# 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:** 5\ **Page:** 3
**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, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/41 "2001-02-25T06:57:41Z")
p.s. jerolat- you are a sad, seriously misguided person. ---
**Author:** ![PosterChild](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e274bd/32.png) [@PosterChild](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PosterChild)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2001, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/42 "2001-02-25T07:25:32Z")
Let me see if I’ve got this right… The Area of Natural Equilibrium is in the mid-brain. It receives signals that alter equilibrium of something, and it modifies that something to bring it back to equilibrium genetically. In the process it sends a signal to the germ cells that replicates the genetic change. The web site you mention also seems to suggest that evolution doesn’t occur as traditionally understood. It claims that we lost our tail, because the AONE removed because we weren’t using it. (Just curious, but do you feel that makes more sense than natural selection?) ok, here goes. 1. Does the AONE mean that this “Baldwin Effect” only occurs in animals with this type of brain? 2. They give descriptive examples, but the tail thing is very adequately explained by Darwinian evolution, and the bicycle thing seems to disprove it. People have been riding bicycles for generations, yet we still have to go through training. It kind of reminds me of the syphon thread, with people proposing all kinds of thought experiments instead of just making a syphon for themselves. 3. The mechanims for transmitting the change to the germline doesn’t make sense. The paper in Science explains how retrotransposons is another way to cause random (i.e.- non-directed) genetic changes that are then selected for. This is straight Darwin. > [@](#): > > Signalling pathways from outputs of the AONE into the genomes of specific physically remote cells are known to exist as is a molecular mechanism, recently discovered in mammals, of a type that would also be necessary: “Experiments performed at the University of Maryland Medical Center have revealed a molecular mechanism that may be a significant driver of evolution in humans and other mammals. Certain retrotransposons - bits of DNA able to copy themselves from one region of the genome to another - are able to pick up flanking genetic sequences and then insert themselves and the tag-along DNA at new locations”. Connect signalling pathways with such molecular mechanisms and the proposed action of the AONE on the genome is entirely possible They mention that there are signalling pathways from the AONE to the genomes of remote cells, but as far as I know that’s totally false. If you can show any signalling pathway that leads to directed genomic alteration in germline cells, I would be fascinated to learn of it. I suppose I should say that I do know of one example of the genome being altered by signalling from the cell’s surface. It occurs during an immune response, but the signal starts random mutations and the cells that are have them face selection just as natural selection. Now that I think of it, how come we don’t pass on the phenotypic adaptations that occur to allow us to fight of infections? How come our offspring aren’t protected by our exposure and adaptation to infection. There are bugs that we have been fighting for many many generations, and yet we still have to develop immunity from scratch. I’m trying to be open minded:eek:, all ideas need to be debated, and adapted. Can you think of a make or break experiment that can be done or has been? I guess I should ask how attached are you to this. Would you be able to accept that it wasn’t true? PC P.S.- Do you feel that Darwinian evolution occurs? ---
**Author:** ![PosterChild](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e274bd/32.png) [@PosterChild](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PosterChild)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2001, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/43 "2001-02-25T07:28:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cainxinth \* > \*\*p.s. jerolat- you are a sad, seriously misguided person. \*\* Definitely a helpful & constructive post. ---
**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, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/44 "2001-02-25T07:47:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chronos \* > \*\ ***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. \*\* It simply isn’t feasible at this point in time to consider repeating the caterpillar experiment. From the perspective of a still developing project, and despite any potential they may hold, the experiments occupy a relatively minor place and primary sources would be quite adequate for my current needs. Jorolat ---
**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 25, 2001, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543/45 "2001-02-25T09:15:20Z")
> [@](#): > > From the perspective of a still developing project, and despite any potential they may hold, the experiments occupy a relatively minor place and primary sources would be quite adequate for my current needs. Saying that the experiments occupy a minor place is tantamount to saying that you’re not doing science. If the experiments are not replicated, then they and reports of them mean exactly nothing. My options at this point are to close this thread, or to leave it open for people to ridicule you: Keeping it open would serve no other purpose. I hope you understand my decision. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-two-intriguing-lamarckian-experiments/55543.md?page=2)