Re: [evol-psych] Lamarckian evolution
- Dear Hilary,Perhaps these links can help you a bit:Are retrogenes changing Darwin's natural selection paradigm?Review of "Lamarck's Signature"I'm not a biologist, thus I cannot endorse any of what is exposedon this matter.Regards,Sergio NavegaIntelliwise Research----- Original Message -----From: Hilary FisherSent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 1:05 AMSubject: [evol-psych] Lamarckian evolutionDear list-members,I have a vague recollection of suggestions made in the last couple of years of a newly-discovered Lamarckian element to biological evolution.If any members could point me in the direction of where I could find a summary of the findings on the point, it would be most appreciated.HilaryHilary FisherTC Beirne School of LawUniversity of QueenslandSt Lucia, Qld, 4072 AUSTRALIATel: +61 (0)7 3346 9349Fax: +61 (0)7 3365 4788email: h.fisher@...CRICOS Provider No. 00025B
- On 06/05/2004, at 5:44 PM, Hilary Fisher" <h.fisher@...>
>In addition to Herb Gintis' suggestions, you are probably thinking of
> Dear list-members,
> I have a vague recollection of suggestions made in the last couple of
> of a newly-discovered Lamarckian element to biological evolution.
> If any members could point me in the direction of where I could find a
> summary of the findings on the point, it would be most appreciated.
Ted Steele's book _Lamarck's Signature_
<http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho39.htm>. Steele and his
collaborators think that if mutations in the body (somatic
hypermutations in the immune system) can be retrovirally inserted into
gamete cells, that this is a kind of Lamarckian acquired immunity.
The problem is that nobody thinks Weismann's Barrier is so absolute (as
the Jablonka and Lamb refs Gintis cited make clear) as it was, say, in
1940 - the key term here is "epigenetic inheritance" - and Steele's
process, which has not yet been proven out, does not break the Central
Dogma either, so it is not exactly Lamarckism, either as Lamarck
himself proposed it, or as others (like Darwin) proposed it (use and
disuse). It is, in the end, merely Darwinism at another level (i.e., th
Dr John S Wilkins
Head, Communication Services
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- i am unware of any specific cases where epigenetic changes are are
transmitted via the germline to the next generation. imprinting
does not count since the expression of a single gene changes
depending on the transmitter. most epigentic changes are stable
across cell lineages, not generations of organisms. there is some
evidence that this happens based on epidemiological stuides in
populations that suffered famines, but i don't think it's well
known how wide spread this 'lamarckian' type of transmission is.