Discussion: Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.
Evolution is bull.
If you take a bacteria it will multiply into over a million in a year or so.
And yet, after all these genrations, thousands of them that scientists have observed not ONE bacteria has changed species.
That's because the definition of "species" in the context of bacteria is far different than our concept of species in macroorganisms, as bacteria reproduce asexually. The traditional definition for a biological species breaks down at that level, because it directly involves sexual reproduction. That's why many off-shooting branches are called strains, and not necessarily species (Spoons would be able to verify or correct me on this).

If you instead consider genetic variance, then scientists have been able to create enormous variances in short amounts of time.

I'll use HIV as an example (a virus, but one of the best examples nonetheless): the genetic variance between Chimps and Humans is about 2%. HIV has been found to, in short periods of time, achieve variations of about 7%. So where do you draw the "species" line?

(**If THAT doesn't register to you as significant, I don't know what possibly could.**)

For that matter, that evolution occurs is not even a debate among the scientific community. The fact of evolution has been accepted since the 19th century.

The theory of evolution, the commonly heard phrase, actually deals with the natural mechanisms by which populations change over time. That is to say that what is typically under debate is HOW evolution occurs, not WHETHER it occurs. This means that natural selection, the primary theorized model for evolution, is what is under question in the scientific community.

Secondly, please do not confuse speciation with evolution. Speciation is the result of evolution, but it's not the definition of evolution.

Finally, we actually have evidence and instances of speciation in progress in natural systems. A single bird population in Asia/Russia originated from one habitat, and has spread into subpopulations in different directions. By the time the populations once again had overlapping habitat, the progeny of each lineage would not even consider mating with the other. Even under the biological definition of "species," these are divergent species in two different and independent populations.
 
Last edited:
I would add to the conversation, but there's a channel on youtube that can explain away creationism better than I can.

 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html?_r=2&hp

An English chemist has found the hidden gateway to the RNA world, the chemical milieu from which the first forms of life are thought to have emerged on earth some 3.8 billion years ago.
He has solved a problem that for 20 years has thwarted researchers trying to understand the origin of life — how the building blocks of RNA, called nucleotides, could have spontaneously assembled themselves in the conditions of the primitive earth. The discovery, if correct, should set researchers on the right track to solving many other mysteries about the origin of life. It will also mean that for the first time a plausible explanation exists for how an information-carrying biological molecule could have emerged through natural processes from chemicals on the primitive earth.

The author, John D. Sutherland, a chemist at the University of Manchester, likened his work to a crossword puzzle in which doing the first clues makes the others easier. “Whether we’ve done one across is an open question,” he said. “Our worry is that it may not be right.”

Other researchers say they believe he has made a major advance in prebiotic chemistry, the study of the natural chemical reactions that preceded the first living cells. “It is precisely because this work opens up so many new directions for research that it will stand for years as one of the great advances in prebiotic chemistry,” Jack Szostak of the Massachusetts General Hospital wrote in a commentary in Nature, where the work is being published on Thursday.

Scientists have long suspected that the first forms of life carried their biological information not in DNA but in RNA, its close chemical cousin. Though DNA is better known because of its storage of genetic information, RNA performs many of the trickiest operations in living cells. RNA seems to have delegated the chore of data storage to the chemically more stable DNA eons ago. If the first forms of life were based on RNA, then the issue is to explain how the first RNA molecules were formed.

For more than 20 years researchers have been working on this problem. The building blocks of RNA, known as nucleotides, each consist of a chemical base, a sugar molecule called ribose and a phosphate group. Chemists quickly found plausible natural ways for each of these constituents to form from natural chemicals. But there was no natural way for them all to join together.

The spontaneous appearance of such nucleotides on the primitive earth “would have been a near miracle,” two leading researchers, Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel, wrote in 1999. Others were so despairing that they believed some other molecule must have preceded RNA and started looking for a pre-RNA world.

The miracle seems now to have been explained. In the article in Nature, Dr. Sutherland and his colleagues Matthew W. Powner and Béatrice Gerland report that they have taken the same starting chemicals used by others but have caused them to react in a different order and in different combinations than in previous experiments. they discovered their recipe, which is far from intuitive, after 10 years of working through every possible combination of starting chemicals.

Instead of making the starting chemicals form a sugar and a base, they mixed them in a different order, in which the chemicals naturally formed a compound that is half-sugar and half-base. When another half-sugar and half-base are added, the RNA nucleotide called ribocytidine phosphate emerges.

A second nucleotide is created if ultraviolet light is shined on the mixture. Dr. Sutherland said he had not yet found natural ways to generate the other two types of nucleotides found in RNA molecules, but synthesis of the first two was thought to be harder to achieve.

If all four nucleotides formed naturally, they would zip together easily to form an RNA molecule with a backbone of alternating sugar and phosphate groups. The bases attached to the sugar constitute a four-letter alphabet in which biological information can be represented.

“My assumption is that we are here on this planet as a fundamental consequence of organic chemistry,” Dr. Sutherland said. “So it must be chemistry that wants to work.”

The reactions he has described look convincing to most other chemists. “The chemistry is very robust — all the yields are good and the chemistry is simple,” said Dr. Joyce, an expert on the chemical origin of life at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

In Dr. Sutherland’s reconstruction, phosphate plays a critical role not only as an ingredient but also as a catalyst and in regulating acidity. Dr. Joyce said he was so impressed by the role of phosphate that “this makes me think of myself not as a carbon-based life form but as a phosphate-based life form.”

Dr. Sutherland’s proposal has not convinced everyone. Dr. Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University, said the recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.” He said that cyano-acetylene, one of Dr. Sutherland’s assumed starting materials, is quickly destroyed by other chemicals and its appearance in pure form on the early earth “could be considered a fantasy.”

Dr. Sutherland replied that the chemical is consumed fastest in the reaction he proposes, and that since it has been detected on Titan there is no reason it should not have been present on the early earth.

If Dr. Sutherland’s proposal is correct it will set conditions that should help solve the many other problems in reconstructing the origin of life. Darwin, in a famous letter of 1871 to the botanist Joseph Hooker, surmised that life began “in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts.” But the warm little pond has given way in recent years to the belief that life began in some exotic environment like the fissures of a volcano or in the deep sea vents that line the ocean floor.

Dr. Sutherland’s report supports Darwin. His proposed chemical reaction take place at moderate temperatures, though one goes best at 60 degrees Celsius. “It’s consistent with a warm pond evaporating as the sun comes out,” he said. His scenario would rule out deep sea vents as the place where life originated because it requires ultraviolet light.

A serious puzzle about the nature of life is that most of its molecules are right-handed or left-handed, whereas in nature mixtures of both forms exist. Dr. Joyce said he had hoped an explanation for the one-handedness of biological molecules would emerge from prebiotic chemistry, but Dr. Sutherland’s reactions do not supply any such explanation. One is certainly required because of what is known to chemists, by a play on chemical words, as original sin. The left-handed sugars prevent the right-handed ones from joining together in a chain, so they must somehow be destroyed before life can begin.

Dr. Sutherland said he was working on this problem and on others, including how to enclose the primitive RNA molecules in some kind of membrane as the precursor to the first living cell.
 
That's because the definition of "species" in the context of bacteria is far different than our concept of species in macroorganisms, as bacteria reproduce asexually. The traditional definition for a biological species breaks down at that level, because it directly involves sexual reproduction. That's why many off-shooting branches are called strains, and not necessarily species (Spoons would be able to verify or correct me on this).

If you instead consider genetic variance, then scientists have been able to create enormous variances in short amounts of time.

I'll use HIV as an example (a virus, but one of the best examples nonetheless): the genetic variance between Chimps and Humans is about 2%. HIV has been found to, in short periods of time, achieve variations of about 7%. So where do you draw the "species" line?

(**If THAT doesn't register to you as significant, I don't know what possibly could.**)

For that matter, that evolution occurs is not even a debate among the scientific community. The fact of evolution has been accepted since the 19th century.

The theory of evolution, the commonly heard phrase, actually deals with the natural mechanisms by which populations change over time. That is to say that what is typically under debate is HOW evolution occurs, not WHETHER it occurs. This means that natural selection, the primary theorized model for evolution, is what is under question in the scientific community.

Secondly, please do not confuse speciation with evolution. Speciation is the result of evolution, but it's not the definition of evolution.

Finally, we actually have evidence and instances of speciation in progress in natural systems. A single bird population in Asia/Russia originated from one habitat, and has spread into subpopulations in different directions. By the time the populations once again had overlapping habitat, the progeny of each lineage would not even consider mating with the other. Even under the biological definition of "species," these are divergent species in two different and independent populations.
Technically, aren't viruses considered non living?


But, evolution does occur and I don't see why theologists and theists throw it out as untrue when it easily fits in with their religious convictions. Some yahoo just one day said "evolution is the devil," and it therefore had a stigma attached to it in the religous realm.
 
Technically, aren't viruses considered non living?
Yes. However, the forces at work on them with respect to evolution are the same as those working on all living organisms. That's important to recognize. They follow all of Darwin's four postulates, and those put forth by the modern synthesis.
 
1) Bump.

2) I need to amend the following statement:

Carcharodon said:
Finally, we actually have evidence and instances of speciation in progress in natural systems. A single bird population in Asia/Russia originated from one habitat, and has spread into subpopulations in different directions. By the time the populations once again had overlapping habitat, the progeny of each lineage would not even consider mating with the other. Even under the biological definition of "species," these are divergent species in two different and independent populations.
Technically, this is actually considered one species (full speciation has not occurred) because there can be gene flow between the two "subpopulations" (I use that term loosely) in an indirect fashion. The point I was trying to make is that it's possible for two groups of the same species to become so genetically different that they can no longer breed with one another, as evidenced by the two populations of birds at the "ends" of the ring formed by the population. This is incredibly strong evidence for "macroevolution."
 
On the subject of evolution (specifically reptiles vs dinosaurs vs lizards)

Aron-Ra (My favorite Athiest)

 
Last edited:
I really wish I had taken a dinosaur biology course. My girlfriend did, and she seemed to really enjoy it. Consequently, she knows a lot more about that evolutionary lineage than I do. Cool video!
 
To Carcharodon and others...

There was a time when we argued back and forth over whether or not evolutionary missing links had ever been discovered.

After reading the information you posted, which inspired me to read more...I now fully admit that I was 100% wrong in my viewpoint. Evolution has clearly been proven, and it was merely my lack of knowledge which caused me to think that it had not been solidly, unmistakably proven.
 
Yup, it's been proven to occur at the macro and micro level. It's also been proven that 1-4% of Europeans, Americans, Asians, and Australians have Neanderthal genes.
 
I believe in God, but I also accept evolution for what it is. (Note I didn’t say I “believe” in evolution – science isn’t a faith based system, so there is nothing to “believe”; I hate that saying). I treat evolution with the same curiosity and questioning as I do my faith – otherwise my knowledge of either would not grow. However; science – like faith – is fallible. Both are governed over, studied, and expressed by human intellect and by way of that, there is potential for human error, mistakes, and misunderstanding. To deny that in either subject is both ignorant and hurtful to two of the most important human institutions.

I often wonder how much of what we consider as evolution will change as our science and understanding grows. For instance, paleontologists are starting to figure out that what were once considered different species of dinosaurs are actually the SAME species, but at different levels of maturity. Then there’s the idea of gender differences, deformities, etc. I’m interested to see where more understanding of this phenomena will take us…where what was once considered to be a “missing link” in a species’ evolutionary time line, is actually a younger specimen of said organism, (as I’m sure everyone’s aware, studies have shown that carbon dating and similar methods have yielded inaccurate results at times, so it’s not an infallible system of measurement, which might account for misidentification in this type of instance).

Also, not everyone who dismisses evolution is a “religious nutcase”. I’ve talked to several people over the years who were atheistic through and through that dismissed evolution.
 
I believe in God, but I also accept evolution for what it is. (Note I didn’t say I “believe” in evolution – science isn’t a faith based system, so there is nothing to “believe”; I hate that saying). I treat evolution with the same curiosity and questioning as I do my faith – otherwise my knowledge of either would not grow. However; science – like faith – is fallible. Both are governed over, studied, and expressed by human intellect and by way of that, there is potential for human error, mistakes, and misunderstanding. To deny that in either subject is both ignorant and hurtful to two of the most important human institutions.
Well said.

Spider-Who? said:
I often wonder how much of what we consider as evolution will change as our science and understanding grows. For instance, paleontologists are starting to figure out that what were once considered different species of dinosaurs are actually the SAME species, but at different levels of maturity. Then there’s the idea of gender differences, deformities, etc. I’m interested to see where more understanding of this phenomena will take us…where what was once considered to be a “missing link” in a species’ evolutionary time line, is actually a younger specimen of said organism, (as I’m sure everyone’s aware, studies have shown that carbon dating and similar methods have yielded inaccurate results at times, so it’s not an infallible system of measurement, which might account for misidentification in this type of instance).
I've often wondered how such variations could be accounted for when it comes to paleontology. I don't know much about it. It's a science that was pioneered, ironically, by a relatively staunch creationist. That man (Cuvier) was able to begin developing techniques long ago, however, which help to prevent such mistakes from being made. But our understanding is far from complete, and the methods aren't perfect, of course.

With respect to radiometric dating, I'm sure there have been erroneous readings, but I can't help but wonder how frequently they occur. Part of the problem is that radiometric dating is based on certain assumptions about the relative amounts of parent/daughter material present.

The vast majority of the time, radiometric dating isn't used on its own to verify ages. It's most often used in combination with relative dating methods, and the two act as checks on one another.

I've heard of carbon dating itself having problems that aren't so often encountered by other radiometric dating methods, but I couldn't remember details. With respect to dating fossils, carbon dating is virtually useless (if not entirely).

Spider-Who? said:
Also, not everyone who dismisses evolution is a “religious nutcase”. I’ve talked to several people over the years who were atheistic through and through that dismissed evolution.
If I recall, Heretic questioned it though he seems pretty strongly atheist. So you're absolutely right.
 
I believe in God, but I also accept evolution for what it is. (Note I didn’t say I “believe” in evolution – science isn’t a faith based system, so there is nothing to “believe”; I hate that saying). I treat evolution with the same curiosity and questioning as I do my faith – otherwise my knowledge of either would not grow. However; science – like faith – is fallible. Both are governed over, studied, and expressed by human intellect and by way of that, there is potential for human error, mistakes, and misunderstanding. To deny that in either subject is both ignorant and hurtful to two of the most important human institutions.

I often wonder how much of what we consider as evolution will change as our science and understanding grows. For instance, paleontologists are starting to figure out that what were once considered different species of dinosaurs are actually the SAME species, but at different levels of maturity. Then there’s the idea of gender differences, deformities, etc. I’m interested to see where more understanding of this phenomena will take us…where what was once considered to be a “missing link” in a species’ evolutionary time line, is actually a younger specimen of said organism, (as I’m sure everyone’s aware, studies have shown that carbon dating and similar methods have yielded inaccurate results at times, so it’s not an infallible system of measurement, which might account for misidentification in this type of instance).

Also, not everyone who dismisses evolution is a “religious nutcase”. I’ve talked to several people over the years who were atheistic through and through that dismissed evolution.

Carbon dating won't help you much with dinosaurs as it only dates to around 60,000 years. The methods of radiometric dating that are used are highly accurate and are always double and triple checked with other methods of that type before a range is attached to the fossil.

When you read about errors in carbon dating, consider the source and the situation in which an error might occur. Creationists will often use carbon dating to date dinosaur fossils and when it yields an erroneous date, they say it's unreliable. Or cite instances in which the samples were found in areas with an overabundance of carbon through other processes and state the result as unreliable. When used properly and when any natural processes as taken into account, there is no serious issue at all with carbon or radiometric dating.
 
Carbon dating won't help you much with dinosaurs as it only dates to around 60,000 years. The methods of radiometric dating that are used are highly accurate and are always double and triple checked with other methods of that type before a range is attached to the fossil.

I know. I just didn't feel like listing any other forms of dating, as i assumed my intent would be clear.

When you read about errors in carbon dating, consider the source and the situation in which an error might occur.

I always do, irregardless of the topic (science, religion, politics, etc).

Creationists will often use carbon dating to date dinosaur fossils and when it yields an erroneous date, they say it's unreliable.

I've come across that, and I have also come across scientists misinterpreting religious points in order to validate their own. No side is safe from those types of people, unfortunately.
 
Well said.

I've often wondered how such variations could be accounted for when it comes to paleontology. I don't know much about it. It's a science that was pioneered, ironically, by a relatively staunch creationist. That man (Cuvier) was able to begin developing techniques long ago, however, which help to prevent such mistakes from being made. But our understanding is far from complete, and the methods aren't perfect, of course.

I know. It boggles my mind (in a good way).

With respect to radiometric dating, I'm sure there have been erroneous readings, but I can't help but wonder how frequently they occur. Part of the problem is that radiometric dating is based on certain assumptions about the relative amounts of parent/daughter material present.

The vast majority of the time, radiometric dating isn't used on its own to verify ages. It's most often used in combination with relative dating methods, and the two act as checks on one another.

I've heard of carbon dating itself having problems that aren't so often encountered by other radiometric dating methods, but I couldn't remember details. With respect to dating fossils, carbon dating is virtually useless (if not entirely).
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, while (admittedly) my understanding of the topic is simplistic at best, I'm aware that scientists try to have as many fail safes as possible in order to check and balance the outcomes. However, there are so many untold variables concerning the environment of the specimen over that years that have the potential to greatly misconstrue an organism's age that its hard to ignore, or at least not acknowledge in some fashion. It is something that I would enjoy learning more about, however.
 
I believe in God, but I also accept evolution for what it is. (Note I didn’t say I “believe” in evolution – science isn’t a faith based system, so there is nothing to “believe”; I hate that saying). I treat evolution with the same curiosity and questioning as I do my faith – otherwise my knowledge of either would not grow. However; science – like faith – is fallible. Both are governed over, studied, and expressed by human intellect and by way of that, there is potential for human error, mistakes, and misunderstanding. To deny that in either subject is both ignorant and hurtful to two of the most important human institutions.

I often wonder how much of what we consider as evolution will change as our science and understanding grows. For instance, paleontologists are starting to figure out that what were once considered different species of dinosaurs are actually the SAME species, but at different levels of maturity. Then there’s the idea of gender differences, deformities, etc. I’m interested to see where more understanding of this phenomena will take us…where what was once considered to be a “missing link” in a species’ evolutionary time line, is actually a younger specimen of said organism, (as I’m sure everyone’s aware, studies have shown that carbon dating and similar methods have yielded inaccurate results at times, so it’s not an infallible system of measurement, which might account for misidentification in this type of instance).

Also, not everyone who dismisses evolution is a “religious nutcase”. I’ve talked to several people over the years who were atheistic through and through that dismissed evolution.

Well becoming Athiest could be for a variety of reasons. Not all scientists and researchers who believe in evolution are Athiests either. Also the methodology is still the same, overwhelming evidence leads scientists believe a certain event happened. For instance, its 'common knowledge' that an asteroid collided with Earth causing the extinction of the Dinosaurs, but scientists never just acknowledged that evidence while ignoring evidence of geological changes during the late Cretaceous period, or that there is some evidence that showed that some dinosaurs survived. They also would accept new knowledge, such as the most recently discovered second asteroid that hit somewhere in Ukraine.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, while (admittedly) my understanding of the topic is simplistic at best, I'm aware that scientists try to have as many fail safes as possible in order to check and balance the outcomes. However, there are so many untold variables concerning the environment of the specimen over that years that have the potential to greatly misconstrue an organism's age that its hard to ignore, or at least not acknowledge in some fashion. It is something that I would enjoy learning more about, however.

We should never jump to conclusions. Religious zealots do that all the time, and some smug Atheists also do that without looking for the most rational discourse.
 
Study: PTSD Survivors' Children May Have Genetic Scars

By JEFFREY KLUGER Jeffrey Kluger – Thu Sep 9, 7:45 pm ET

The Holocaust is a crime that never seems to quit. Even as the ranks of survivors grow smaller each year, the impact of that dark passage in history continues to be felt. And it's not just the victims who feel the effects; it's their children too.

Psychologists have long been intrigued by the emotional profile of so-called second-generation Holocaust survivors. Parents who lived through the camps were forever changed by the horrors they witnessed. In the 21st century, many - probably most - would be recognized as suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Back then, the absence of such a diagnosis also meant the absence of effective treatments. As a result, a generation of children grew up in homes in which one, and sometimes both, parents were battling untold emotional demons at the same time they were going about the difficult business of trying to raise happy kids. No surprise, they weren't always entirely successful. (See pictures of Auschwitz after 65 years.)

Over the years, a large body of work has been devoted to studying PTSD symptoms in second-generation survivors, and it has found signs of the condition in their behavior and even their blood - with higher levels of the stress hormone cortisol, for example. The assumption - a perfectly reasonable one - was always that these symptoms were essentially learned. Grow up with parents afflicted with the mood swings, irritability, jumpiness and hypervigilance typical of PTSD and you're likely to wind up stressed and high-strung yourself. (See more on how kids are vulnerable to posttraumatic stress.)

Now a new paper adds another dimension to the science, suggesting that it's not just a second generation's emotional profile that can be affected by a parent's trauma; it may be their genes too. The study, published in the journal Biological Psychiatry, was conducted by a team led by neurobiologist Isabelle Mansuy of the University of Zurich. What she and her colleagues set out to explore went deeper than genetics in general, focusing instead on epigenetics - how genes change as a result of environmental factors in ways that can be passed onto the next generation. (See pictures of a U.S. Army town coping with PTSD.)

To conduct their work, Mansuy's team raised male mice from birth and continually but unpredictably separated them from their mothers from the time they were one day old until they were 14 days old. Thereafter, the animals were reared, fed and cared for normally, but the early trauma took its toll.

As adults, the subject animals exhibited PTSD-like symptoms such as isolation and jumpiness. More tellingly, their genes functioned differently from those of other mice. The investigators looked at five target genes associated with behavior - most notably, one that helps regulate the stress hormone CRF and one that regulates the neurotransmitter serotonin - and found that all of them were either overreactive or underreactive.

These mice, for the purposes of the study, were the equivalent of first-generation Holocaust survivors. They then fathered young and, like most males of the species, had nothing to do with their upbringing. The pups were raised by their mothers with none of the trauma and separation their fathers had suffered, and yet when they grew up, not only did they exhibit the same anxious behavior, but they also had the same signature gene changes.

"We saw the genetic differences both in the brains of the offspring mice and in the germline - or sperm - of the fathers," says Mansuy.

Mouse studies, by their definition, are limited, particularly when the animals are being used as stand-ins not merely for human biology but for human behavior as well. Still, in this case, the nonhuman models were actually an advantage, since you could hardly run a control experiment in which second-generation survivors of the Holocaust were separated from their fathers, ensuring that you were studying inherited - not acquired - traits. What's more, says Mansuy, is that "with animals, you can study the brain in detail." (Comment on this story.)

That doesn't mean that some studies seeking similar findings couldn't be conducted in human subjects. Straightforward analysis of blood, plasma and sperm from volunteers could reveal signs of genetic changes similar to those seen in mice. And a deeper analysis of the mouse genes should yield other target genes to study in people. "We're now doing a high throughput study of hundreds of genes that go beyond the first five," says Mansuy.

The Holocaust is hardly the only life crisis that can shape behavior and genes. Survivors of Afghanistan, Iraq or Darfur - or even those who grew up in unstable or abusive homes - can exhibit similar changes. But Holocaust survivors remain one of the best study groups available because their trauma was so great, their population is so well known, and so many of them have gone on to produce children, grandchildren and even great-grandchildren. Humans, alas, may never run out of ways to behave savagely toward one another. But the better we can understand the price paid by the victims - and the babies of the victims - the better we may be able to treat their wounds.

While the field of epigenetics isn't as new as this article seems to imply, it is relatively young. However, there's strong evidence that it has some merit.

The reason I wanted to post it here is to depart (at least briefly) from the discussion of evolution's factual basis in favor of a discussion on evolution itself. This article (and the field of epigenetics) is particularly interesting because it supports, in small part, the idea of Lamarckian evolution: the inheritance of acquired characteristics. This is an idea we are typically introduced to during the study of evolution in school, but which is dismissed quite readily.

The classical example of (what I'm calling) Lamarckian evolution is the giraffe: a giraffe (or its ancestor) possessed a neck of a certain length, one too short, in a given environment, to reach the lower-most leaves of a tree. The giraffe stretches and strains its neck, thereby increasing its length. Not only does the length of the giraffe's neck increase, but that increase is then passed on to its offspring.

Another example is of a body-builder: if somebody works hard enough during the course of their life to increase their muscle mass, that increase will be heritable (it will be passed on to that body-builder's offspring, in some form or another).

A basic understanding of processes in genetics tells us that this doesn't happen. What this article is telling us, however, is that far more subtle genetic changes can be triggered by environmental factors, and that these changes are heritable because they have direct effects on the genetic code that we pass on.

The implications reach beyond things like PTSD, and may even involve our very diet and exposure to harmful substances.

I would almost like to think of this as a teeny, tiny vindication of Lamarck's proposed evolutionary process...though I strongly question the extent to which it actually affects the evolutionary process as we know it today.

Thoughts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"