+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: Lamarckism: a different theory of evolution

  1. Link to Post #21
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    26th January 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    113
    Thanks
    186
    Thanked 279 times in 76 posts

    Default Re: Lamarckism: a different theory of evolution

    I'm curious if anyone has mapped a person's dna from birth to death and actually noticed any mutations? You hear all the time "our dna is changing, junk dna is being activated, etc. amongst new age circles. Anyone aware of any veracity to these claims?

    Oh ps -Dale. Thanks for this article. I enjoyed it and the moment I started reading it I thought "morphic fields" LOL.

    Do you think Lamarckism correlates at all to the 100th monkey theory? That obviously impacts on a wider range - potentially a whole species rather than just a family or group in close proximity.
    Last edited by kinerkid; 16th March 2011 at 05:08.

  2. Link to Post #22
    United States Avalon Member johnf's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th January 2011
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    1,205
    Thanks
    8,421
    Thanked 6,288 times in 1,107 posts

    Default Re: Lamarckism: a different theory of evolution

    Thanks Dale,
    This is a set of ideas whose idea has come. When I was a child I had a few "paranormal" incidents which I still remembered but were partially suppressed.
    The one that really stands out is from 4th grade when I was given what is probably a standard lecture on evolution. I was strongly interested in animals, and natural history already, so I was much more attentive than usual. Well the teacher was explaining how the legs of a predator got longer over generations and that the predators born with longer legs survived better etc.
    At that point I experienced a "voice" or awareness that said there is something in the animal that knows what changes to make, and I was entirely convinced of this being the truth rather than the more materialistic slant I was being told. I was so excited by this that I nearly blurted it out, but seemed to know better and I felt like it was ok to believe this idea.
    This was in the sixties and I pursued a major in Zoology later, and dropped out when I had some sort of spiritual existential crisis. But I read a lot of books that discussed things like the hundreth monkey phenomenon, and later the idea of morphogenetic feilds. Then more recently I saw a few Camelot videos that mentioned the information feild.

    The future of this subject has a lot of possibilities, perhaps we are nearing the point where we can resist using it for eugenics and cloning super soldiers "without souls" or various other
    childish things. The Russian discoveries about frequencies and language being able to change DNA is another piece of the puzzle that hopefully will be allowed to fall into place here.
    Can't wait to see what happens next!

  3. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to johnf For This Post:

    Cottage Rose (2nd April 2011), KosmicKat (16th March 2011), modwiz (3rd April 2011), Valerie Villars (16th March 2019)

  4. Link to Post #23
    Avalon Member David Hughes's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th February 2011
    Location
    everywhere
    Age
    40
    Posts
    165
    Thanks
    251
    Thanked 852 times in 151 posts

    Default Re: Lamarckism: a different theory of evolution

    Here's links to a decent documentary about Epigenetics. The total length of the documentary is about 50 minutes, and it's well worth a watch:









    Last edited by David Hughes; 13th August 2018 at 07:05.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to David Hughes For This Post:

    firstlook (21st March 2011)

  6. Link to Post #24
    United States Avalon Member Cottage Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd February 2011
    Location
    At the Cottage
    Posts
    734
    Thanks
    4,384
    Thanked 3,451 times in 617 posts

    Default Re: Lamarckism: a different theory of evolution

    Quote Posted by Dale (here)
    And with regard to morphic fields, as suggested by Zook, have a look at biologist Rupert Sheldrake's introduction to the subject posted on his website.

    It's an interesting, yet simple, overview of the subject; quite related to this thread, for certain.
    Hi Dale:

    This is an interesting informative thread. I enjoyed your correlation between Lamarck and Lipton. I have been a fan of both Sheldrake and Lipton for quite a while.

    Recently, while reading an Avalon Reincarnation thread, a question occured to me. I remembered this thread and thought readers here might have useful comments on my question. I have been contemplating the fact that so many seem to place a great weight on the validity of hypnotic regressions. Having studied hypnosis history and practice and having spent time working for a clinical psychologist who was a hypnotherapist, I have always questioned regression results. For example, how much of a part do the expectations and consciousness of the hypnotist play?.

    I wonder if the reason why so many "between life" regression experiences are similar might just be that a strong morphic field was created and became a popular "place" to go during these regressions. Could this be a only a morphic field created by a strong consciousness?

    Personally, I would make some serious changes to the standard version if I were manifesting. The described "welcome party", "schoolroom", and "body supermarket" experience described by Newton and others would not be my first choice.

    Perhaps it was Bob Monroe's Gateway experience that led me to these feelings. An example would be his description of his old "home" where the same music and clouds rolled by. The same games were played. He was bored and realized he didn't want to return to that "home" after all. If there is artistic expession in 3D, surely we all don't wind up in the same boring place in higher dimensions.

    Any thoughts?

    For any who have not heard Sheldrake, McKenna and Abraham's Trialogues, they are most entertaining. Free mp3's are here:
    http://www.sheldrake.org/Trialogues/index.html
    Last edited by Cottage Rose; 3rd April 2011 at 05:14.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Cottage Rose For This Post:

    silvanelf (13th September 2019)

  8. Link to Post #25
    Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    7th January 2011
    Age
    44
    Posts
    101
    Thanks
    151
    Thanked 515 times in 85 posts

    Default Re: Lamarckism: a different theory of evolution

    Dale,

    Thank you for your post. I love Lamarck and where his information is leading current research. If you don't mind, I’m gonna drop some didactic lovin’ up in this space right about now. Sorry about the length.

    Within a psychic, psychological, or psychopathological context, epigenetics or Gene-Environment Correlation (rGE) is comprised of three modes of generational transmission: Passive, Active and/or Evocative.

    Dale, as you mentioned, one's environment can influence one's genetics and alter one's DNA. For example, an abused child will have an elevated ability to detect potential threats. This state of hyperarousal originates from an overactive Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis (HPA Axis), which essentially results in a feedback loop of increased output of cortisol into various structures of the developing brain. This state of hypercortisolism has a catabolic (degrading) effect upon proteins, thus creating various amino acids and peptides that can effect genetic transcription and translation from RNA-DNA, which can result in the formation of a "new" heritable trait.

    Our hypothetical abused child will be able to have an increased vigilance and threat detective system due to synaptic sculpting, yet other parts of his brain will develop in a dysfunctional and dysregulated manner (I’m looking at you, Charles… just joking, you’re a great guy). Elevated levels of cortisol are toxic to brain tissue and can lead to apoptosis and synaptic pruning (Neural cell death). Often times, the child’s ability to regulate their emotions will be dramatically diminished.

    If this child (A) grows up and has his own child (B), child B will likely have inherited a vulnerability that trends towards hypercortisolism. In addition, child A may create a home environment of fear and suspicion, which further exploits B’s vulnerability towards a hypercortisolic (aggressive-paranoid-hypervigilant-no bueno) state. This is an example of Passive rGE.

    Active rGE is when child B, due to the partial influence of his inherited vulnerability, decides to actively seek out environments or engage in behaviors that will further exacerbate his genetics. For example, B, trending towards paranoia, begins to research fringe topics and finds himself involved with a secret society, which may further increase his hypervigilance and paranoia.

    Evocative rGE is when child B, exhibits a behavior (that is partially due to his genetics) that evokes a response from someone that exacerbates his hypercortisolistic state. For example, child B (now an adolescent) decides to join an online forum. In this forum he acts out and accuses many people of belonging to the PTB due to his schema-consistent tendency towards hypervigilant threat detection. He ticks a bunch of people off and gets banned from the forum, which increases his anger, his paranoia, and generally makes his life even worse than it was before.

    All of the aforementioned modes of epigenetic transmission can be stable across many generations. This is why people can be bred to be psychic, warriors, or psychic warriors, or just plain elitist a**holes (that are unbalanced in their abilities; therefore vulnerable to and controllable by myriad influences). It can all be explained without leaping to a quantum component.

    Although a quantum component exists throughout a human’s cognitive ability, good ol’ fashion breeding can explain most epigenetics.

    Even if one breaks the cycle of ritual abuse, monozygotic and dizygotic twin studies produce concordance rates that prove that the genetic component of behavior is very real.

    However, focused intent is the key and various practices can reset (so to speak) aspects of genetic expression and can activate previously dormant parts of the brain. For example, recent research (hot off the presses) on the effects of meditation upon the brain has discovered some startling evidence of significant neural tissue growth in a short amount of time. Brain imaging of people who meditated for 8 weeks showed a 9-fold increase of neural density in the left hippocampus versus that of the control group (Holzel, et al./Journal of Psychiatric Research: Neuroimaging 191 [2011] 36-43). This study does not even mention how meditation affects the limbic system and the nucleus accumbens (ahem… your pleasure center).

    The hippocampus is involved in the storage and recall of cognitive and emotional memory. This “implicit” memory is the type of memory that trauma survivors cannot recall in a conscious manner; the type of memory that may surface in the form of intrusive dreams. “Threat” (or abuse) alters the ability of the hippocampus and connected cortical areas to “store” certain types of cognitive information.

    The moral of the story is: If you think you have been abducted, ritually abused, stressed, scared, messed with, whatever… meditate to find your answers.

    Meditation unlocks the quantum component (not forum surfing, not monoatomic gold, not Ashayana Dean’s pricey channeled (but not channeled) freakishly expensive “information,” not baby Jesus, not David Wilcock’s terrible music, not web spider bot reports, not Dan Burisch’s magic glowing crystals, not Pete Peterson’s magic finger thingy, not Stewart Swerdlow’s hyperdimensional language [or recycled train hobo symbols], and not anything else that anyone is selling).

    It so simple.

    Phew.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Sync For This Post:

    Valerie Villars (16th March 2019)

  10. Link to Post #26
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    28th July 2010
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    673
    Thanks
    278
    Thanked 1,639 times in 239 posts

    Default Re: Lamarckism: a different theory of evolution

    Quote The moral of the story is: If you think you have been abducted, ritually abused, stressed, scared, messed with, whatever… meditate to find your answers.
    I agree fully.

    There is an abundance of silly (and expensive!) mechanisms for retaining lost memories, facing them, and moving forward; most of which simply try to replicate the results of an honest, mindful session of deep meditation.

    Regardless of Mendelian or Lamarckian genetic factors; we are conscious beings who can choose to either be at the mercy of what has been passed on to us, or we can set a new president by overcoming the shadows of our distant history.

    Quote [post regarding reincarnation, regression, and morphogenic fields] Any thoughts?
    I do believe we have what many philosophers and religious figures refer to as "past lives." However, many memories retrieved via means of hypnotic regression seem to closely resemble subconscious methods of coping with past distress, an intermingling with the background energy/field in which consciousness likely operates from, or are simply scenarios coached by the hypnotist.

    I do feel some cases of past life recall are genuinely retrieved from hypnotic regressions, but because hypnosis is a difficult art to master, and previous lives tend to be closely tied to the subconscious feedback loops of both ourselves and those nearby, it is highly difficult to pull such a memory out in a complete form.
    Last edited by Dale; 3rd April 2011 at 04:01.

  11. Link to Post #27
    Australia Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    6th January 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,370
    Thanks
    4,213
    Thanked 4,990 times in 1,091 posts

    Default Re: Lamarckism: a different theory of evolution

    Quote I do believe we have what many philosophers and religious figures refer to as "past lives." However, many memories retrieved via means of hypnotic regression seem to closely resemble subconscious methods of coping with past distress, an intermingling with the background energy/field in which consciousness likely operates from, or are simply scenarios coached by the hypnotist.

    I do feel some cases of past life recall are genuinely retrieved from hypnotic regressions, but because hypnosis is a difficult art to master, and previous lives tend to be closely tied to the subconscious feedback loops of both ourselves and those nearby, it is highly difficult to pull such a memory out in a complete form.
    As a long time practitioner of hypnosis, I would totally agree with the above statement. I have never relied on hypnosis to reveal past life material, nor would I promote the idea. However, hypnosis is an extremely valuable tool for self-improvement.

  12. Link to Post #28
    Morocco Deactivated
    Join Date
    18th January 2011
    Location
    With friends
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,660
    Thanks
    45,848
    Thanked 45,186 times in 5,446 posts

    Default Re: Lamarckism: a different theory of evolution

    Quote Posted by kinerkid (here)
    I'm curious if anyone has mapped a person's dna from birth to death and actually noticed any mutations? You hear all the time "our dna is changing, junk dna is being activated, etc. amongst new age circles. Anyone aware of any veracity to these claims?

    Oh ps -Dale. Thanks for this article. I enjoyed it and the moment I started reading it I thought "morphic fields" LOL.

    Do you think Lamarckism correlates at all to the 100th monkey theory? That obviously impacts on a wider range - potentially a whole species rather than just a family or group in close proximity.
    I hope half a month isn't too long an interval for a reply.

    It is my guess/intuition/knowing that the DNA changes are, or will be, occurring in the 'junk' areas. This is where our "latent" and/or forgotten talents lie. It is also where "spare parts" can be cobbled together for as yet unseen/unknown ablities. It is in the "junk" areas that we get to play creator or, more aptly, co-creator.

    I believe the morphogenetic field that our bodies source a lot of their epigenetic information/code from is the field where 100 monkey effects have their impact.

    It was a biologist named Rupert Sheldrake with his "A New Science of Life" book, first edition in 1981 who posited the idea of morphic resonance and the morphogenetic field that this resonance both derived from and created in a mutual reinforcing feed back loop.

    He was ridiculed by almost every eminent and garden variety biologist of his day. His later editions included apologies from some of these same deriders. From what I can tell, Lamarckism builds on this theme, broadens and elucidates it, all the while adding new and useful terms like epigenetics and soft inheritance.

    An online google version of the Sheldrake book is here. http://books.google.com/books?id=F75...page&q&f=false

    Be warned, this is dry, high brow academic research. The other thing Lamarck gave us was a more enjoyable and easily apprehended language to present these ideas to us.

    (Note to Cottage Rose, those trialogues sound like something I will have to find the time for.)
    Last edited by modwiz; 3rd April 2011 at 04:55.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to modwiz For This Post:

    Cottage Rose (3rd April 2011), kinerkid (3rd April 2011)

  14. Link to Post #29
    United States Avalon Member Cottage Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd February 2011
    Location
    At the Cottage
    Posts
    734
    Thanks
    4,384
    Thanked 3,451 times in 617 posts

    Default Re: Lamarckism: a different theory of evolution

    I also enjoyed this video of Thomas Campbell's keynote speech at the Monroe institute a year or so ago. He speaks about his association with Monroe and the early days of the institute:

    Last edited by Cottage Rose; 3rd April 2011 at 05:08.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Cottage Rose For This Post:

    modwiz (3rd April 2011)

  16. Link to Post #30
    Avalon Member Carmody's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th August 2010
    Location
    Winning The Galactic Lottery
    Posts
    11,379
    Thanks
    17,589
    Thanked 82,030 times in 10,210 posts

    Default Re: Lamarckism: a different theory of evolution

    I can't remember the gentleman's name but there is a book that contains information about how the Hebrew language actually corresponds to the shapes it produces in a given medium (sand, etc) when vibrated by the directed sonic or vibrational energies of that particular word or letter. In effect, if one used a amplified sonic 'note' of the given Hebrew letter to excite a layer of sand on a broad or similar materiel that can be excited by vibration, a pattern would form in the sand and it would be the given Hebrew letter. When one takes this to the subject of DNA and other things it does not directly say anything at all but it does leave the door open. That old line, 'sound is god' comes to mind. "all is vibration", etc.
    Last edited by Carmody; 3rd April 2011 at 22:54.
    Interdimensional Civil Servant

  17. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Carmody For This Post:

    HURRITT ENYETO (8th May 2011), James (15th March 2019), Sophocles (6th May 2018), Valerie Villars (16th March 2019)

  18. Link to Post #31
    United States Moderator James's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th November 2018
    Posts
    138
    Thanks
    268
    Thanked 1,138 times in 131 posts

    Default Re: Lamarckism: a different theory of evolution

    The hawk/goose effect and innate behavior.

    A particular movement of a cut-out shape that elicits a predictable, measurable, and genetically-sophisticated response... And we have our genetic hawks, too.

  19. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to James For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (16th March 2019), Franny (13th September 2019), Ivanhoe (16th March 2019), Sophocles (16th March 2019)

  20. Link to Post #32
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    21,002
    Thanks
    71,253
    Thanked 265,256 times in 19,486 posts

    Default Re: Lamarckism: a different theory of evolution

    Quote Posted by Variant (here)
    The hawk/goose effect and innate behavior.

    A particular movement of a cut-out shape that elicits a predictable, measurable, and genetically-sophisticated response... And we have our genetic hawks, too.
    Yes.

    Just a note here to bump this most interesting thread.

    Lamarckism is the theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. The 'hawk-goose effect' that Variant mentions is a perfect example: it's highly unlikely to be the product of random genetic changes that optimize survival of a few lucky individuals, one at a time. It's FAR FAR more likely to be the result of generations of geese that have all (wisely!) learned to fear hawks.

    The cut-out shape reference is that if a goose (or, more dramatically, a baby goose) sees a silhouette that vaguely looks like a hawk, it'll respond the same way, with the panic-and-hide reflex.

    It's the inheritance of learned behavior from generations past, and nothing at all to do with Darwinian evolution (natural selection). But it's not accepted by mainstream biologists because no biophysical mechanism is known that could work this way. (Rupert Sheldrake, however, with his theory of Morphic Fields, accounts for it perfectly.)
    Last edited by Bill Ryan; 16th March 2019 at 01:31.

  21. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Franny (13th September 2019), Ivanhoe (16th March 2019), James (16th March 2019), johnf (16th March 2019), Sophocles (16th March 2019), william r sanford72 (16th March 2019), Yoda (16th March 2019)

  22. Link to Post #33
    United States Moderator James's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th November 2018
    Posts
    138
    Thanks
    268
    Thanked 1,138 times in 131 posts

    Default Re: Lamarckism: a different theory of evolution

    Yes!

    There are really three minds that need to be read as one in understanding biological evolution: Michael Lerner, Alfred Wallace, and Rupert Sheldrake. Wallace describes the actions that stretch a population, Lerner the mechanisms that push it back together, and Sheldrake the methods that record it for future refinement (because this is a perpetual process that seems to stretch into infinity in both directions!)

    Natural selection, genetic homeostasis, and morphic resonance - respectively.

    Taking this evolutionary trident to our hawk/goose theory, what are our genetic hawks, and who knows about them enough to litter our world with their cardboard cut-outs?

  23. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to James For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (16th March 2019), Franny (13th September 2019), Ivanhoe (16th March 2019), johnf (16th March 2019), Sophocles (16th March 2019), Valerie Villars (16th March 2019), william r sanford72 (16th March 2019)

  24. Link to Post #34
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    21,002
    Thanks
    71,253
    Thanked 265,256 times in 19,486 posts

    Default Re: Lamarckism: a different theory of evolution

    Quote Posted by Variant (here)
    Taking this evolutionary trident to our hawk/goose theory, what are our genetic hawks, and who knows about them enough to litter our world with their cardboard cut-outs?
    Here are a couple of trivial examples, but they're funny. AND they apply.

    10 years ago, in the UK, I was driving down the motorway (freeway), going quite fast: maybe 15-20 mph over the limit. Enough to get a ticket, for sure.

    In the distance, parked on the hard shoulder, I saw a police car. So I immediately slowed right down.

    As I passed it, I saw it was just a painted plywood image. Not a real car at all. But like the goose seeing the hawk silhouette, my fear reflex had kicked in straight away.

    I later read that the same strategy had been deployed outside some big department stores. Life-size, painted plywood images of policemen had been positioned by the doors.

    Anyone could see they were wooden, and not real. But the rate of shoplifting still dropped.

    ~~~


    This isn't necessarily just logical, cognitive behavior. I suspect it's something to do with generations-old, accumulated human anxiety about being unfairly persecuted by brutal authority — maybe with far nastier consequences in the past than now.
    Last edited by Bill Ryan; 16th March 2019 at 02:43.

  25. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Ivanhoe (16th March 2019), johnf (16th March 2019), Sophocles (16th March 2019), Valerie Villars (16th March 2019), william r sanford72 (16th March 2019), Yoda (16th March 2019)

  26. Link to Post #35
    United States Moderator James's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th November 2018
    Posts
    138
    Thanks
    268
    Thanked 1,138 times in 131 posts

    Default Re: Lamarckism: a different theory of evolution

    I'm going to keep kicking this can, so here's an amusing anecdote from my own life.

    I remember the first time I cooked Brussels sprouts. We never had them growing up, so I had no idea how to prepare a plate of Brussels sprouts. I figured I'd just boil them in a pot, melt in a little butter, and top them with some pepper.

    Before putting them in the water to boil, I rinsed them in the sink and put them on a cutting board. I don't know why I felt the urge to, but before putting them into the pot, I cut little crosses into them.

    They turned out rather insipid, so I never repeated the dish, but today, I happened to be reading about Medieval cooking, and learned about an old superstition where Brussels sprouts were ridded of their demons by cutting tiny crosses into them before being prepared. This practice ended up becoming more commonplace in later years and even persists today in parts of the world.

    Like the little goose with the innate fear of the hawk, I suppose I may have responded in a Lamarckian way to the Brussels sprouts.

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to James For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (17th April 2019), Franny (13th September 2019)

  28. Link to Post #36
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    21,002
    Thanks
    71,253
    Thanked 265,256 times in 19,486 posts

    Default Re: Lamarckism: a different theory of evolution


  29. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    James (14th September 2019), Yoda (14th September 2019)

  30. Link to Post #37
    United States Moderator James's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th November 2018
    Posts
    138
    Thanks
    268
    Thanked 1,138 times in 131 posts

    Default Re: Lamarckism: a different theory of evolution

    A key component to Lamarck’s theory is the influence of vast amounts of time on the genetic code of a species.

    We know from fairly recent studies on rodents that epigenetic changes can be passed to offspring after only one generation - and these changes can persist for many more generations in some cases.

    When genetic pressure and time are increased, the Lamarckian effect only becomes stronger.

    When we see generations of grandparents, parents, children, and grandchildren growing up under certain environmental stressors, epigenetic changes snowball and can lead to changes that eventually look more Darwinian than Lamarckian. A new species can be categorized.

    But the key the guardians of this process are most uncomfortable to let become known openly is how quickly this process can be altered. It takes just one generation, with sufficient effort, mentally and chemically, to undue several generations previous of Lamarckian baggage. We can “hack” genetic homeostasis just as we can CRISPR-Cas our way toward infinity.

    The root of any coverup witnessed on the global stage has little to do with religious, socioeconomic, or political reasonings, and all to do with the total annihilation of any centralized, unbalanced control structure that would occur should we all realize and act upon our truest potential and sovereignty.

  31. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to James For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (14th September 2019), Cara (15th September 2019), Hervé (15th September 2019), silvanelf (14th September 2019)

  32. Link to Post #38
    Madagascar Avalon Member silvanelf's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th May 2019
    Age
    59
    Posts
    134
    Thanks
    1,337
    Thanked 362 times in 111 posts

    Default Re: Lamarckism: a different theory of evolution

    Another article about the connection between epigenetics and morphogenetic fields -- emphasis mine:

    Quote However, it is not the case that fertilised eggs start with epigenetic clean slates. One of the important discoveries epigeneticists have made is that 'junk' DNA, which was previously thought to be redundant, plays an important role in gene expression. Furthermore, the Epigenetic Markings On the 'Junk' Inheritance System (EMOJIS) do not get wiped off in the fertilised egg. EMOJIS are needed in order to trigger the epigenetic markings on the genes which cause cell differentiation. This implies that EMOJIS are the ultimate controller of epigenetics and the recorder of epigenetic changes. In other words, EMOJIS form an inheritable Epigenetic System which controls the epigenetic markings on genes in different cell types. That controls gene expression, so the Epigenetic System is responsible for genetic organisation. Any changes to the epigenetics in different cell types as a consequence of experience can accumulate as altered EMOJIS and get passed on to any replicas. The only problem is that the production of replicas by cell division is a localised business. Skin cells produce skin cells and only sperm-line cells produce sperm.

    Epigeneticists can offer no mechanisms whereby the changes to EMOJIS in body cells get transmitted, via the fertilised egg, to the next generation. And that is what is needed in order to explain Lamarckian inheritance in sexually-reproducing species. Since 1981 Rupert Sheldrake's hypothesis, which I support in its essential premise, has been that the answer lies in some as-yet-undetectable communication system which he called morphic fields. If epigeneticists suggested that their template effect might be 'at a distance' rather than just in situ, that would have been enough, but they probably feel that such a suggestion would be moving into Sheldrake territory, and hence be scientifically unacceptable. However, as I see it, they have got to move into Sheldrake territory.
    http://www.hughdower.com/essays/lama...m-epigenetics/

  33. The Following User Says Thank You to silvanelf For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (15th September 2019)

  34. Link to Post #39
    Madagascar Avalon Member silvanelf's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th May 2019
    Age
    59
    Posts
    134
    Thanks
    1,337
    Thanked 362 times in 111 posts

    Default Re: Lamarckism: a different theory of evolution

    Another interesting article about Lamarck's theory and epigenetics.

    By the way the article contains some snide remarks about evolutionary psychology. This one made my day:
    "It [evolutionary psychology] explained music and art and why we reward senior executives with top-floor corner offices (because we evolved to want a clear view of our enemies approaching across the savannah)."
    The article refers to a book by David Shenk: "The Genius in All of Us: New Insights into Genetics, Talent, and IQ"

    Quote Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong

    -- snip --

    But Lamarck was scorned for a much more general apparent mistake: the idea that lifestyle might be able to influence heredity. "Today," notes David Shenk, "any high school student knows that genes are passed on unchanged from parent to child, and to the next generation and the next. Lifestyle cannot alter heredity. Except now it turns out that it can . . ."

    Epigenetics is the most vivid reason why the popular understanding of evolution might need revising, but it's not the only one. We've learned that huge proportions of the human genome consist of viruses, or virus-like materials, raising the notion that they got there through infection – meaning that natural selection acts not just on random mutations, but on new stuff that's introduced from elsewhere. Relatedly, there is growing evidence, at the level of microbes, of genes being transferred not just vertically, from ancestors to parents to offspring, but also horizontally, between organisms. The researchers Carl Woese and Nigel Goldenfield conclude that, on average, a bacterium may have obtained 10% of its genes from other organisms in its environment.

    -- snip --
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/...on-genes-wrong

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to silvanelf For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (24th September 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts