Is Lamarkian evolution superior to Darwinian evolution

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:25 pm

Jiva wrote:
dr.placebo wrote:Other recent evidence suggests that human evolution has increased its rate in the relatively recent past. There is no evidence that we have reached a dead end.
Perhaps not surprising, given the enormous population and diversity of humanity these days.

See now I recently read something that said we are not really evolving these days, because there aren't many selection pressures and with a gene pool of over 6.5 billion organizums any useful traits just get swamped in the ocean of ordinary humanity. (this is a very rough and probably inaccurate paraphrase.)

DaddyMassive · Post by **DaddyMassive** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:10 pm

Darwin was only 20 when Lamarck died. It's fair to assume Darwin would of studied him. He certeinly praised his work.

But what you are all forgetting is Charles Darwin was British and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a dirty, dirty French man.

In the century these theories were banded about, the United Kingdom were rulers of the galaxy and probably had some clout in bringing about the wider acceptance of their home grown scientific theories.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:01 pm

But we wouldn't be using it 150 years later if it wasn't useful. If someone can make Lamark useful, then more power to him. But blowing smoke about nationality? WTF? Marie Curie won the Swedish Nobel Prize, and the gained importance world wide from her work, instead of being accepted only by the French and Poles. And we don't know Max Plank's name because Queen Victoria knighted him.

Finnegan · Post by **Finnegan** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Lion fish?
Flying Gurnard?

What?

BAS · Post by **BAS** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:53 pm

Most of the world uses the metric system, which came from France...

I'm with Cryptofishist on this one.

DaddyMassive · Post by **DaddyMassive** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:10 am

I didn't say it wasn't useful. Infact I all but said Darwin most probably had the genesis of his idea from studying Lamark.

Ho-har about The Empire aside, cos us British only ever mention it to you Americans so we can get a rise out of one of you, Darwin's theory seemed to have more quantative study and maybe could be more accepted by people who had a laymans understanding of the science.

The truth behind these scientific theories are always more than the sum of their discoveries. One scientist tests an area and makes suposition about others, it's thrown around the community, tested and either re-enforced, dismissed or developed. In this case, I believe Darwin developed the thinking and repackaged it. And he did it at a time the general public were more interested in hearing about it.

Who got awarded what in Nobel prizes 50 to 70 years later in completely different fields of science really has nothing directly to do with what I said either.

So I'll WTF? your WTF? and give you a NOOB! and a ZOMG-LOLZ! and a ICGAFAYP!
(btw that's I Couldn't Give A Fuck About Your Post. I've just made it up and I think it's quite catchy. I'm hoping it'll get out there and be used by teh internet. Small steps..small steps)

SilverOrange · Post by **SilverOrange** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:00 am

ICGAFAYP

I like it. I think I'll add it to the repertoire. You shall live on in infamy!

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:45 am

DaddyMassive wrote:I didn't say it wasn't useful. Infact I all but said Darwin most probably had the genesis of his idea from studying Lamark.

Or Malthus. Or Erasmus Darwin. And did Wallace derive it from Lamark, too?

Apparently there was lots of "evolutionism" floating around in the 1800s. Darwin was the one who suggested a workable mechanism, and for that he needed Malthus. Lamark was just another nugget in that particular stew.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:46 am

DaddyMassive wrote:I didn't say it wasn't useful. Infact I all but said Darwin most probably had the genesis of his idea from studying Lamark.

Or Malthus. Or Erasmus Darwin. And did Wallace derive it from Lamark, too?

Apparently there was lots of "evolutionism" floating around in the 1800s. Darwin was the one who suggested a workable mechanism, and for that he needed Malthus. Lamark was just another nugget in that particular stew.

Oh, and if you lived in a country where well over half of the people don't belive in Darwin's theory, perhaps you wouldn't find it quite so funny to mess with people who do.

DaddyMassive · Post by **DaddyMassive** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:57 am

One might almost say, the theory evolved over time.

Thank you very much.
I'll be here all week.

Marscrumbs · Post by **Marscrumbs** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:04 pm

DaddyMassive wrote:I didn't say it wasn't useful. Infact I all but said Darwin most probably had the genesis of his idea from studying Lamark.

Yes, that the concept of evolution itself preceeds Darwin is significant.
That the theory of Creationalism follows later is Devo.

And why are we Americans not using metric now that GM is gone. Can I lose those silly wrenches now?

Marscrumbs · Post by **Marscrumbs** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:12 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:
Jiva wrote:
Perhaps not surprising, given the enormous population and diversity of humanity these days.
See now I recently read something that said we are not really evolving these days, because there aren't many selection pressures and with a gene pool of over 6.5 billion organizums any useful traits just get swamped in the ocean of ordinary humanity. (this is a very rough and probably inaccurate paraphrase.)

I've read that the percentage of blue eyed people has been rising over tens of thousand of years. Having blue eyes give a few pecentage point advantage to spreading your genes.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:14 pm

Not in my neighborhood, ese.

Absolut Jeenyus · Post by **Absolut Jeenyus** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:35 pm

jkisha wrote:Why do you want us to select between a discredited theory and the accepted theory? It's like asking which is more suited to humans, creationism or evolution.

JK

Very well said. My thoughts exactly.

Marscrumbs · Post by **Marscrumbs** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:33 pm

Absolut Jeenyus wrote:
jkisha wrote:Why do you want us to select between a discredited theory and the accepted theory? It's like asking which is more suited to humans, creationism or evolution.

JK
Very well said. My thoughts exactly.

Digital was supose to beat analog hands down. But many people prefer analog sound recordings and sound systems.

I was going to bring up Barbara McCormick again but it would go over most peoples heads.

Jiva · Post by **Jiva** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 6:22 pm

Marscrumbs wrote:
Digital was supose to beat analog hands down. But many people prefer analog sound recordings and sound systems.

"Darwinism was supposed to beat Lamarckism hands-down. But many people prefer Lamarckism to Darwinism."

Yeah, that's just the same. Well, except for the last part. And the fact that we're not arguing that people don't like Lamarckism, but rather that it has little in the way of utility in the context of modern biology.

I was going to bring up Barbara McCormick again but it would go over most peoples heads.

It goes right over Google's head. Who is McCormick? A geneticist?

Marscrumbs · Post by **Marscrumbs** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:32 pm

Terribley sorry. I meant nobel prize winner Barbara McClintock. I was confusing her with my glassware.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Sun Aug 02, 2009 9:55 am

Happens to me all the time.

Oldguy · Post by **Oldguy** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:03 am

"New data suggest 'jumping genes' play a significant role in gene regulatory networks
Published: Saturday, February 14, 2009 - 09:25 in Biology & Nature

Research performed in the Center for Biomolecular Science & Engineering (CBSE) at the University of California, Santa Cruz, suggests that mobile repetitive elements--also known as transposons or "jumping genes"--do indeed affect the evolution of gene regulatory networks. David Haussler, CBSE director and distinguished professor of biomolecular engineering at UCSC's Jack Baskin School of Engineering, said CBSE research teams are finding evidence that the early theories of Nobel Prize winner Barbara McClintock, later modeled by Roy Britten and Eric Davidson, are correct. Haussler will discuss these findings in a presentation on "Transposon-induced rewriting of vertebrate gene regulation" at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Chicago.

"Comparison of the human genome with the genomes of other species reveals that at least five percent of the human genome has been under negative selection during most of mammalian evolution," Haussler said. "We believe that this five percent is, therefore, likely to be functional."

Coding exons and structural RNA genes stand out because of their distinctive pattern of base substitutions and "indels"--the insertions and deletions of nucleic acid bases that can change the message in a genome. According to Haussler, however, most of the DNA under negative selection in vertebrate genomes does not appear to be transcribed and shares no sequence similarity with the genomes of invertebrates.

"Our research suggests that many of these elements serve as distal enhancers for developmental genes," Haussler said. "A significant amount of the gene regulatory material appears to have indeed been put into place by ancient transposons."

Source: University of California - Santa Cruz "
__________________________________________

OK, she wins the Nobel in '83 and these boys are just now ( six months ago) proving she's right? These boys must be slow or sumpin'

Caine · Post by **Caine** » Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:25 pm

Our ability to reason, think and use tools is part of our evolution, folks.

That means we have been evolving very quickly indeed, as our knowledge, cultural and technological base grows. Absolutely everything we do is a result of natural selection, including our manipulation of DNA, since it was natural selection that gave us the power to do so.

So really, our "artificial selection" methods are not artificial because we are the synthesis of evolutionary processes. Everything we do, say, think, build and so on are natural since we are beings evolved from lower forms to possess these talents. Pretty meta, eh? :)

In other words, nature decided to give us the ability to amp our evolution up several orders of magnitude. Think about it. In just a scant 500 years.. look at what human kind has done. Let alone what's happened since the beginning of recorded history.. which in evolutionary terms is an eyeblink.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:29 pm

If it were truly evolution nature decided nothing; we just won some sort of dna lottery.

Marscrumbs · Post by **Marscrumbs** » Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:40 pm

Caine wrote:Our ability to reason, think and use tools is part of our evolution, folks.

That means we have been evolving very quickly indeed, as our knowledge, cultural and technological base grows. Absolutely everything we do is a result of natural selection, including our manipulation of DNA, since it was natural selection that gave us the power to do so.

So really, our "artificial selection" methods are not artificial because we are the synthesis of evolutionary processes. Everything we do, say, think, build and so on are natural since we are beings evolved from lower forms to possess these talents. Pretty meta, eh?

In other words, nature decided to give us the ability to amp our evolution up several orders of magnitude. Think about it. In just a scant 500 years.. look at what human kind has done. Let alone what's happened since the beginning of recorded history.. which in evolutionary terms is an eyeblink.

So instead of breeding women with bigger breast we can just get them siliconly enhanced?

Caine · Post by **Caine** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:16 am

[quote="Marscrumbs"]

So instead of breeding women with bigger breast we can just get them siliconly enhanced?[/quote]

Even better:

http://realdoll.com

No need for pick up lines, intelligence or even hygiene!

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:26 am

But, oh what an evolutionary dead end.

Caine · Post by **Caine** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:01 am

[quote="theCryptofishist"]But, oh what an evolutionary dead end.[/quote]

Not really. The men who CAN get laid will rule all. Which is kinda how its been since... the beginning.

RealDolls are definitely natural selection at its finest.

:)

Is Lamarkian evolution superior to Darwinian evolution

How do you prefer to evole?