flatearthsurvivor » Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:21 pm wrote:I know this is heretical to some, but I can't help but wonder if the discounted theory that NOTHING can be inherited by offspring because of environmental factors encountered or endured by their parents.
I simply have my doubts as to its accuracy.
In one sense your doubts are, if not well founded, at least wholly understandable. Darwin himself, having no mechanism for the origin of variations upon which natural selection worked, did - at times - envisage a Lamarkian type inheritance. This shows up in differences in his discussion of that in various editions of
On the Origin of Species. Rediscovery of the work of Mendel and then the development of the Modern Synthesis, removed the justification for these doubts.
Braininvat has concisely explained how that total rejection of Lamarkian inheritance has undergone a minor modification with the emergence of epigenetics. The two stumbling blocks for anyone pursuing a more full blooded Lamrkian evolutionary theory are:
1) The absence of a mechanism.
2) The absence of any solid (or even ephemeral) evidence.
littletrio wrote:The sense data/hormones taken in (as a register of environment) will transcend into inherent adaptive (blueprint/dna). But, this will only effect the potential offspring and must be passed down.
The phrase "will transcend into inherent adaptive" smacks of word salad.
1. What do you mean by "will transcend"? (That sounds very much like
hippy science. I'd like you to help remove my nervousness on those grounds by trying for a more scientific term.)
2. Are you trying to say that specific genes will be altered by the response of the cell as it "registers its environment".
littletrio wrote:He has a heart of gold and is a freaking genius......check out a few youtube videos of his work.
n general YouTube videos are not a sound resource for studying science - although there are many honourable exceptions. I haven't studied Lipton's work in detail. His hypotheses may well be correct.** However, he is so far out on a branch compared with the rest of the biology community that he is on a different tree, if not a different forest. I suggest that making a judgement as to the value of his works from viewing videos is akin to assessing the safety of smoking by viewing tobacco advertisements.
[quote"littletrio"]Rupert Sheldrake, has been working on Morphogenetic Resonance for decades, too. Great stuff, i.e., the resonance of the herd actually helping develop the embryo[/quote]Sheldrake's work has been pretty well universally rejected and for good reason. If we are attracted to novelty in theories - and who isn't - and like dogma challenging initiatives (which I love) then Sheldrake delivers an initial smack in the face. Closer examination reveals that the smack has been delivered with a dead mackerel. In short, Sheldrake is proposing and promoting pseudoscience.
**Intellectually I am required to and therefore do keep an open mind even though the little I have read of his work offers me no real encouragement to suspect that he may be onto something. On an emotional level I have little doubt that the guy is seriously deluded.