles which misrepresent.

The effect is disturbing- a bit like seeing moon-hoaxer claims as being displayed in mainstream media as toppling NASA and showing the world that the USA is a faking phoney. A greater ignorance push... Oh well. It is election time.

 

[M. Helsdon]

I wasn't going to post again. BUT HERE IS THE EVIDENCE EVOLUTION HAS MOVED BEYOND NEO-DARWINISM, you asked for a summary and HERE it is. Only creationists and anti-science will deny this evidence. Science is not static, evolution has moved beyond neo-Darwinism:

For a close view of the table and references for this scientific evidence, please see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/table/T1/

From The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? by Prof Eugene Koonin.

The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the Tree of Life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the Modern Synthesis inherited from Darwin, gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss, and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable.

Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection 16, 17. And, with pan-adaptationism, gone forever is the notion of evolutionary progress that undoubtedly is central to the traditional evolutionary thinking, even if this is not always made explicit.

The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (Box 1). So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone. What’s next? The answer that seems to be suggested by the Darwinian discourse of 2009: a postmodern state not so far a postmodern synthesis. Above all, such a state is characterized by the pluralism of processes and patterns in evolution that defies any straightforward generalization.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/

The conclusion??

It is a FACT that evolution HAS moved beyond neo-Darwinism. Only ignorance denies this evidence.

We have scientific peer-reviewed papers filled with evidence written by professors of biology and genetics that evolution has progressed and moved beyond a strict neo-Darwinian framework.

Or we have anti-scientific users on an internet forum (who are not scientists) who give personal opinions (grumpy and Aqueous Id) who provide no scientific evidence for their claim that evolution has not progessed in the last 80 years.

Who to believe? EASY. I will go with the scientists.

Thanks!

 

[The real M. Helsdon]

Just a word to the wise: the 'M. Helsdon' posting here posts on the Amazon forums as 'Forests' and has displayed a constant hostility to the role of Charles Darwin in science (a common theme is that Darwin stole all his ideas) and has a tendancy to call everyone he disagrees with a 'Neo-Darwinist'. He mixes scientific evolutionary theories such as epigenetics and Horizontal Gene Transfer with pseudoscience such as psychogenesis and morphic fields. He seems to have created an identity here using my name on Amazon as a means of attempting to discredit my statements there by making it appear that I've adopted (and copied) his posts on Amazon here. He claims to be a student studying ecology and has a fixation on citing papers. For several threads started on Amazon started by him see:

http://www.amazon.com/forum/science...58KVEERYS5E&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx1YT381SJXW71E

(Especially page 35 where he accuses me of posting here.)

http://www.amazon.com/forum/science...dForum=FxZ58KVEERYS5E&cdThread=Tx2TIY0H2EXNU5

He has a history of deleting and then denying his earlier posts, and then declaring that he is going to stop posting, only to return a few days later...