# Evolution: Two Intriguing Lamarckian Experiments **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 23, 2001, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543 "2001-02-23T01:58:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![jorolat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jorolat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jorolat)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2001, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/21 "2001-02-23T22:45:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*…I feel many people believe in the theory of evolution in the same way that they once believed the _ **earth revolved around the sun** _: It is what they have been conditioned with and to such an extent that the capability for original thought is impaired… > > Jorolat \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > I still believe the earth revolves around the sun. \*\* er, so do I… (grin) Jorolat ---
**Author:** ![bryanmcc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@bryanmcc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bryanmcc)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2001, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/22 "2001-02-23T22:50:28Z")
I do not believe that new proposals are met with “a negative knee-jerk reaction,” but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to require evidence, repeatable experiments, and a straightforward mechanism. I got bogged down on the web-site you referred me to, but it didn’t seem to have any of what I just described. Actually, the mechanism being discussed seemed full of assumptions, supositions, and nonsense. If you can explain it more clearly and concisely than it was on that page, perhaps my appologies are in order. Yes, 20% is a significant result, if it is 2000 out of 10000. Four out of 19 is too close to chance to inspire me (or most, i’d guess) to any undue acceptance. Especially considering the lack of explanation and further results. I don’t think that a New York Times discussion is sufficient to justify the claim that “‘Natural Selection’ does not exist outside of the human intellect.” Natural selection so obviously exists that I don’t see how it can be debated. Take 100 ducks, let 'em loose: which ones had survived, which ones reproduced, why did some of 'em fare better than others? Natural selection right there. Lastly, just because a mechanism lies external to the individual does not make it “supernatural.” How can you make this logical leap? Population level, species level, biosphere level, how are these not all part of nature? ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2001, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/23 "2001-02-23T22:53:32Z")
So, let’s summarize. We have an OP that refers to circumcision as “physical trauma” inflicted by “detached intellects”, employs nonsensical pseudoscience and calls in evidence, and ignores intelligent refutations of his position. Oh, dear Cecil!!! **Runs away screaming** ---
**Author:** ![Gaspode](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/aeb1de/32.png) [@Gaspode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaspode)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2001, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/24 "2001-02-23T23:49:35Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by jorolat \* \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bryanmcc \* > **"While in your last post you do add that they were “born” this way, your initial post merely described that the offspring exibited this behavior. douglips was fully justified in that the offspring aquired this behavior through observation and mimicry."** > Of course he was and I corrected my omission. But you still haven’t explained how this behaviour could possibly have been observed in an animal with sealed eyelids, and neck muscles with insufficient strength to support the head. How exactly was it determined that the animals were ‘born’ with these behaviours? ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/25 "2001-02-24T00:26:06Z")
**jorolat** , I’m afraid you’ve kind of lost me. What, precisely, is (are) the question(s) you are asking here? ---
**Author:** ![jorolat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jorolat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jorolat)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/26 "2001-02-24T01:07:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bryanmcc \* > \*\*Sure, the possibilities are intriguing, but one has to wonder why, if the experiments have merit, they haven’t been repeated extensively. I mean it’s not like were talking huge, multi-million dollar investments here: get some caterpillars, a few leaves, and some graph paper and you’re set! Or a few lab rats and a lazy susan. > > Try going onto Science or Nature’s web site and entering “Lamarckianism” into the search engine. > > And so many people believe in evolution because there is an entire mountain of observational evidence, lucid arguments, confirming experiments, and a reasonable mechanism behind it. > > And which part of evolution, exactly, isn’t “entirely testable?” > > -b \*\* I feel the experiments haven’t been repeated because no one has been looking for a specific mechanism that could produce such results. Even more unfortunately I do not have the resources to perform my own experiments (being testable is, after all, at least one merit that the proposed mechanism has!). I didn’t say that evolution isn’t testable, in fact I’m saying the opposite. Jorolat ---
**Author:** ![jorolat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jorolat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jorolat)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/27 "2001-02-24T01:11:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by manhattan \* > \*\ ***jorolat** , I’m afraid you’ve kind of lost me. What, precisely, is (are) the question(s) you are asking here? > \*\* Simply if anyone knows where I can find primary sources for the two experiments (or references to similar ones) outlined in the original post. Jorolat ---
**Author:** ![jorolat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jorolat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jorolat)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/28 "2001-02-24T03:18:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gaspode \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by jorolat \* > > \*\* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > \*Originally posted by douglips \* > > > \*\*Suggested change to experiment #2: > > > Have the baby rats raised by other rats who have not been screwed up. > > > I imagine that when growing up if my mom and dad were constantly shaking their heads and eyes that I’d begin to do it to. \*\* > > > > The second generation rats could have been born with: > > a) No change in behaviour > > b) Heads flickering only > > c) Eyes flickering only > > They were, in fact, born with both head _and_ eyes flickering. The emphasis is on the “born”.\*\* > > Rats are born in a very underdevolped state. Their eyes are neither open nor functional and they are inacapable of rapid movements of any part of the body. Whenever these animals began displaying these traits and for whatever reason they were definitely not born with them. > > [http://corbis.altavista.com/referrals/av\_image\_details.asp?linkid=2623&imageid=10929836](http://corbis.altavista.com/referrals/av_image_details.asp?linkid=2623&imageid=10929836) \*\* The secondary source didn’t give a moment by moment description of the development of the baby rats but implied that as soon as they were physically capable of beginning to perform the behaviours described then they did so. Hopefully the primary sourcers will reveal more. Jorolat ---
**Author:** ![jorolat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jorolat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jorolat)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/29 "2001-02-24T03:25:32Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Gaspode \* \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jorolat \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by bryanmcc \* > > **"While in your last post you do add that they were “born” this way, your initial post merely described that the offspring exibited this behavior. douglips was fully justified in that the offspring aquired this behavior through observation and mimicry."** > > Of course he was and I corrected my omission. > > But you still haven’t explained how this behaviour could possibly have been observed in an animal with sealed eyelids, and neck muscles with insufficient strength to support the head. How exactly was it determined that the animals were ‘born’ with these behaviours? \*\* I don’t have to explain it other than making the comments I made in reply to your earlier post, it wasn’t me who performed the experiments. I’m simply looking for the primary sources to see if they are indeed relevant to my own area of interest. Jorolat ---
**Author:** ![jorolat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jorolat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jorolat)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/30 "2001-02-24T04:15:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bryanmcc \* > **I do not believe that new proposals are met with “a negative knee-jerk reaction,” but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to require evidence, repeatable experiments, and a straightforward mechanism. I got bogged down on the web-site you referred me to, but it didn’t seem to have any of what I just described. Actually, the mechanism being discussed seemed full of assumptions, supositions, and nonsense. If you can explain it more clearly and concisely than it was on that page, perhaps my appologies are in order.** The proposed _testable_ mechanism is radical and arguments for its possible existence are still being developed. From small acorns do large acorns grow. The contents of the website have been sufficient to earn an invitation to join the evolutionary-psychology egroup ([http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology](http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology)), a reference in a foreign press ([http://www.hkz.hr/244/24415.htm](http://www.hkz.hr/244/24415.htm), acceptance for inclusion in various science directories, a steady trickle of people joining a mailing list, etc., etc… > [@](#): > > **Yes, 20% is a significant result, if it is 2000 out of 10000. Four out of 19 is too close to chance to inspire me (or most, i’d guess) to any undue acceptance. Especially considering the lack of explanation and further results.** I am looking for the primary sources of the experiments, I didn’t perform them. On the other hand my belief that life is individual means that 4 out of 19 can be as significant as 400 out of 2000. > [@](#): > > **I don’t think that a New York Times discussion is sufficient to justify the claim that “‘Natural Selection’ does not exist outside of the human intellect.” Natural selection so obviously exists that I don’t see how it can be debated. Take 100 ducks, let 'em loose: which ones had survived, which ones reproduced, why did some of 'em fare better than others? Natural selection right there.** Individual ducks would survive, individual ducks would reproduce, individual ducks would fare better than others. Perhaps an analogy will convey what I mean: Imagine driving past a golf course just after it has begun to rain and seeing a number of people holding umbrellas. If you return an hour later and it is still raining then you might see more umbrellas in evidence. The question to be asked is “has the population of umbrella-carriers grown or have a number of people found a similar solution to a similar problem?”. What applies to people also applies to ducks, the statement “populations evolve, not individuals” shouldn’t be taken literally. > [@](#): > > **Lastly, just because a mechanism lies external to the individual does not make it “supernatural.” How can you make this logical leap? Population level, species level, biosphere level, how are these not all part of nature?** If a mechanism is not part of natural life then surely by definition it must be supernatural?. Populations are made up of individuals etc. etc… Jorolat ---
**Author:** ![jorolat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jorolat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jorolat)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/31 "2001-02-24T04:21:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Smeghead \* > \*\*So, let’s summarize. We have an OP that refers to circumcision as “physical trauma” inflicted by “detached intellects”, employs nonsensical pseudoscience and calls in evidence, and ignores intelligent refutations of his position. > > Oh, dear Cecil!!! > > **Runs away screaming** \*\* An extract from a reply to bryanmcc: “From small acorns do large acorns grow. The contents of the website (i.e. a proposal arguing for the existence of an internal evolutionary mechanism) have been sufficient to earn an invitation to join the evolutionary-psychology egroup ([http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology](http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology)), a reference in a foreign press ([http://www.hkz.hr/244/24415.htm](http://www.hkz.hr/244/24415.htm), acceptance for inclusion in various science directories, a steady trickle of people joining a mailing list, etc., etc…” Circumcision is a physical trauma. Jorolat ---
**Author:** ![choosybeggar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@choosybeggar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choosybeggar)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/32 "2001-02-24T11:38:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jorolat \* > \*\*This results in any new proposal being met with a negative knee-jerk reaction as dogma (which they can never know for themselves anyway) is regurgitated. > \*\* **Jorolat** , Many on this board find the battle against dogmatic views to be a worthwhile venture. But please consider that many widely held beliefs are actually correct. The notion that water is essential for all life on this planet for instance. Consider also past battles against accepted beliefs. Many do not succeed, but those which do share (at least) two features in common: the phenomenological evidence is compelling and a mechanism is proposed to explain the phenomenon. A recent victory in the fight against dogma was the dramatic overturn of the notion that bacteria were not involved in the pathogenesis of peptic ulcer disease. The orthodox view was that oversecretion of acid and a breakdown of the stomach’s protective lining were the overriding factors. Treatments (and multibillions in R&D and drug sales) were all directed at the putative cause, ignoring the bacterium that we now know to cause this disease. The bacterium is H. pylori. The establishment did not pay attention to this little bug until an Austrailian reaseacher, Barry Marshall, drank an H. pylori culture and developed severe peptic ulcer disease. The anti-dogmatists won this battle. They had compelling evidence (drinking culture resulting in disease plus a good deal of other data) and their mechanism (bacteria cause a disease) was not out of left field. Don’t underestimate the importance of a sensible mechanism to explain an observed phenomenon. In the case for Lamarkian evolution, while the data may be lacking, I would argue that the lack of a plausible mechanism is the larger issue. Consider the rat experiment you cite. Somehow the somatic tissue of the rat needs to inform its germ cells that there had been a change. Assuming we’re discussing heritable traits in the context of the gene theory of inheritance, this is a bitter pill to swallow. The behavioral change observed presumably is mediated by changes in the the rat’s nervous system. These changes needn’t be at the genetic level, but they could be. Somatic mutation is argubably rare in most tissues, but it does occur and I will grant you that it is a plausible (though unlikely) mechanism to explain the neurological dysfunction of the adult rats. However, to see the trait in the offspring, the somatic tissue needs to somehow inform the germ tissue of the change. Here is where the mechanism breaks down. We know of no way in which this can occur. Not that it can’t, but that it is way outside of our current notion of the generation of germ cells. Would brain cells migrate to the testes and differentiate into germ cells? I’ve heard of the genital mode of thinking, but brain tissue in the testes?🙂 Maybe you would propose a non-genetic mode of inheritance, but this would take Lamarkianism even further afield, reducing the likelihood of acceptance of this notion by the establishment. In summary, while compelling phenomenological evidence can ultimately prevail, a plausible mechanism makes wacky phenomenology more palatable. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by PosterChild_ > \*\*I think the fact that these experiments haven’t been repeated in a controlled fashion is almost a statement in itself. In fact, I think these experiments have been performed, but didn’t show the changes hoped for. (Think Duesberg & AIDS, or Lamark himself, or cold fusion, or Choosybeggar’s PhD work.) \*\* I’ll get you **PosterChild**!! ---
**Author:** ![PosterChild](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e274bd/32.png) [@PosterChild](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PosterChild)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/33 "2001-02-24T17:12:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jorolat \* > \*\* > Individual ducks would survive, individual ducks would reproduce, individual ducks would fare better than others. Perhaps an analogy will convey what I mean: > > Imagine driving past a golf course just after it has begun to rain and seeing a number of people holding umbrellas. If you return an hour later and it is still raining then you might see more umbrellas in evidence. > > The question to be asked is “has the population of > umbrella-carriers grown or have a number of people found a > similar solution to a similar problem?”. > > What applies to people also applies to ducks, the statement “populations evolve, not individuals” shouldn’t be taken literally. > > > [@](#): > > > > **Lastly, just because a mechanism lies external to the individual does not make it “supernatural.” How can you make this logical leap? Population level, species level, biosphere level, how are these not all part of nature?** > > If a mechanism is not part of natural life then surely by definition it must be supernatural?. Populations are made up of individuals etc. etc… > > Jorolat > \*\* Would you explain the “internal evolution” you talk about? I’ve been trying to come up with some plausible mechanisms that an individuals adaptation can be passed on to it’s offspring. Choosybeggar has enunciated, IMHO, 1 or 2 prime sticking points- how to transmit the information to the next generation. Are you proposing a non-genetic form of information? Mothers **do** pass on non-genetic information that orients the developing zygote, and non-DNA info in expressed mRNA to kick start the little guy, but I’m not sure if that’d do what you’re talking about. Also, the eggs in the mother are already formed (in the first experiment) before the mother has adapted, so they seem like a dead end in terms of passing on the adaption. The second sticking point (for me) is the “motivation” behind the evolution. My understanding of evolution, is that “populations evolve, not individuals” **should** be taken literally. Darwinian evolution postulated that change does **not** happen in response to the environment. It happens randomly and **then** selection occurs. Lamarkian evolution seems to suggest almost a consciousness. The animal is faced with a challenge -\> it changes to meet the challenge -\> it changes something to pass that change to it’s offspring. Darwinian evolution gets around that by showing that the change genetic, and part of the animal before the environmental challenge. If you can clarify those points, you’d go a long way to establishing this as a defensible hypothesis. PC P.S.- You do accept that Darwinian evolution, based on random genetic changes and ‘natural’ selection, does occur, right? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/34 "2001-02-24T19:17:02Z")
**jorolat** , you’re looking for information on these experiments, you say? That’s easy: Do the experiments yourself. Catepillars are not hard to get ahold of, and elementary-school students routinely raise them. Try it, and see what happens. ---
**Author:** ![Live\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/2bfe46/32.png) [@Live\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Live_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/35 "2001-02-24T20:58:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jorolat \* > On the other hand my belief that life is individual means that 4 out of 19 can be as significant as 400 out of 2000. Unfortunately, the possibility of significance has to do with statistics, not evolution. Any high school statistics student will tell you that 19 isn’t a very good sample size, and certainly isn’t good enough to draw a conclusion about a population of millions. ---
**Author:** ![jorolat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jorolat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jorolat)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/36 "2001-02-24T21:37:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by choosybeggar \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by jorolat \* > > \*\*This results in any new proposal being met with a negative knee-jerk reaction as dogma (which they can never know for themselves anyway) is regurgitated. > > \*\* > > **Jorolat** , > > Many on this board find the battle against dogmatic views to be a worthwhile venture.\*\* Where possible I try and avoid such battles particularly when they are a function of the conditioning a person has undergone during the “training” phase of their lives. It is always refreshing, however, when dogma is overturned as in the example that you described. Additional to dogma is the problem of perception and how different people can look at the same data and come to totally different conclusions. The “pop evolution” book “Evolution: A Theory In Crisis” (M. Denton), for example, contains a subset of the cytochromes percent sequence matrix taken from “The Atlas of Protein Structure and Function” (Dayhoff). Unable to find a linear relationship for the values given Denton states, on a number of occasions, variations on the theme of “There is not a trace at the molecular level of the evolutionary transition from fish - amphibian - reptile - mammal”. He does, however, refer to “the…_strangely ordered_ aspect to the pattern of the molecular distribution”. Looking for an integrated function immediately reveals the reverse fibonacci series. The occasional “surfacing” of the series in this way would be what one might expect when looking for evidence of an internal evolutionary mechanism based on homeostasis. Of course the database is very small but for the purpose of this post the point is the series is there for the values given. In the above Denton and I interpret the data in different ways and I’m sure conventional theory does so in yet a third. The data, however, remains the same for all three. > [@](#): > > **In the case for Lamarkian evolution, while the data may be lacking, I would argue that the lack of a plausible mechanism is the larger issue.** I am not arguing the case for Lamarckian evolution as such but for the possible existence of an internal evolutionary mechanism based on an extension to homeostasis. This mechanism is described at [http://www.geocities.com/jorolat/TEM.html](http://www.geocities.com/jorolat/TEM.html), is very simple in operation, and shows, as only one example, how it could account for the Baldwin Effect in a non-Larmarckian manner - i.e. it is an _indirect_ mechanism that makes no suggestion of there being any direct link between somatic and germ cells (the “Weismann Barrier”) or any change in the somatic cells themselves. Jorolat ---
**Author:** ![Phil\_Saoud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@Phil\_Saoud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phil_Saoud)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2001, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/37 "2001-02-25T03:30:49Z")
> [@](#): > > - > > I do have a recollection of reading about Kammerer but whatever book it was in is not, unfortunately, immediately to hand. Thanks for reminding me of him though!. > > \*\* I believe the book you are refering to is “The Case of the Midwife Toad” by Arthur Koestler. Koestler wrote a fair amount about Darwin and Lamark with the general view that natural selection and random mutation fall short of fully explaining the evolutionary process. I’m not an evolutionary biologist but I know enough arithmatic to see Koestler’s point. However, as this message board shows, there are many closed minds on the topic. ---
**Author:** ![jorolat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jorolat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jorolat)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2001, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/38 "2001-02-25T05:33:14Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by PosterChild \* > \*\* > Would you explain the “internal evolution” you talk about? I’ve been trying to come up with some plausible mechanisms that an individuals adaptation can be passed on to it’s offspring. Choosybeggar has enunciated, IMHO, 1 or 2 prime sticking points- how to transmit the information to the next generation._\* The basic concept of the proposed mechanism can be found at: [http://www.geocities.com/jorolat/TEM.html](http://www.geocities.com/jorolat/TEM.html) I would reproduce the relevant sections here but pics can’t be posted. As “a picture can paint a thousand words” I hope you are sufficiently interested to visit the site. I can, however, try and answer some of the points you’ve made but they will make more sense if you’ve read the info at the website (skip the intro & go straight to “The post-Notochord Mechanism”, its only a couple of pages long). > [@](#): > > **Also, the eggs in the mother are already formed (in the first experiment) before the mother has adapted, so they seem like a dead end in terms of passing on the adaption.** The homeostatic nature of the proposed mechanism means that it can be tested for without knowing how it is internally “implemented”. In reply to the above point, however, signalling pathways are already known to exist that lead from the area of the brain indicated for post-notochord organisms to the nuclei of sex cells. The eggs are formed but “communication” is ongoing. [QUOTE] **The second sticking point (for me) is the “motivation” behind the evolution.** [QUOTE] Briefly homeostasis means maintaining equilibrium or _staying the same_. Transient disruptions of equilibrium in the area of the brain indicated are integrated over time. When existing thresholds are exceeded (either “positively” or “negatively”) then evolutionary changes are triggered in a direction restoring equilibrium (and which may take “several” generations to achieve - perhaps via vertically transmitted retrotransposons). There is, therefore, no motivation for evolution beyond that of maintaining equilibrium. A shark would be an example of an organism whose existing thresholds haven’t been exceeded to the degree that further changes have occured while the rats on the turntable appear to be organisms where they have - particularly as the offspring were born with flicking heads AND flickering eyes. [QUOTE] **Lamarkian evolution seems to suggest almost a consciousness.** [QUOTE] As a person in a coma shows “consciousness” is not even needed for biological survival. It is in the areas of the brain that maintain survival (through homeostasis) that the mechanism is proposed to exist. How the proposed mechanism could account for the common origin of the pentadactyl pattern also shows that “consciousness” is not a factor ([http://www.geocities.com/jorolat/evocompa.html](http://www.geocities.com/jorolat/evocompa.html)). A final comment: Bacteria have the astonishing ability to replicate, to “create” copies of themselves each independently alive. To suggest that the single cell common ancestor may have had, under very specific circumstances, what is arguably the lesser ability to evolve is not entering the realms of science fiction. Or that is how I feel anyway (smile). Jorolat ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2001, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/39 "2001-02-25T05:52:40Z")
I always get suspicious when people with no training in biology assert that scientists are afraid to challenge the dogma in their fields. This is not true. The only way to make a name for yourself as a scientist is to challenge and overturn established ideas. Scientists are not shy about challenging accepted models. It’s just that new models that are more succesful than the old are very hard to fashion. And this is as it should be, if it were easy to prove the old theory wrong it would ALREADY have been proven wrong long ago. So anyone who asserts a conspiracy of scientists to ignore the truth is automatically placed in my “ignore file”. They are so far out of touch with the reality of scientific work that their ideas may be ignored without further thought. Yes, they laughed at Galileo, they laughed at the Wright Brothers, they laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. So just because all scientists ignore and belittle your ideas does NOT make your ideas right. Perhaps all the other scientist are actually correct, and YOU are the one with the mistaken ideas. Something to consider, no? ---
**Author:** ![cainxinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@cainxinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cainxinth)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2001, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/40 "2001-02-25T06:46:16Z")
hopefully someone already posted this- i couldnt stomache to sort through any more posts after reading the first dozen or so. both those experiments are utterly impossible. the only way the offspring of those subjects could inherit those behaviors would be if a) they were trained by the parent or by the researchers (which was never mentioned in the original post) or b) the genes of the offspring mutated and adaped the new behavior in 1 generation! (which is impossible because evolutionary adaptation takes hundreds of generations). All you people do is babble amongst yourselves – your reply should pertain to the original goddamn post. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543.md?page=3)