![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 9 of 9. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2009, at 4:26:33
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-, posted by Sigismund on August 23, 2009, at 17:12:29
> I would say to Ivan
> 'Lamark has come back into fashion. Is that right? Can you tell me how and why?'Sigismund,
Now Sigmund Freud believed in Lamark's concept of evolution. Larmark's concept was different from Darwin's concept.
I have not heard of any acceptance from the scientific community of Lamark's concept of evolution. Have you? If so, could you post here a link to such?
Lou
Posted by Sigismund on September 29, 2009, at 4:26:34
In reply to Lou's reply-Lmrk » Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on August 23, 2009, at 17:23:20
>I have not heard of any acceptance from the scientific community of Lamark's concept of evolution. Have you?
I think so, but am not sure. Could it be something to do with the mitochondria?
>If so, could you post here a link to such?Fraid not, Lou. I can't recall where I read it.
I'm always keen to look for alternatives to the Richard Dawkins way of seeing things.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2009, at 4:26:34
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-Lmrk » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on August 23, 2009, at 17:37:23
> >I have not heard of any acceptance from the scientific community of Lamark's concept of evolution. Have you?
>
> I think so, but am not sure. Could it be something to do with the mitochondria?
>
>
> >If so, could you post here a link to such?
>
> Fraid not, Lou. I can't recall where I read it.
>
> I'm always keen to look for alternatives to the Richard Dawkins way of seeing things.Sigismund,
Lamarckian evolutional thinking could be attracive at the cell level that you describe. If there could be determined that the mitochondria produce some substance that is passed on to the next generation and also that that generation pases it also to their generation as F2, then that could interest me. However, I have not read of any experiments that had that happen.
In other words, if a person lifts weights and develops a large muscular system, would F1 also have an inherited well-devloped musular system? Perhaps by some stimulation of the mitochondria? Sounds interesting but what about Gregor Mendel?
Lou
Posted by jane d on September 29, 2009, at 4:26:35
In reply to Lou's reply-Mendelzpeez, posted by Lou Pilder on August 23, 2009, at 20:31:31
>Ivan Skidyvan:
Ya know folks, I think that Lamark was right in his conception of evolution.Well, actually......
> > >I have not heard of any acceptance from the scientific community of Lamark's concept of evolution. Have you?
> >
> > I think so, but am not sure. Could it be something to do with the mitochondria?
> >
> >
> > >If so, could you post here a link to such?
> >
> > Fraid not, Lou. I can't recall where I read it.
> >
> > I'm always keen to look for alternatives to the Richard Dawkins way of seeing things.
>
> Sigismund,
> Lamarckian evolutional thinking could be attracive at the cell level that you describe. If there could be determined that the mitochondria produce some substance that is passed on to the next generation and also that that generation pases it also to their generation as F2, then that could interest me. However, I have not read of any experiments that had that happen.
> In other words, if a person lifts weights and develops a large muscular system, would F1 also have an inherited well-devloped musular system? Perhaps by some stimulation of the mitochondria? Sounds interesting but what about Gregor Mendel?
> Lou
Have you read about any of this stuff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic
(I can't believe I'm linking to wikipedia)Most of it is about changes within the lifespan of an organism but if you scroll down there's an example of a multigenerational effect - Lamarck in fact. Not quite as dramatic as a giraffe's neck (or an elephant's trunk stretched by a crocodile) but a long way from tall and short peas. Pretty cool in fact. Maybe we'll get lucky and someone will post some better links.
jane
Posted by alexandra_k on September 29, 2009, at 4:26:35
In reply to More than Mendel. Epigenetics, posted by jane d on August 23, 2009, at 23:59:57
Though... I thought Lou's point was that what, precisely, counts as 'civil' varies by person quite a lot. Who among us would dare say 'civility' is a bad thing??? I think it is the INTERPRETATION of what counts as civil and what does not (what counts as well intentioned what does not) that is problematic...
Posted by jane d on September 29, 2009, at 4:26:35
In reply to Re: More than Mendel. Epigenetics, posted by alexandra_k on August 24, 2009, at 3:28:32
I'm still reading it but I feel like I've taken a crash refresher course. I may need to start on the bibliography next.
Posted by Kath on September 29, 2009, at 19:49:16
In reply to Lou's reply-Mendelzpeez, posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2009, at 4:26:34
~ ~ You guys have such BRAINS!!!! Sigh.
Kath
> > I think so, but am not sure. Could it be something to do with the mitochondria?
> >
> >
> > >If so, could you post here a link to such?
> >
> > Fraid not, Lou. I can't recall where I read it.
> >
> > I'm always keen to look for alternatives to the Richard Dawkins way of seeing things.
>
> Sigismund,
> Lamarckian evolutional thinking could be attracive at the cell level that you describe. If there could be determined that the mitochondria produce some substance that is passed on to the next generation and also that that generation pases it also to their generation as F2, then that could interest me. However, I have not read of any experiments that had that happen.
> In other words, if a person lifts weights and develops a large muscular system, would F1 also have an inherited well-devloped musular system? Perhaps by some stimulation of the mitochondria? Sounds interesting but what about Gregor Mendel?
> Lou
Posted by Phillipa on September 29, 2009, at 19:57:03
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-Mendelzpeez..Lou + Siggie, posted by Kath on September 29, 2009, at 19:49:16
Kath and I thought I knew at least a bit? Love Phillipa
Posted by Kath on September 29, 2009, at 20:16:47
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-Mendelzpeez..Lou + Siggie » Kath, posted by Phillipa on September 29, 2009, at 19:57:03
> Kath and I thought I knew at least a bit? Love Phillipa
~ ~ I know!
:-)
I consider myself pretty intelligent, but sometimes I feel myself getting left behind!
Hmm - wonder what the difference is between intelligent & intellectual? I suspect I'm the former but not the latter.
luv, Kath
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.