A Lamarckian Event
edser
Experiments with "paramecium" reveals that this
animals cortex maintains continuity of structure
generation to generation without direction from
either nucleus OR cytoplasm. The cortex divides
by binary fission coding for itself.
Cilia are arranged in rows called kineties.
If the number of kineties were defined by
nuclear genes then we would expect them to be
inherited via Mendelian rules. If they were
controlled by cytoplasmic factors their numbers
would be controlled by maternal cytoplasm.
Kineties per individual organism are in fact
reproduced in the same number via fission
of the cortex.
If a small patch of kineties are removed
and reversed in position, then the cilia
beats the wrong way and the paramecia moves
in a circular fashion. Such treated paramecia
faithfully reproduce themselves with their new
orientation from generation to generation
irrespective of the nuclear genes or maternal
cytoplasm.
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Point
NSW 2105
Australia
Mike Onken
experiements (I found a JCB article from '75 that described the cortical
orientation experiments, but I didn't see a reference to binary
fission). Could you please provide a reference for your post?
Mike
Lionel Bonnetier
John Edser wrote:
>Experiments with "paramecium" reveals that this
>animals cortex maintains continuity of structure
>generation to generation without direction from
>either nucleus OR cytoplasm. The cortex divides
>by binary fission coding for itself.
(...)
Put in other words, evolution is a co-evolution of genetic memory and
organism (and environment as well). And phenotype is not the mere expression
of the genome, but how the genome and all the rest are working together. It
is the easy way to imagine everything is encoded in the genome, like boot
information in the config files of a computer. But of course, things aren't
so simple. Let's prepare to get a headache, but it's worth the effort. I'm
interested in pointers to how to analyse living beings as a cooperation
between genome and other stuff.
~Lionel
edser
Mike Onken <mdo...@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:-
> I searched MEDLINE and couldn't find the article that described these
> experiements (I found a JCB article from '75 that described the cortical
> orientation experiments, but I didn't see a reference to binary
> fission).
JE:-
The protozoan only replicates by binary fission.
The cortex of the cell, alone codes for the cilia
orientation, not any genes or even cytoplasmic
substances.
>MO:-
>Could you please provide a reference for your post?
JE:-
I like yourself do not have a reference for
the original paper. My reference was in
the book:-
"Foundations of Devevlopmental Genetics"
D.J. Pritchard
Talor & Francis
London and Philadelphia 1986
Pritchard is well respected researher within
the depeartment of human geneics, University
of Newcastle upon Tyne, England and this book
covers a mas of material without all of
it being referenced to the original work.
If anybody has a ref to the original paper
I would love have it myself.
John Edser
Paul Gallagher
>Put in other words, evolution is a co-evolution of genetic memory and
>organism (and environment as well). And phenotype is not the mere expression
>of the genome, but how the genome and all the rest are working together. It
>is the easy way to imagine everything is encoded in the genome, like boot
>information in the config files of a computer. But of course, things aren't
>so simple. Let's prepare to get a headache, but it's worth the effort. I'm
>interested in pointers to how to analyse living beings as a cooperation
>between genome and other stuff.
>~Lionel
One way of looking at evolution is offered by the developmental systems
approach, which views developmental processes as more fundamental than
genetic processes. An interesting article available online is James
Griesemer's Reproduction and the Reduction of Genetics
(http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/sarkar/papers.html).
In this point of view, genes might seem to act as "developmental invariants,"
that is, "the gene is a unit of reproduction that is invariant in development,
stable in heredity in the short term and variable in evolution over the long
run (through mutation and other processes of genetic change)." But for a
variety of reasons, from the way gene activation varies according to the
cellular environment to the breakdown of Weismann's barrier between soma and
germ plasm, genes often are not developmental invariants. At the same time
other entities can act as developmental invariants - including components of
the cell, methylation sets, etc.
This point of view allows us to talk about the evolution of epigenetic
inheritance systems, without running up against definitions of evolution that
limit it to allelic frequency change. On the other hand, in this point of
view, viruses don't evolve, since although their DNA (or RNA) is replicated,
their development is effected by their host organisms. They are replicated,
but individual viruses without their hosts do not act as reproducing
developmental systems.
Paul
Tim Tyler
: Mike Onken <mdo...@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:-
:> I searched MEDLINE and couldn't find the article that described these
:> experiements [snip]
: JE:-
: The protozoan only replicates by binary fission.
: The cortex of the cell, alone codes for the cilia
: orientation, not any genes or even cytoplasmic
: substances.
:>MO:-
:>Could you please provide a reference for your post?
: JE:-
: I like yourself do not have a reference for
: the original paper. [...]
: If anybody has a ref to the original paper
: I would love have it myself.
I don't have a reference either - but IIRC, Brian Goodwin reported it as
well in the first few pages of his book: "How the Leopard Changed its
Spots". I'll take a peek at the bibliography...
While an example of Lamarckin inheritance, to my mind it seems to
indicate that DNA carries about 99.9% of the high-fidelity heritable
information of the organism - rather than 100%.
--
__________
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://www.mandala.co.uk/ t...@cryogen.com
I tried snorting coke, and almost drowned!
Mike Onken
edser wrote:
> JE:-
> The cortex of the cell, alone codes for the cilia
> orientation, not any genes or even cytoplasmic
> substances.
I found three recent papers that contradict this statement:
Kandl KA, Forney JD, Asai DJ, "The dynein genes of Paramecium tetraurelia:
the structure and expression of the ciliary beta and cytoplasmic heavy
chains." Mol Biol Cell 1995 Nov;6(11):1549-62
"The genes encoding two Paramecium dynein heavy chains, DHC-6 and DHC-8, have
been cloned and sequenced. Sequence-specific antibodies demonstrate that
DHC-6 encodes ciliary outer arm beta-chain and DHC-8 encodes a cytoplasmic
dynein heavy chain. Deciliation of paramecia results in the accumulation of
mRNA from DHC-6, but not DHC-8. Nuclear run-on transcription experiments
demonstrate that this increase in the steady state concentration of DHC-6
mRNA is a consequence of a rapid induction of transcription in response to
deciliation. This is the first demonstration that dynein, like other axonemal
components, is transcriptionally regulated during reciliation."
Klotz C, Garreau de Loubresse N, Ruiz F, Beisson J, "Genetic evidence for a
role of centrin-associated proteins in the organization and dynamics of the
infraciliary lattice in Paramecium." Cell Motil Cytoskeleton
1997;38(2):172-86
"Centrins constitute a family of cytoskeletal proteins that are highly
conserved from lower eukaryotes to man. Their cytoskeletal specialization is
manifest in their capacity to form filamentous contractile arrays of various
shapes and functions and by their association with microtubule organizing
centres (MTOCs). In the ciliate Paramecium tetraurelia, three centrin genes
have been characterized, which may be part of a larger centrin gene family
[Madeddu et al., 1996: Eur J. Biochem. 238:121-128]. The products of these
genes were originally identified as components of the infraciliary lattice, a
contractile cytoskeletal network [Garreau de Loubresse et al., 1991: Biol.
Cell 71:217-225]. Their role in the biogenesis of the infraciliary lattice is
documented by cytological and biochemical properties of the mutant "demaille"
(dem1) characterized by altered centrin-associated proteins and abnormal
organization and dynamics of the infraciliary lattice."
Sperling L, Keryer G, Ruiz F, Beisson J, "Cortical morphogenesis in
Paramecium: a transcellular wave of protein phosphorylation involved in
ciliary rootlet disassembly." Dev Biol 1991 Nov;148(1):205-18
"In Paramecium, the morphogenesis of the cortex at cell division, which
assures reconstruction of shape and surface pattern, has been shown to
involve transcellular signals which spread across the cortex like a wave,
originating principally from the oral apparatus. One of the events these
signals control is the reorganization of the ciliary rootlets through a cycle
of regression and regrowth. The ciliary rootlets are nucleated on the ciliary
basal bodies and form a scaffold extending over the entire cell surface that
is important in aligning the basal bodies and the unit territories organized
around them in longitudinal rows. We present evidence that the mechanism
underlying their reorganization is cell-cycle-dependent phosphorylation of
the structural proteins which compose the ciliary rootlets."
This last one is especially relevant, since it demonstrates that the cortex
is under direct genetic control, especially during division.
> JE:-
> I like yourself do not have a reference for
> the original paper. My reference was in
> the book:-
>
> "Foundations of Devevlopmental Genetics"
> D.J. Pritchard
> Talor & Francis
> London and Philadelphia 1986
>
> Pritchard is well respected researher within
> the department of human genetics, University
> of Newcastle upon Tyne, England and this book
> covers a mass of material without all of
> it being referenced to the original work.
This is a well respected book by an equally well respected author, but it's
over 12 years old! A lot of science has been going on since then.
--
Michael Onken -. .-. .-. .-. . mdo...@artsci.wustl.edu
Mol. Cell Biol. ||X|||\ /|||X|||\ /| URL:
Washington Univ |/ \|||X|||/ \|||X|| http://madsci.wustl.edu/
St. Louis, MO ' `-' `-' `-' `-
DocOsc
>
>Experiments with "paramecium" reveals that this
>animals cortex maintains continuity of structure
>generation to generation without direction from
>either nucleus OR cytoplasm. The cortex divides
>by binary fission coding for itself.
>
>If the number of kineties were defined by
>nuclear genes then we would expect them to be
>inherited via Mendelian rules. If they were
>controlled by cytoplasmic factors their numbers
>would be controlled by maternal cytoplasm.
>Kineties per individual organism are in fact
>reproduced in the same number via fission
>of the cortex.
>
>If a small patch of kineties are removed
>and reversed in position, then the cilia
>beats the wrong way and the paramecia moves
>in a circular fashion. Such treated paramecia
>faithfully reproduce themselves with their new
>orientation from generation to generation
>irrespective of the nuclear genes or maternal
>cytoplasm.
>
>John Edser
>Independent Researcher
Lynne Margoulis uses this experiment to back up her theory of serial
endosymbiosis, much of which is now widely accepted. In a nutshell, in
addition to mitochondria and plastids arising from an ancient symbiotic
relationship, she proposes that an even more ancient endosymbiosis took place
when a spirochete-type organism attempting to parasitize or ingest a
proto-eukaryote, instead became a partner and eventually developed into cilia.
The fact that these cilia have not been shown to have their own DNA as the
mitochondria and plastids do is taken as evidence of the even more ancient
nature of this relationship. She also cites this experiment, although I don't
have the book handy. Check her book "Symbiotic Planet" for more details on
this theory.
Chris Ashton MD
Paleontologist wanna-be
Tommy the Terrorist
writes:
>Experiments with "paramecium" reveals that this
>animals cortex maintains continuity of structure
>generation to generation without direction from
>either nucleus OR cytoplasm. The cortex divides
>by binary fission coding for itself.
Just because this inheritance is not DNA based
doesn't immediately make it Lamarckian. After all,
we can readily conceive of some bizarre organism
using something other than nucleic acids for all
of its genetic information, but still subject to
Darwinian evolution.
To prove Lamarckianism here, you have to prove
that the number of kineties can be influenced in
some predictable way BY THE ENVIRONMENT. Do
starved paramecia lose kineties, and well-fed
paramecia add them every now and then? Is there
any gene to make the number of kineties more
readily variable, which is induced by environmental
stimuli? Prove something like that, and *then* you
will have a Lamarckian system, at least to a weak
standard of definition. Otherwise, it is simply
"genetic" material, subject to random mutation and
Darwinian selection of mutants.
Tim Tyler
> [...] edser, ed...@ozemail.com.au writes:
>>Experiments with "paramecium" reveals that this
>>animals cortex maintains continuity of structure
>>generation to generation without direction from
>>either nucleus OR cytoplasm. The cortex divides
>>by binary fission coding for itself.
> Just because this inheritance is not DNA based
> doesn't immediately make it Lamarckian. After all,
> we can readily conceive of some bizarre organism
> using something other than nucleic acids for all
> of its genetic information, but still subject to
> Darwinian evolution.
> To prove Lamarckianism here, you have to prove
> that the number of kineties can be influenced in
> some predictable way BY THE ENVIRONMENT. [...]
That was the /point/ of the original experimant, IIRC - it
was genuinely Lamarckian, and the inherited characteristic in
question could be modified at will by the experimenter.
The experimenter appears to have been Tracy M. Sonneborn.
The experiment is described in some detail in the "Whatever
Happened to Organisms?" chapter of Brian Goodwin's "How the Leopard
Changed its Spots".
The original work /appears/ to be T.M. Sonneborn (1970) "Gene action in
Development", proceedings of Royal Society, London, B 176, 347-66.
--
__________
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://www.mandala.co.uk/ t...@cryogen.com
Breast is best.
Tommy the Terrorist
t...@uma.sublime.org writes:
>> To prove Lamarckianism here, you have to prove
>> that the number of kineties can be influenced in
>> some predictable way BY THE ENVIRONMENT. [...]
>That was the /point/ of the original experimant, IIRC - it
>was genuinely Lamarckian, and the inherited characteristic in
>question could be modified at will by the experimenter.
Well, by that token, DNA also mediates Lamarckian
inheritance. After all, it can be (and often is) modified
at will by the experimenter, and these "acquired"
characteristics are transmitted to progeny...
Sorry, but by my definition, an experimenter deliberately
modifying an organism doesn't count as the environment
or as a normal mechanism of any aspect of its biology
including its genetic inheritance.
Tim Tyler
>>> To prove Lamarckianism here, you have to prove
>>> that the number of kineties can be influenced in
>>> some predictable way BY THE ENVIRONMENT. [...]
>>That was the /point/ of the original experimant, IIRC - it
>>was genuinely Lamarckian, and the inherited characteristic in
>>question could be modified at will by the experimenter.
> Well, by that token, DNA also mediates Lamarckian
> inheritance. After all, it can be (and often is) modified
> at will by the experimenter, and these "acquired"
> characteristics are transmitted to progeny...
The changes you mention may be "acquired" - but they're not usually
expressed as "characteristics" of the parent organism. As you say, if you
allow simple DNA-sequence changes in the parent organism to qualify as
"acquired" then germ-line mutations - or the incorporation of any viral
genes into the host genome - or even the incorporation of genes of another
organism of the same species though sex - might wind up counting as
"acquired characteristics".
> Sorry, but by my definition, an experimenter deliberately
> modifying an organism doesn't count as the environment
> or as a normal mechanism of any aspect of its biology
> including its genetic inheritance.
In the paramecium instance - as the inherited characteristic in question
is the orientation of a group of cilla on the extranal cell wall - it
doesn't take much for me to imagine how this trait may be influenced by
environmental factors, (rather than the surgery involved in the experiment
cited).
>From what I can see, the experiment didn't address the frequency with
which such changes actually occurred in nature - I suppose the
identification of a heritable aspect of the phenotype of a micro-organism,
not wholly under control of DNA was though to be interesting enough on
its own.
--
__________
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://www.mandala.co.uk/ t...@cryogen.com
Where there's a will, I want to be in it.
Tommy the Terrorist
t...@uma.sublime.org writes:
>In the paramecium instance - as the inherited characteristic in question
>is the orientation of a group of cilla on the extranal cell wall - it
>doesn't take much for me to imagine how this trait may be influenced by
>environmental factors, (rather than the surgery involved in the experiment
>cited).
It doesn't take much to imagine how DNA methylation of growth-inhibitory
genes in the gonads could be affected by environmental regulation of
growth
hormones either, but the point is, it falls short of proof. The
experiment
is certainly interesting, as it shows non-DNA-based inheritance, but it is
not in itself related to the question of Darwinian vs. Lamarckian models.
J. W. Edser
Jeffrey P. Utz wrote:-
> >>>JE:-
> >>>Experiments with "paramecium" reveals that this
> >>>animals cortex maintains continuity of structure
> >>>generation to generation without direction from
> >>>either nucleus OR cytoplasm. The cortex divides
> >>>by binary fission coding for itself.
> >>TT:-
> >>Just because this inheritance is not DNA based
> >>doesn't immediately make it Lamarckian. After all,
> >>we can readily conceive of some bizarre organism
> >>using something other than nucleic acids for all
> >>of its genetic information, but still subject to
> >>Darwinian evolution.
> >JE:-
> >The experiment as reported, is totally Lamarckian.
> >1) The surgical change in the orientation of the kineties
> >was a totally environmentally produced phenotype.
> >2) That phenotype is reproduced in successive generations
> >of offspring.
> >3) The cortex of the cell coded for this phenotype.
> >What more do you want?
>JPU:-
> By the same criteria, inserting a gene if i introduce a gene into the
> germ-line of any organism, it is Lamarkian.
JE:-
Yes, you can define such gene inheritance as Lamarckian. What
is the point in doing so? Genes are "acquired" from parents
or viruses or we engineer them. Lamarck knew nothing
of genes. The important issue is to say how important
any non Lamarckian, Lamarckian and Neo Lamarckian event is
to evolutionary theory, not to bicker over semantics.
>JPU:-
>This is an experimentally
> induced, not environmentally-induced change. I do not think it counts as
> Lamarckian. This, by my definition of evolution (a change of the
> gene pool of
> a species), is evolution.
JE:-
Science is interested in CAUSES.
By restricting all evolution to only changes in
the gene pool you have missed ALL the causes and
have settled for just counting one final result.
Ok, a final result of evolutionary events
are gene pool freq. changes. A final result
of all civilization is a garbage dump and
a final result of all life is death, so what?
All the basic causation's are NOT found in any
of these final results. What you have missed
is the true contextual worth of any one gene within
the gene pool and that contextual worth is strictly
the gene context of your nominated unit of selection
i.e. genes IN something, like genes in cells,
tissues, organisms, populations of organisms etc.
It's what the genes ARE IN that is selected, never
the individual genes themselves. It is what genes
are in that provide their selected epistatic contexts
not the gene pool into which they have artificially
been dumped, to sink or swim. By insisting that
evolution is only gene freq. changes in a gene pool,
you reduce causes of evolution to a reductionist
absurdity, i.e. evolution is CAUSED by gene freq.
changes in a gene pool. It has never been so caused
and can never be so caused unless the gene pool
becomes your grouped selected unit of selection.
Evolution only RESULTS in gene freq. changes in
a gene pool. You totally refuse to understand the
difference between a testable cause and its effect.
You may as well suggest its the same thing if the
shopkeeper pays you for the goods you are buying
and you do not pay him! It is quite possible today
to nonsensically reverse cause and effect within any
theory e.g. Dawkin's selfish gene formulation and
appear to get away with it.
> It would also have to be aquirable in nature. I do not think that it is.
JE:-
Ok. It has not been observed in nature
Eels have not been observed mating in the
Sargasso sea, yet we can observe their offspring.
Not all paramecia have the same numbers of kineties
and they do not all point in exactly the same
direction, altering the speed and movement of
the organism. Science is about putting two and
two together, but you have to be able to add up.
What I find objectionable is the total disregard
within evolutionary theory of such a proven long
term Lamarckian event. I also find objectionable
the disregarding of shorter one and two generation
Lamarckian events. What is totally APPALLING is
the way genetic assimilation, developed over
40 years ago remains unused relative to one
and two generational Lamarckian events.
Today its just stone age bean bag genetics
dominating evolutionary theory over and over
and over again.
> And for it to be a realevent source of evolutionary change, you would have
> to show that this occurs in the environment and, at least, it does not
> determental to the organisms that have it.
>
> And, because the phenotype is not DNA-coded does not make it non-Darwinian
> or Lamarkian.
JE:-
It is Lamarckian in every possible way.
Who suggested it was non Darwinian?
Any coding system is selected.
DNA is simply not the only coding
system that codes for ORGANISMS,
and only fertile organisms are selected.
J. W. Edser
Tommy the Terrorist wrote:-
> > Tim Tyler:-
> >In the paramecium instance - as the inherited characteristic in question
> >is the orientation of a group of cilla on the extranal cell wall - it
> >doesn't take much for me to imagine how this trait may be influenced by
> >environmental factors, (rather than the surgery involved in the
> experiment
> >cited).
> TT:-
> It doesn't take much to imagine how DNA methylation of growth-inhibitory
> genes in the gonads could be affected by environmental regulation of
> growth
> hormones either, but the point is, it falls short of proof. The
> experiment
> is certainly interesting, as it shows non-DNA-based inheritance, but it is
> not in itself related to the question of Darwinian vs. Lamarckian models.
JE:-
It makes a change for me and Tim to be on the same side
of any point of view :-]
How can it EVER be possible to suggest that such a momentous
results are "..not in itself related to the question of
Darwinian vs. Lamarckian models?"
I imagine a similar attitude was in the mind of readers of
Mendel's original works that were read but never understood,
or given the attention they deserved because of such
super conservative attitudes.
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.
Evolution is not caused by gene frequency changes. It is measured by gene
frequency changes in a population. I do not insist that evolution is only
gene freq. changes in a population. However, for evolution to occur, gene
frequencies must change. (There a few exceptions to this, but not many.
Like, the direction of paramecium flagella movement.)
>Evolution only RESULTS in gene freq. changes in
>a gene pool. You totally refuse to understand the
>difference between a testable cause and its effect.
>You may as well suggest its the same thing if the
>shopkeeper pays you for the goods you are buying
>and you do not pay him! It is quite possible today
>to nonsensically reverse cause and effect within any
>theory e.g. Dawkin's selfish gene formulation and
>appear to get away with it.
>
Yes, I know people who take stuff and get paid for it. They are called
sanitation engineers.
I know very well the difference between cause and effect. Thanks.
Jeff Utz
>
>> It would also have to be aquirable in nature. I do not think that it is.
>
>JE:-
>Ok. It has not been observed in nature
>Eels have not been observed mating in the
>Sargasso sea, yet we can observe their offspring.
>Not all paramecia have the same numbers of kineties
>and they do not all point in exactly the same
>direction, altering the speed and movement of
>the organism. Science is about putting two and
>two together, but you have to be able to add up.
>
>What I find objectionable is the total disregard
>within evolutionary theory of such a proven long
>term Lamarckian event. I also find objectionable
>the disregarding of shorter one and two generation
>Lamarckian events. What is totally APPALLING is
>the way genetic assimilation, developed over
>40 years ago remains unused relative to one
>and two generational Lamarckian events.
>Today its just stone age bean bag genetics
>dominating evolutionary theory over and over
>and over again.
Show how in real life this is relevent. Give examples outside the lab.
Please. Perhaps genetics dominates evolutionary thinking because genetics
works and Lamarkianism doesn't.
>
>
>> And for it to be a realevent source of evolutionary change, you would
have
>> to show that this occurs in the environment and, at least, it does not
>> determental to the organisms that have it.
>>
>> And, because the phenotype is not DNA-coded does not make it
non-Darwinian
>> or Lamarkian.
>
>JE:-
>It is Lamarckian in every possible way.
>Who suggested it was non Darwinian?
>Any coding system is selected.
>DNA is simply not the only coding
>system that codes for ORGANISMS,
>and only fertile organisms are selected.
>
Yes, but DNA is predominate coding system for organisms. I would guess it
codes like 99% of the total inheritable code for organisms. That is one of
the reason why it is at the center of evolution.
Not always. In insect colonies, many members are non-fertile. But they still
help the fertile members by feeding them, raising their young, etc. The same
thing happens in human colonies, where non-fertile members do this. Think of
priests (biologically they are fertile, but, often, they do not reporduce)
and grandparents.
Jeff Utz
J. W. Edser
> JPU:-
> Evolution is not caused by gene frequency changes. It is measured by gene
> frequency changes in a population.
JE:-
Here we agree.
However, lets state the above in unambiguous terms.
Gene freq. changes in a population are an effect of ANOTHER
cause. As only an effect of this other cause, they are an
indicator ONLY, of evolutionary change. Thus if one wants to
talk about CAUSES of selection and not just a result of selection,
any talk about genes acting to increase their representation
in the pool is fallacious. Evolutionary theory must be crystal
clear on this critical issue of the causes of selection within
Neo Darwinism. The critical question of the cause of selection
then remains unanswered within Neo Darwinism:-
What is the Darwinian cause of gene freq. changes in a population?
>JPU:
>I do not insist that evolution is only
> gene freq. changes in a population. However, for evolution to occur, gene
> frequencies must change. (There a few exceptions to this, but not many.
> Like, the direction of paramecium flagella movement.)
JE:-
Gene freq. changes only reflect a deeper meaning
of what is going on here. They are a crude code
that has to be broken to discover this deeper
meaning. With epistasis a gene freq. is selected to
rise OR FALL, depending on the other genes any
individual gene is selected with, because genes
are packed in groups, function in groups and are
selected in groups. Individual genes are thus gene
GROUP selected for the benefit of the gene group
and never individually selected for the benefit of
a specific gene as Dawkin's, Hamilton, Wilson etc
maintain, and all "lets propose a singe gene for x"
Neo Darwinian hypotheticals, all assume.
There can be no "selfish genes" or gene reproduction
by proxy for one specific gene's (Hamiltonian selection)
benefit.
How the cell cortex codes for kineties orientation and
number, in paramecium, is a small window into the wider
issue of epigenetic coding. This window has been expanded
a little with the prion issue. Here a trait is double
coded. One code that is basic is the DNA. You don't
develop prion disease unless you have the gene that
codes for the protein that is susceptible. However
you only develope the disease if you also have the
infecting protein. This protein's folding is passed
on by contact with the susceptible but as yet unchanged
body protein with the infecting protein. Information is
coded for BOTH in the DNA and the infecting protein.
So prion disease is both genetic and not genetic, because
it is double coded in the body.
This is the main issue; how is such a DOUBLE coded
system selected?
> >JE:-
> >Evolution only RESULTS in gene freq. changes in
> >a gene pool. You totally refuse to understand the
> >difference between a testable cause and its effect.
> >You may as well suggest its the same thing if the
> >shopkeeper pays you for the goods you are buying
> >and you do not pay him! It is quite possible today
> >to nonsensically reverse cause and effect within any
> >theory e.g. Dawkin's selfish gene formulation and
> >appear to get away with it.
> JPU:-
> Yes, I know people who take stuff and get paid for it. They are called
> sanitation engineers.
JE:-
The whole point of my analogy was that there
is a non reversible system of cause and
effect in place with such a financial exchange.
If you reverse such cause and effect you make
nonsense out of it, not sense. The polarity
of any point of view is just as important as
its other assumptions.
> JPU:-
> I know very well the difference between cause and effect. Thanks.
JE:-
Then tell me what is the cause of selection?
> >JE:-
>snip<
> >What I find objectionable is the total disregard
> >within evolutionary theory of such a proven long
> >term Lamarckian event. I also find objectionable
> >the disregarding of shorter one and two generation
> >Lamarckian events. What is totally APPALLING is
> >the way genetic assimilation, developed over
> >40 years ago remains unused relative to one
> >and two generational Lamarckian events.
> >Today its just stone age bean bag genetics
> >dominating evolutionary theory over and over
> >and over again.
> JPU:-
> Show how in real life this is relevent. Give examples outside the lab.
> Please. Perhaps genetics dominates evolutionary thinking because genetics
> works and Lamarkianism doesn't.
JE:-
What I suggested is that KNOWN long and short term
Lamarckian effects as well as hypothetical systems
of Lamarckian inheritance e.g. gene imprinting, must
be linked with KNOWN gene GROUP selection events
such as genetic assimilation. Genetic assimilation
uses a grouped (epistatic) coding for a single
phenotype. Phenocopies are proof of such epistatic
gene groupings coding for a single trait. If you
just want to stare at genes in the pool, none of the
above, which is documented in genetics/biology
texts as basic facts, is either visible or
even matters when in reality they are essential to
evolutionary theory matters.
R. [Bob] Dean
Tommy the Terrorist <may...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:7k8hv3$se9$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> In article <7k6e9s$6hh$1...@darwin.ediacara.org> Tim Tyler,
> t...@uma.sublime.org writes:
> >> To prove Lamarckianism here, you have to prove
> >> that the number of kineties can be influenced in
> >> some predictable way BY THE ENVIRONMENT. [...]
>
> >That was the /point/ of the original experimant, IIRC - it
> >was genuinely Lamarckian, and the inherited characteristic in
> >question could be modified at will by the experimenter.
>
> Well, by that token, DNA also mediates Lamarckian
> inheritance. After all, it can be (and often is) modified
> at will by the experimenter, and these "acquired"
> characteristics are transmitted to progeny...
>
> modifying an organism doesn't count as the environment
> or as a normal mechanism of any aspect of its biology
> including its genetic inheritance.
>
discounts any possibility of a Lamarckian event occurring.
Bob
Tim Tyler
: Tommy the Terrorist <may...@newsguy.com> wrote:
:> t...@uma.sublime.org writes:
:> >> To prove Lamarckianism here, you have to prove
:> >> that the number of kineties can be influenced in
:> >> some predictable way BY THE ENVIRONMENT. [...]
:>
:> >That was the /point/ of the original experimant, IIRC - it
:> >was genuinely Lamarckian, and the inherited characteristic in
:> >question could be modified at will by the experimenter.
:>
:> Well, by that token, DNA also mediates Lamarckian
:> inheritance. After all, it can be (and often is) modified
:> at will by the experimenter, and these "acquired"
:> characteristics are transmitted to progeny... [...]
:
: Surely, the *Central Dogma* as formulated by Francis Crick,
: discounts any possibility of a Lamarckian event occurring.
The central dogma refers to "reverse" transcription, from protein to DNA.
Lamarckian inheritance refers to the inheritance of acquired
characteristics. It does not specify that the characteristics
involved must be inherited via DNA.
In this instance, DNA is /not/ the way in which the heritable information
is being is stored - so the central dogma is not relevant to this case.
--
__________
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://www.mandala.co.uk/ t...@cryogen.com
Buck the dominant paradigm: be submissive.
J. W. Edser
R. [Bob] Dean wrote:-
> Surely, the *Central Dogma* as formulated by Francis Crick,
> discounts any possibility of a Lamarckian event occurring.
JE:-
The central dogma simply says that
a protein cannot create a gene in its
own image. A protein cannot code for
a gene. A gene can code for a protein.
This means a protein cannot code for
a thing "below" itself but it does not
exclude the proteins ability to code
for things "above" itself. Thus a
protein like a prion can carry information.
It can code for another proteins folding
pattern while the prion suseptable protein
itself, is also coded for by DNA.
The prion phenotype is thus "double coded".
The cortex of paramecium is probably also
"double coded". Information is probably
stored in the cortex and in the genes and
as long as the genes are there for it,
the cortex itself can pass on its own
information independently of the
genes. In this way Mendelism does not
exclude Lamarckism and does not contradict
the central dogma
R.[Bob] Deam
Tim Tyler <t...@cryogen.com> wrote in message
news:7lgs44$5rr$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> R. [Bob] Dean <b...@news.mia.bellsouth.net> wrote:
> : Tommy the Terrorist <may...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> :> t...@uma.sublime.org writes:
>
> :> >> To prove Lamarckianism here, you have to prove
> :> >> that the number of kineties can be influenced in
> :> >> some predictable way BY THE ENVIRONMENT. [...]
> :>
> :> >That was the /point/ of the original experimant, IIRC - it
> :> >was genuinely Lamarckian, and the inherited characteristic in
> :> >question could be modified at will by the experimenter.
> :>
> :> Well, by that token, DNA also mediates Lamarckian
> :> inheritance. After all, it can be (and often is) modified
> :> at will by the experimenter, and these "acquired"
> :> characteristics are transmitted to progeny... [...]
> :
> : discounts any possibility of a Lamarckian event occurring.
>
>
Perhaps I am missing something!
>
> Lamarckian inheritance refers to the inheritance of acquired
> characteristics. It does not specify that the characteristics
> involved must be inherited via DNA.
>
of an Lamarckian event becoming heritable *information*. Somehow such
information must reverse its flow into the DNA. Otherwise it is a mutation.
>
I reject the hypothesis that an acquired characteristic can be passed on
to offspring. But I often notice that when children have both parents
who are musicians the children are also gifted.
>
> In this instance, DNA is /not/ the way in which the heritable information
> is being is stored - so the central dogma is not relevant to this case.
>
DNA except in the case of retroviruses
Tim Tyler
: Tim Tyler <t...@cryogen.com> wrote in message
:> R. [Bob] Dean <b...@news.mia.bellsouth.net> wrote:
:> : Surely, the *Central Dogma* as formulated by Francis Crick,
:> : discounts any possibility of a Lamarckian event occurring.
:>
:> The central dogma refers to "reverse" transcription, from protein to DNA.
:
: I understand this. But how else could information possibly be *reversed*?
: Perhaps I am missing something!
It is the direction of flow of information that the "reversed" (above) was
intended to refer to.
:> Lamarckian inheritance refers to the inheritance of acquired
:> characteristics. It does not specify that the characteristics
:> involved must be inherited via DNA.
:
: I realize this also. But I was just trying to demonstrate the impossibility
: of an Lamarckian event becoming heritable *information*.
If such events becoming heritable information was impossible, Lamarckian
inheritance itself would be impossible. Lamarckian inheritance may not
have played much of a role in biological evolution to date, but it's not
/impossible/.
:> In this instance, DNA is /not/ the way in which the heritable information
:> is being is stored - so the central dogma is not relevant to this case.
:
: You confuse me; I thought heritable information was _always_ stored in
: DNA except in the case of retroviruses
This does not necessarily appear be the case. I'd recommend looking at
the first post in this thread, or following some of the subsequent
references.
--
__________
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://www.mandala.co.uk/ t...@cryogen.com
I'd tell you more, but I might blush.
J. W. Edser
Bob Deam wrote:-
> > TT:-
> > Lamarckian inheritance refers to the inheritance of acquired
> > characteristics. It does not specify that the characteristics
> > involved must be inherited via DNA.
> BD:-
> I realize this also. But I was just trying to demonstrate the
> impossibility
> of an Lamarckian event becoming heritable *information*. Somehow such
> information must reverse its flow into the DNA. Otherwise it is
> a mutation.
JE:-
You are restricting ALL selectable coded information passed
on to the next generation of Darwinian selected whole units,
to the DNA/RNA system, alone.
While it is true that the DNA/RNA system is the basic
system of coded information transfer, this does not mean
that ALL selectable information is alone passed on by
this system. This is Neo Darwinistic hogwash, put about
to try to establish "the gene" as the Darwinian unit selected.
The gene is a unit of inheritance not a unit of selection.
Nobody is suggesting that a protein can code for a gene,
thus reversing the information polarity between the
DNA/RNA system and proteins. If this was possible as
an everyday event, then when a skin burn forms a scar,
then the scar may be reproduced in the offspring. Very
quickly, all offspring over a period of time would
accumulate genetic copies of all the phenotype damage
done to all its ancestors, and be a real non viable mess.
It is critical to evolutionary theory that such a non
reversible bridge be maintained in coded information
transfer for the viability of the fertile organism, the
unit selected in nature.
You can define Lamarckism in two opposing ways:-
1) Via a refutation of the central dogma
2) Complimentary to the central dogma.
Lamarck, within his era, could not possibly
distinguish between the two. We can and must.
It is OUR responsibility today to distinguish
between these two self exclusive views of acquired
characters, and not to ridicule Lamarck, to
bolster Neo Darwinism's growing insecurity over
its ridiculous and self defeating claim to the
units actually selected in nature, via Darwinism.
If you define Lamarckism as(2),then very
simply, what is being suggested is that
TWO coding systems are responsible for
the phenotype, NOT JUST ONE where the
second Lamarckian coding is COMPLIMENTARY
to the 1st DNA/RNA coding, not contradictory
to it as you insist it must be. It does NOT
have to be so, at all. Prions are another
example of a two coded system. IMHO it will
turn out in the future that all phenotypes
will have polycoding systems within organisms,
that are complimentary. If any polycode
is passed on via the gametes then it becomes
an important issue to evolutionary theory.
The Neo Darwinistic "head in the sand" re
Lamarckism as a complimentary second coding
is just the pure bigotry of gene centricity
trying to maintain its dominance within Neo
Darwinism, against the simple known facts.
The reason I originally posted this example
of an actual Lamarckian inheritance within
paramecium kineties orientation and number,
was to show how IMPORTANT it is to shift
thinking away from the dominant dead hand
of gene centrics within evolutionary theory.
These key facts must be integrated into
the mainstream of evolutionary theory not
simply left outside of it because they are
inconvenient to gene centrics.
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Point
NSW 2105
Australia