# Genetic memory(?). Dad has tip of finger cut off, son has shorter finger. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 13, 2018, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052 "2018-06-13T22:16:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052/21 "2018-06-14T01:44:16Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I figured someone would raise epigenetics as a nitpick… I think it was worth bringing up as slightly more than a nitpick, simply because [transgenerational epigenetic inheritance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_epigenetic_inheritance) tends to be wildly exaggerated in the media, and people are quite likely to come across stories with headlines about neo-Lamarckism, that “Darwin was wrong” etc. - and might question how that fits into the picture you described. To summarize: there are some studies in rodents showing limited cases of transgenerational inheritance of epigenetic marks that are initiated as gene regulation induced by environmental stressors. But there is no evidence that this is a significant or widespread phenomenon, and (as noted by Colibri) no evidence that it can last more than a few generations - meaning that it is not a factor in evolution. A few studies claim to “suggest” similar effects in humans, but there are confounding factors that are poorly controlled in these studies. The data so far indicate that it is, at most, a minor sideshow. In my opinion, the Wikipedia article does not present a balanced (skeptical) description of these studies. And to circle back to Exapno’s point - there is in any case no relevance to mutilation, of course. A knife chopping off your finger is a rather different proposition to epigenetic gene regulation, even though both may fall under the heading of environmental effects in the broadest sense. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052/22 "2018-06-14T02:12:52Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > This is [Lamarckism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism), “the hypothesis that an organism can pass on characteristics that it has acquired during its lifetime to its offspring. It is also known as the inheritance of acquired characteristics or soft inheritance.” > > Despite scientists searching for good evidence of this for the past 200 years, none has been found. > . Actually some has been found, but no, not at that level. \*Transmissions of information across generations which does not involve traditional inheritance of DNA-sequence alleles is often referred to as soft inheritance [112] or “Lamarckian inheritance.”[113]…n their book An Introduction to Zoology (2013), Joseph Springer and Dennis Holley wrote: Lamarck and his ideas were ridiculed and discredited. In a strange twist of fate, Lamarck may have the last laugh. Epigenetics, an emerging field of genetics, has shown that Lamarck may have been at least partially correct all along. It seems that reversible and heritable changes can occur without a change in DNA sequence (genotype) and that such changes may be induced spontaneously or in response to environmental factors—Lamarck’s “acquired traits.” Determining which observed phenotypes are genetically inherited and which are environmentally induced remains an important and ongoing part of the study of genetics, developmental biology, and medicine.[123]\* ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052/23 "2018-06-14T02:18:08Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > I think it was worth bringing up as slightly more than a nitpick, simply because [transgenerational epigenetic inheritance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_epigenetic_inheritance) tends to be **wildly exaggerated in the media, and people are quite likely to come across stories with headlines about neo-Lamarckism** , that “Darwin was wrong” etc. - and might question how that fits into the picture you described… > [@DrDeth](#): > > … > \*Transmissions of information across generations which does not involve traditional inheritance of DNA-sequence alleles is often referred to as soft inheritance [112] or “Lamarckian inheritance.”[113]…n their book An Introduction to Zoology (2013), Joseph Springer and Dennis Holley wrote: > > Lamarck and his ideas were ridiculed and discredited. **In a strange twist of fate, Lamarck may have the last laugh. Epigenetics, an emerging field of genetics, has shown that Lamarck may have been at least partially correct all along.** It seems that reversible and heritable changes can occur without a change in DNA sequence (genotype) and that such changes may be induced spontaneously or in response to environmental factors—Lamarck’s “acquired traits.” Determining which observed phenotypes are genetically inherited and which are environmentally induced remains an important and ongoing part of the study of genetics, developmental biology, and medicine.[123]\* [My bolds] Q.E.D. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052/24 "2018-06-14T02:21:32Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > [My bolds] > > Q.E.D. I did say '_som_e" and “\*but not at that level” \*. Epigenetics is indeed interesting, but it has nothing at all to do with a accidentally cut off finger. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052/25 "2018-06-14T02:33:30Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I did say '_som_e" and “\*but not at that level” \*. Yes, I meant no criticism of your posting this _per se_, it’s quite relevant. I was just pointing out the typical exaggeration that you find in popular descriptions of these studies - encouraged, of course, by researchers with a vested interest in a “hot” field that has failed to yield much of significance (by which I don’t mean epigenetics in the broader sense, just the transgenerational inheritance part). The last sentence of the extract that you quoted is also laughable: > [@DrDeth](#): > > …_Determining which observed phenotypes are genetically inherited and which are environmentally induced remains an important and ongoing part of the study of genetics, developmental biology, and medicine.[123]_ When has this _not_ been an important and ongoing part of the study of genetics, developmental biology, and medicine? And 99.99% of the study of genetic vs environmental factors has nothing to do with studying proposed Lamarckian effects, which have not even been demonstrated convincingly in humans. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052/26 "2018-06-14T02:35:42Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Hey, if not for nitpicks this thread could have ended after the second post.😉 Well, second response, third post. Chuck’s foreskin line won the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Dropo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Dropo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dropo)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052/27 "2018-06-14T02:51:15Z")
There is something missing in this thread. Perhaps Hound Dog Taylor can compensate for it: [![](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/a2ed24_08ac46ef8a544958a51d05160025e1b9.jpg/v1/fill/w_668,h_940,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/a2ed24_08ac46ef8a544958a51d05160025e1b9.jpg) ](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/a2ed24_08ac46ef8a544958a51d05160025e1b9.jpg/v1/fill/w_668,h_940,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/a2ed24_08ac46ef8a544958a51d05160025e1b9.jpg) > **[Hound Dog Taylor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hound_Dog_Taylor)** > > Theodore Roosevelt "Hound Dog" Taylor (April 12, 1915 – December 17, 1975) was a Chicago blues guitarist and singer. > Taylor was born in Natchez, Mississippi, in 1915, though some sources say 1917. He first played the piano and began playing the guitar when he was 20. He moved to Chicago in 1942. > Taylor had a condition known as polydactylism, which resulted in him having six fingers on both hands. As is usual with the condition, the extra digits were rudimentary nubbins and could not be moved.... “He was famous among guitar players for having six fingers on both hands, a condition called polydactyly.[5] As is usual with the condition, the extra digits were rudimentary nubbins and could not be moved. One night, while drunk, he cut off the extra digit on his right hand using a straight razor.” ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052/28 "2018-06-14T02:51:17Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Well, second response, third post. Chuck’s foreskin line won the thread. Actually, not quite. Lamarkism is often misunderstood, such as that bogus "experiment’ where Weismann (not imho a “scientist”) cut of the tails of mice for generations, to yield no short tailed mice. That is not Lamarkism, and that “experiment” disproved nothing. The idea behind Lamarkism, and why it isnt so crazy, if that characteristics that creatures _strive to have-_ like a longer neck for giraffes- can be passed on. "_First Law [Use and Disuse]: In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears. Second Law [Soft Inheritance]: All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young.[23] In essence, a change in the environment brings about change in “needs” (besoins), resulting in change in behavior, bringing change in organ usage and development, bringing change in form over time—and thus the gradual transmutation of the species. "_ Note that true Lamarkism, if read carefully, actually sounds quite a bit like Darwinism, and indeed Darwin himself had a semi-lamarkism idea called " pangenesis". Mind you, it is still wrong, but Larmark was closer than most folk give him credit. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052/29 "2018-06-14T03:25:07Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Mind you, it is still wrong, but Larmark was closer than most folk give him credit. That what people refer to today as Lamarckism wasn’t exactly what Lamarck originally said is of as little import as what people refer to today as Marxism wasn’t what Marx originally said. Words change meaning all the time. The modern definition of Lamarckism depends upon inheritance of acquired characteristics. As it says in exactly that Wikipedia page you quoted without giving a reference. It’s the use of it any other way that must be carefully qualified to allow the reader to understand that it is a technical and non-standard usage. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052/30 "2018-06-14T04:16:52Z")
So Putin’s Russian bots are now pushing Lysenko across the internet. With accompanying photos (probably fake) . ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052/31 "2018-06-14T04:24:13Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The modern definition of Lamarckism depends upon inheritance of acquired characteristics. As it says in exactly that Wikipedia page you quoted without giving a reference. It has been perverted, then. And,\* you\* already cited that page. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052/32 "2018-06-14T04:53:15Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Note that true Lamarkism, if read carefully, actually sounds quite a bit like Darwinism, and indeed Darwin himself had a semi-lamarkism idea called pangenesis". > > Mind you, it is still wrong, but Larmark was closer than most folk give him credit. You have to understand that while Darwin correctly described the process of natural selection, he had no idea what the actual mechanics of it were. While Mendel published his work in 1865, it was not widely known. So Darwin could only speculate on what caused the incremental inheritable changes that evolution was based on. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052/33 "2018-06-14T13:17:04Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > **Moderator Warning** > > You’ve been around plenty long enough to know that insults are not permitted in General Questions, no matter how dumb you think a question is. This is an official warning for insults. > > Colibri > General Questions Moderator “Am I a moron for considering this” was actually the OPs question. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052/34 "2018-06-14T14:04:08Z")
> [@Grim\_Render](#): > > “Am I a moron for considering this” was actually the OPs question. **Moderator Note** No it wasn’t. And take any further comments on moderation to ATMB. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052/35 "2018-06-14T14:20:49Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > It has been perverted, then. That’s what some people say about every change in language. But there was never a Golden Age when language was pure and every usage crystal clear in direct succession from its origination. > [@](#): > > And,\* you\* already cited that page. Yes, but I didn’t memorize it. I had to go look up the quote to see where it came from in context. It’s helpful for everybody to always give a link to quoted material or at least give a reference back to an earlier cite that reveals the origin. It bugs me whenever somebody doesn’t do this, and I think for good reason. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052/36 "2018-06-14T14:27:31Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You have to understand that while Darwin correctly described the process of natural selection, he had no idea what the actual mechanics of it were. While Mendel published his work in 1865, it was not widely known. So Darwin could only speculate on what caused the incremental inheritable changes that evolution was based on. Lamark’s reputation as a scientist has taken a bad rap. Although the hypothesis identified with his name has been proven wrong, given the state of available information at the time it was not ridiculous. As noted, Darwin’s ideas on the actual mechanism of inheritance were also wrong. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052/37 "2018-06-14T15:17:23Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Heh. Back in 1979, I answered a newspaper ad seeking a roomie for a 2-BR apartment (Irrelevant spoiler alert: I passed the interview and got the room). My new roommate, Howie, was missing the first joint of the index finger on his right hand. > > Several months later, the holidays came around, and Howie’s dad came out to SoCal to visit. Oddly enough, he ALSO had no first joint on his right index finger! Genetics? > > Nope. See, Howie and his dad were both from Wisconsin, and they had both put in their time working in the agricultural field. And they had both lost their phalanges in farmwork-related accidents. So, genetics. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052/38 "2018-06-14T15:21:37Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I really think you should have quoted that part of the OP in your reply. To anyone who missed it, yours really does look like a warnable insult. Absolutely. Current ATMB thread exactly on this. No need to start a new one, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052/39 "2018-06-14T15:22:57Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Well, second response, third post. Chuck’s foreskin line won the thread. Agreed. Will remember it, to replace the “giraffe’s neck” example I always give when someone brings this up. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052/40 "2018-06-14T15:59:39Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Lamark’s reputation as a scientist has taken a bad rap. Although the hypothesis identified with his name has been proven wrong, given the state of available information at the time it was not ridiculous. As noted, Darwin’s ideas on the actual mechanism of inheritance were also wrong. Agreed. When Lamarck put forth his theory in the early nineteenth century, it was as sensible as any other idea based on what was known at the time. (Although there was counter-evidence like the foreskin example.) But in the early twentieth century, when Lysenko put forth similar ideas, it should have been dismissed as nonsense. Between the time of the two men, Mendel’s work had shown how genes worked and disproven the theory of acquired inheritable traits. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-memory-dad-has-tip-of-finger-cut-off-son-has-shorter-finger/816052.md?page=3)