I think some people are getting Lamarckian theory confused with Darwinian theory. If a heritable trait improves one's ability to survive in a given environment (niche) then it will be passed on to future generations.
It's all about chance and exceedingly long periods of time in which to get lucky.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]The missing link comes from New Cross.
I thought they were all Neanderthals...?
Another common misconception. No way could our Spanner brethren be descended from neanderthals - quite apart from the fact that Neanderthals are a completely different species to Homo Sapiens and, as has been reaffirmed only today, did not crossbreed with our ancestors at all, all evidence points to neanderthals being a creative, intelligent, peace-loving species. Quite unlike anything from Cold Blow Lane/Zampa Road in every respect really.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Otherwise all male jewish babies would be born without foreskins or have I missed you point completely?
No and yes!!
I am not an expert on this but I have always felt that natural selection was not the complete answer. I then saw a documentary about gene switches which I felt went some way to meeting my concerns.
There was a body of research done about a village in northern Sweden where the records a hundred years or more ago showed periods of famine and periods of plenty. They have found a direct correlation between adults who became sexually mature during that time; to diseases such as diabetes suffered by their later generations (I think it skipped at least one generation). I don't have the exact detail and my memory isn't what it used to be but the suggestion was that environmental factors had an impact on the genetic material that was produced by their sex organs and passed on to their offspring changed by certain genes having been "switched on".
There is, as I understand it, a huge amount still unknown about genes and genetic code. Sophisticated organisms such as Humans have less genetic code then much more primative organisms. Thus some code is "off" and some is "on" and as mentioned above, environmental issues do switch genes on and off so why does that not work for modifying the organisms better to adapt to their environment; or is it, as Darwin postulates, purely based upon random mutuation meeting the forces of natural selection? I am not a scientist but my observations are that some mutations seem to me to be less than random even if I accept that the fittest survive especially during major environmental change.
I don't think all enviromental issues impact upon the genetic code, but I think some genetic code most certainly is.
I don't see a conflict with Darwinian thought and what you say.
The genes may have been "switched on" but they were already part of the genes. Those without those bits of DNA that could be turned on (recent immigrants to the community for example) would not have had their genes switched on as it would not exist in theres.
The ability to survive famine is an advantage and so those genes are passed on while others, the people who died, are not.
Henry, although I am not a scientist, I think that good science is about explaining what we think we know until we know something different.
There is no doubt that Darwins view of evolution is a robust one and the work by Crick and Watson,(if you've not read Watson's book, The Double Helix, its a great read) and subsequent scientists have shown that genetic code and the passing of it on is key to the way that life developed and the variety of nature. I am absolutely sure that randomly mutating genes leading to variations from the parent is crucial to development and adaptation. The question is whether it is the only process at work here? Gene switching shows us that environmental factors can effect change in future generations. Exposure to radiation is shown to cause genetic mutation as do chemical factors. Why should the good scientist rule out the possibility that other forces from the environment may bring about non random adaptive changes?
I think Darwins theory, followed up by modern scientific developments give us the best explanation for the way species have developed and changed. There is still alot we don't know.
The bottom line, whether he was right or wrong, is that Darwin's theory was a such huge leap in thinking at the time we cannot conceive how radical it was in our modern world. It's the eqivalent of someone turning up tomorrow who can prove that Tom Cruise's lot are actually right.
He was a brave man to risk his reputation and career like that.
[cite]Posted By: Algarveaddick[/cite]The bottom line, whether he was right or wrong, is that Darwin's theory was a such huge leap in thinking at the time we cannot conceive how radical it was in our modern world. It's the eqivalent of someone turning up tomorrow who can prove that Tom Cruise's lot are actually right.
He was a brave man to risk his reputation and career like that.
That is right although, understandably he agonised for years about making his theories public until events overtook him.
It's the eqivalent of someone turning up tomorrow who can prove that Tom Cruise's lot are actually right.
.................
Scientology or whatever it is that Tom Cruise believes in is the same old superstitious nonsense re-packaged.
Darwin via evolution was the first to plausibly iffer an explanation of the origin of species without reference to a creator which up-ended the contemporary orthodoxy, and is still not accepted today by some parts of the church. Darwin stripped away the sense of fate that religion used to explain existence.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]It's the eqivalent of someone turning up tomorrow who can prove that Tom Cruise's lot are actually right.
.................
Scientology or whatever it is that Tom Cruise believes in is the same old superstitious nonsense re-packaged.
Darwin via evolution was the first to plausibly iffer an explanation of the origin of species without reference to a creator which up-ended the contemporary orthodoxy, and is still not accepted today by some parts of the church. Darwin stripped away the sense of fate that religion used to explain existence.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]It's the eqivalent of someone turning up tomorrow who can prove that Tom Cruise's lot are actually right.
.................
Scientology or whatever it is that Tom Cruise believes in is the same old superstitious nonsense re-packaged.
Darwin via evolution was the first to plausibly iffer an explanation of the origin of species without reference to a creator which up-ended the contemporary orthodoxy, and is still not accepted today by some parts of the church. Darwin stripped away the sense of fate that religion used to explain existence.
And Darwin was deeply religious - and agonised for a long time before publishing his theories, because he feared contempt and accusations of heresy.
I believe he stopped going to Church sometime before he published his theories which suggests that he was at least struggling with reconciling his theories with Christian orthodoxy.
There's been a lot of discussion about Darwin's 'faith' but this quote is generally taken to represent his personal views.
"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally, and more and more so as I grow older - but not always - that an agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind"
Comments
Thats too far fetched
It's all about chance and exceedingly long periods of time in which to get lucky.
No and yes!!
I am not an expert on this but I have always felt that natural selection was not the complete answer. I then saw a documentary about gene switches which I felt went some way to meeting my concerns.
There was a body of research done about a village in northern Sweden where the records a hundred years or more ago showed periods of famine and periods of plenty. They have found a direct correlation between adults who became sexually mature during that time; to diseases such as diabetes suffered by their later generations (I think it skipped at least one generation). I don't have the exact detail and my memory isn't what it used to be but the suggestion was that environmental factors had an impact on the genetic material that was produced by their sex organs and passed on to their offspring changed by certain genes having been "switched on".
There is, as I understand it, a huge amount still unknown about genes and genetic code. Sophisticated organisms such as Humans have less genetic code then much more primative organisms. Thus some code is "off" and some is "on" and as mentioned above, environmental issues do switch genes on and off so why does that not work for modifying the organisms better to adapt to their environment; or is it, as Darwin postulates, purely based upon random mutuation meeting the forces of natural selection? I am not a scientist but my observations are that some mutations seem to me to be less than random even if I accept that the fittest survive especially during major environmental change.
I don't think all enviromental issues impact upon the genetic code, but I think some genetic code most certainly is.
I tell ye, this site is cracking entertainment when you are pissed !
I don't see a conflict with Darwinian thought and what you say.
The genes may have been "switched on" but they were already part of the genes. Those without those bits of DNA that could be turned on (recent immigrants to the community for example) would not have had their genes switched on as it would not exist in theres.
The ability to survive famine is an advantage and so those genes are passed on while others, the people who died, are not.
There is no doubt that Darwins view of evolution is a robust one and the work by Crick and Watson,(if you've not read Watson's book, The Double Helix, its a great read) and subsequent scientists have shown that genetic code and the passing of it on is key to the way that life developed and the variety of nature. I am absolutely sure that randomly mutating genes leading to variations from the parent is crucial to development and adaptation. The question is whether it is the only process at work here? Gene switching shows us that environmental factors can effect change in future generations. Exposure to radiation is shown to cause genetic mutation as do chemical factors. Why should the good scientist rule out the possibility that other forces from the environment may bring about non random adaptive changes?
I think Darwins theory, followed up by modern scientific developments give us the best explanation for the way species have developed and changed. There is still alot we don't know.
He was a brave man to risk his reputation and career like that.
That is right although, understandably he agonised for years about making his theories public until events overtook him.
.................
Scientology or whatever it is that Tom Cruise believes in is the same old superstitious nonsense re-packaged.
Darwin via evolution was the first to plausibly iffer an explanation of the origin of species without reference to a creator which up-ended the contemporary orthodoxy, and is still not accepted today by some parts of the church. Darwin stripped away the sense of fate that religion used to explain existence.
Egg-zackerly
And Darwin was deeply religious - and agonised for a long time before publishing his theories, because he feared contempt and accusations of heresy.
"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally, and more and more so as I grow older - but not always - that an agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind"