This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Inheritance of acquired characteristics redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article needs something about the experiment where they cut off rats' tails for many generations, but the tails of the offspring were always there. Of course, that was basically an experimental strawman attack on inheritance of acquired characters (since mutilation is not the kind of acquired characters the theory means), but it has historical significance.-- ragesoss 00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I also think that would be adequate to mention Weismann´s mutilation experiment, at least briefly. For the "evidence" part, I´ve read in an old book something that was pointed by a few as an evidence of inheritance of acquired characters: some sort of wild pig have its "knees" (actually wrists) with ticker skin, which is thick already in the prenatal development. As skin thickens with time, because of impacts or something (like fighter´s knuckles or a bass´ player finger tips), and the wild pig usually "kneels" on its wrist, they reasoned that the kneeling firstly caused the thickening, that was then inherited. If I ever find more about it on the internet, I´ll post something.
About development affected by outer conditions, again heat, there´s a even more interesting example (which I also do not remember any source now), of some mammal that develops, while inside the womb, larger ears when developing under higher temperatures. That theoretically could serve as a mean of dissipation of body heat. However, it has nothing to do with inheritance of acquired characters, not even with strict lamarckism (despite of these things being popularly associated with the term anyway), but with of adaptative change, not lamarckian because it´s not willingly, or by individual efforts, which I think that was also a tenet of "true" Lamarckism. I also think, that´s more like a "spandrel", a happy coincidence than any real mechanism of adaptive change (maybe does not even is good enough for its presumed functioning). -- Extremophile 05:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
These bits from the original "inheritance of acquired traits" article have not survived the merge:
On that note, I was wondering whether it is of interest that the giraffe example of notre cher Chevalier is not possible on anatomical grounds - the giraffe actually has no muscle to elongate its neck beyond the length dictated by its skeleton, and gravity is acting unfavourably! [1] However, the giraffe example may be worth mentioning because it may be more familiar to many people than either "Lamarckism" or "acquired traits". [1] Stretching requires transverse muscles and a "hydraulic" body - both of which many worms possess. The giraffe's tongue would have been a more plausible example! - Samsara 06:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Humm... the giraffe´s neck is also pointed as somewhat strawman by some, such as S. J. Gould. He said that Lamarck only mentioned that in one paragraph, among many other examples (which I do not know, but I´m curious about), and someone else before him that made of that a big deal, and a classic example. -- Extremophile 06:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The arguments proffered in this article might well have been provided by the late Soviet "biologist" Trofim D. Lysenko. It sorely needs updating by someone trained in molecular biology to reflect current thinking.
This page seriously needs to be cleaned up. Right now it's a mess of examples and arguments loosely connected with rhetoric. Phrases such as "the triump of the central dogma of molecular biology" and "insult to the intelligence of the reader" come to mind.
I propose the following structure: 1. History 2. Support for theory(ies) 3. Criticism of theory(ies)
the whole page is generally bias- what we need is more info on the topic b4 u adjust it be more neutrul 211.29.196.46 13:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
i suggest adding link to freely available paper Dismantling Lamarckism (2006), which makes deep and interesting insight into this theme. it can be easily found with google, just type the title. 62.65.183.37 03:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is outdated ; Recent studies in Epigenetics show that the genome is not the only information passed down to offsprings but information from the phenotype and acquired characters are also transmitted. ( some reference : Sex-specific, male-line transgenerational responses in humans.) Guillaume Rava. 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be overlap with soft inheritance and there are references over there. Zab ( talk) 05:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I would definitley remove the part on this article that relates Lamarck to Aristotle. Aristotle specifically states in the great chain of being that the world is fixed and a species CANNOT change. To him the earth was full and nothing new could be added.
I.A.C -as the environment changes 1)an aminals activity pattern changes(behavioral change) 2)increased or decreased use of certain body parts 3)body parts become altered 4)new trait (acquired during this life is passed down)
PROBLEMS WITH I.A.C 1)offspring do not inherit changed in a parents body 2) only changes in the gametes or sex cells may be inherited
"dismal failure" in the last line is vague and emotive language not suitable to an objective assessment of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.162.183 ( talk) 16:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Genomes, and the specific duties of genes both singularly and corporately are believed to be the reason for actions and lifestyles of the individual? As I understand what it is that a read from the accompanying articles, is that it ,(changes in behavior) bring about physical changes in certain cells. But I don't see the correlation between that, physical change, and the actions taken by the individual? The odd or defective gene then, would predispose one to continue behavior of a similar type, somewhere in that person's ancestry? If this is true, then the individual has less of a chance to not do those things which are outside the norms of society? I am thinking of two subjects specifically. Addiction and homo sexuality happen because a person is predisposed to become involved because of his genes, and far less then on his or her environment is what this conclusion implies? If this is true for these two groups, is it also true of other groups? Does a criminal commit crimes because he was predisposed, or is it more attributed to their environment, and the choices they made? In short, no one should be held accountable if his ancestors were involved in the same type of activity? This article has more questions then answers, because I am not a geneticist, and I would never dispute physical findings as documented in the laboratory. However, I maintain that human actions toward violence or other activities outside societal norms are because of the environment that they grew up in, and how the individual responds to that environment, especially in the younger years. Once that person has grown to adulthood, if their mind is sound, they are wholly responsible for the decisions they make and the actions they take. But if they are acting out only which through their genetic make up, then no one is responsible for their actions. To a geneticist who reads this, they might find my argument to be more philosophical then scientific, but it occurs to me, that if odd actions by the individual are accountable to an errant gene of some sort, that it should be possible to isolate that gene and remove it, or treat it with chemicals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.36.181 ( talk) 21:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Genomes, and the specific duties of genes both singularly and corporately are believed to be the reason for actions and lifestyles of the individual? As I understand what it is that a read from the accompanying articles, is that it ,(changes in behavior) bring about physical changes in certain cells. But I don't see the correlation between that, physical change, and the actions taken by the individual? The odd or defective gene then, would predispose one to continue behavior of a similar type, somewhere in that person's ancestry? If this is true, then the individual has less of a chance to not do those things which are outside the norms of society? I am thinking of two subjects specifically. Addiction and homo sexuality happen because a person is predisposed to become involved because of his genes, and far less then on his or her environment is what this conclusion implies? If this is true for these two groups, is it also true of other groups? Does a criminal commit crimes because he was predisposed, or is it more attributed to their environment, and the choices they made? In short, no one should be held accountable if his ancestors were involved in the same type of activity? This article has more questions then answers, because I am not a geneticist, and I would never dispute physical findings as documented in the laboratory. However, I maintain that human actions toward violence or other activities outside societal norms are because of the environment that they grew up in, and how the individual responds to that environment, especially in the younger years. Once that person has grown to adulthood, if their mind is sound, they are wholly responsible for the decisions they make and the actions they take. But if they are acting out only which through their genetic make up, then no one is responsible for their actions. To a geneticist who reads this, they might find my argument to be more philosophical then scientific, but it occurs to me, that if odd actions by the individual are accountable to an errant gene of some sort, that it should be possible to isolate that gene and remove it, or treat it with chemicals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.36.181 ( talk) 21:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I have a vague memory of reading it in ... Dennett? It pertains a mechanism whereby an individual can develop a trait to a degree that it enhances survival, changing the frequency of that trait gene in the gene pool. Butler's Principle? Bolton's Principle? B ... ?
T 88.89.219.147 ( talk) 17:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Inheritance of acquired characteristics redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article needs something about the experiment where they cut off rats' tails for many generations, but the tails of the offspring were always there. Of course, that was basically an experimental strawman attack on inheritance of acquired characters (since mutilation is not the kind of acquired characters the theory means), but it has historical significance.-- ragesoss 00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I also think that would be adequate to mention Weismann´s mutilation experiment, at least briefly. For the "evidence" part, I´ve read in an old book something that was pointed by a few as an evidence of inheritance of acquired characters: some sort of wild pig have its "knees" (actually wrists) with ticker skin, which is thick already in the prenatal development. As skin thickens with time, because of impacts or something (like fighter´s knuckles or a bass´ player finger tips), and the wild pig usually "kneels" on its wrist, they reasoned that the kneeling firstly caused the thickening, that was then inherited. If I ever find more about it on the internet, I´ll post something.
About development affected by outer conditions, again heat, there´s a even more interesting example (which I also do not remember any source now), of some mammal that develops, while inside the womb, larger ears when developing under higher temperatures. That theoretically could serve as a mean of dissipation of body heat. However, it has nothing to do with inheritance of acquired characters, not even with strict lamarckism (despite of these things being popularly associated with the term anyway), but with of adaptative change, not lamarckian because it´s not willingly, or by individual efforts, which I think that was also a tenet of "true" Lamarckism. I also think, that´s more like a "spandrel", a happy coincidence than any real mechanism of adaptive change (maybe does not even is good enough for its presumed functioning). -- Extremophile 05:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
These bits from the original "inheritance of acquired traits" article have not survived the merge:
On that note, I was wondering whether it is of interest that the giraffe example of notre cher Chevalier is not possible on anatomical grounds - the giraffe actually has no muscle to elongate its neck beyond the length dictated by its skeleton, and gravity is acting unfavourably! [1] However, the giraffe example may be worth mentioning because it may be more familiar to many people than either "Lamarckism" or "acquired traits". [1] Stretching requires transverse muscles and a "hydraulic" body - both of which many worms possess. The giraffe's tongue would have been a more plausible example! - Samsara 06:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Humm... the giraffe´s neck is also pointed as somewhat strawman by some, such as S. J. Gould. He said that Lamarck only mentioned that in one paragraph, among many other examples (which I do not know, but I´m curious about), and someone else before him that made of that a big deal, and a classic example. -- Extremophile 06:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The arguments proffered in this article might well have been provided by the late Soviet "biologist" Trofim D. Lysenko. It sorely needs updating by someone trained in molecular biology to reflect current thinking.
This page seriously needs to be cleaned up. Right now it's a mess of examples and arguments loosely connected with rhetoric. Phrases such as "the triump of the central dogma of molecular biology" and "insult to the intelligence of the reader" come to mind.
I propose the following structure: 1. History 2. Support for theory(ies) 3. Criticism of theory(ies)
the whole page is generally bias- what we need is more info on the topic b4 u adjust it be more neutrul 211.29.196.46 13:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
i suggest adding link to freely available paper Dismantling Lamarckism (2006), which makes deep and interesting insight into this theme. it can be easily found with google, just type the title. 62.65.183.37 03:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is outdated ; Recent studies in Epigenetics show that the genome is not the only information passed down to offsprings but information from the phenotype and acquired characters are also transmitted. ( some reference : Sex-specific, male-line transgenerational responses in humans.) Guillaume Rava. 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be overlap with soft inheritance and there are references over there. Zab ( talk) 05:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I would definitley remove the part on this article that relates Lamarck to Aristotle. Aristotle specifically states in the great chain of being that the world is fixed and a species CANNOT change. To him the earth was full and nothing new could be added.
I.A.C -as the environment changes 1)an aminals activity pattern changes(behavioral change) 2)increased or decreased use of certain body parts 3)body parts become altered 4)new trait (acquired during this life is passed down)
PROBLEMS WITH I.A.C 1)offspring do not inherit changed in a parents body 2) only changes in the gametes or sex cells may be inherited
"dismal failure" in the last line is vague and emotive language not suitable to an objective assessment of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.162.183 ( talk) 16:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Genomes, and the specific duties of genes both singularly and corporately are believed to be the reason for actions and lifestyles of the individual? As I understand what it is that a read from the accompanying articles, is that it ,(changes in behavior) bring about physical changes in certain cells. But I don't see the correlation between that, physical change, and the actions taken by the individual? The odd or defective gene then, would predispose one to continue behavior of a similar type, somewhere in that person's ancestry? If this is true, then the individual has less of a chance to not do those things which are outside the norms of society? I am thinking of two subjects specifically. Addiction and homo sexuality happen because a person is predisposed to become involved because of his genes, and far less then on his or her environment is what this conclusion implies? If this is true for these two groups, is it also true of other groups? Does a criminal commit crimes because he was predisposed, or is it more attributed to their environment, and the choices they made? In short, no one should be held accountable if his ancestors were involved in the same type of activity? This article has more questions then answers, because I am not a geneticist, and I would never dispute physical findings as documented in the laboratory. However, I maintain that human actions toward violence or other activities outside societal norms are because of the environment that they grew up in, and how the individual responds to that environment, especially in the younger years. Once that person has grown to adulthood, if their mind is sound, they are wholly responsible for the decisions they make and the actions they take. But if they are acting out only which through their genetic make up, then no one is responsible for their actions. To a geneticist who reads this, they might find my argument to be more philosophical then scientific, but it occurs to me, that if odd actions by the individual are accountable to an errant gene of some sort, that it should be possible to isolate that gene and remove it, or treat it with chemicals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.36.181 ( talk) 21:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Genomes, and the specific duties of genes both singularly and corporately are believed to be the reason for actions and lifestyles of the individual? As I understand what it is that a read from the accompanying articles, is that it ,(changes in behavior) bring about physical changes in certain cells. But I don't see the correlation between that, physical change, and the actions taken by the individual? The odd or defective gene then, would predispose one to continue behavior of a similar type, somewhere in that person's ancestry? If this is true, then the individual has less of a chance to not do those things which are outside the norms of society? I am thinking of two subjects specifically. Addiction and homo sexuality happen because a person is predisposed to become involved because of his genes, and far less then on his or her environment is what this conclusion implies? If this is true for these two groups, is it also true of other groups? Does a criminal commit crimes because he was predisposed, or is it more attributed to their environment, and the choices they made? In short, no one should be held accountable if his ancestors were involved in the same type of activity? This article has more questions then answers, because I am not a geneticist, and I would never dispute physical findings as documented in the laboratory. However, I maintain that human actions toward violence or other activities outside societal norms are because of the environment that they grew up in, and how the individual responds to that environment, especially in the younger years. Once that person has grown to adulthood, if their mind is sound, they are wholly responsible for the decisions they make and the actions they take. But if they are acting out only which through their genetic make up, then no one is responsible for their actions. To a geneticist who reads this, they might find my argument to be more philosophical then scientific, but it occurs to me, that if odd actions by the individual are accountable to an errant gene of some sort, that it should be possible to isolate that gene and remove it, or treat it with chemicals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.36.181 ( talk) 21:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I have a vague memory of reading it in ... Dennett? It pertains a mechanism whereby an individual can develop a trait to a degree that it enhances survival, changing the frequency of that trait gene in the gene pool. Butler's Principle? Bolton's Principle? B ... ?
T 88.89.219.147 ( talk) 17:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)