The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?  (Read 19411 times)

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #25 on: 17/06/2010 12:28:28 »
To precis - there is possibly a ancestral (naturally occurring) mutation to a part of the dog genome that causes short tails. 

......... there possibly might be..... or there might not.
I am unable to find evidence of either, all I know is that shepherd dogs were tail docked for centuries and shepard dogs were the first dogs found to inherit the gene mutation.
So why make the enormous and illogical assumption that this is evidence of larmarkian evolution?  We know the unit of inheritance now, and know that it wouldn't be altered by tail docking.


Quote
...this trait is now regularly selected by human intervention. 
Corgis do not have the short tail because we would cut it off otherwise - they have short tail because we decide which dog breeds with which bitch.

Not forgetting that this gene only appeared around 1800’s and yes human intervention has influenced it in one or more ways.
Should 2 dogs carry this gene it is fatal to the off spring. Pups only survive if one parent only carries the gene.
So the breeder wouldn't make that mistake again.

Quote
Dogs exist because we humans are good at selecting breeding pairs that have a greater chance of reproducing preferred traits.  there is no evidence of the genetic sequence being adapted within a single generation and thus allowing the inheritability of an acquired trait.


Dogs would survive and they do without human intervention also, but wild dogs do not have the bobtail gene.
Obviously - if the pups don't survive.

Quote
This is Larmarckism - and there is no evidence to back it up.  The article you quoted does NOT substantiate this claim in any way.  Do you seriously believe; that given identical twins one of whom has lost a limb after an accident that the children of the 'amputee twin' will have different genetic inheritance than those of the 'non-amputee twin'?   
Matthew

If Identical twins married identical twins would each set of twins have identical children? Somehow I don’t think so, There are life factors associated that influences individual life.
Not to mention genetic recombination, and the fact that each child gets a shuffled assortment of genes from each parent.  This argument doesn't help you.

Quote
Quote from: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090118200632.htm

Rethinking The Genetic Theory Of Inheritance: Heritability May Not Be Limited To DNA
 The CAMH study showed that epigenetic factors – acting independently from DNA – were more similar in monozygotic twins than dizygotic twins. This finding suggests that there is a secondary molecular mechanism of heredity. The epigenetic heritability may help explain currently unclear issues in human disease, such as the presence of a disease in only one monozygotic twin, the different susceptibility of males (e.g. to autism) and females (e.g. to lupus), significant fluctuations in the course of a disease (e.g. bipolar disorder, inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis), among numerous others.

It would be interesting for someone to study the length of foreskin in various group’s babies that practice  circumcision and compare those who don’t. It would be very interesting for someone to research when exactly the Bobtail gene appeared and its history. To reseach why only shepard type dogs and dogs that were tail docked are more likely to have this gene.

The bobtail gene did not always exist and does not exist in some dog breeds at all. But I would be unwise to disregard that the preference in dog shows of the natural bobtail did not influence this genetic mutation.

Please read....... Epigenetics: DNA Isn’t Everything http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090412081315.htm

Cell memory may be important here, what if a generation or two of dogs were tail docked and bred, the ones who didn’t get docked were sold as pets not breeders, the un docked tail dogs never bred, isn’t there a slight chance that cell memory played an important roll in this genetic mutation? That it only took one dog's genes to mutated to accommodated the bobtail which was then passed onto the next generation?
Do dogs breed with their tails?  If not, "cell memory" as you put it is irrelevant.

Quote
We just can't block our minds because we dont have the evidence, we should find the evidence for or against. Can anyone find evidence against this type of evolution?

We know that physical injury like this does not lead to changes in DNA of germ cells, so we already do know that this doesn't work.

You're right that there are some epigenetic factors that we need to look at (and environmental factors during pregnancy could well have an impact) - but it's never going to be as simple as your tail docking example.
« Last Edit: 17/06/2010 12:45:09 by BenV »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #26 on: 17/06/2010 20:58:52 »
"We just can't block our minds because we dont have the evidence, we should find the evidence for or against. Can anyone find evidence against this type of evolution?"
Yes, and I mentioned it a while ago- Jewish baby boys are still born with foreskins even after many generations of their removal.

The only person "blocking their mind" here is you.

You are refusing to accept clear experimental evidence that Lamarckian evolution does not happen.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #27 on: 18/06/2010 01:05:32 »
Grandparents' access to food as young children influences disease in their progeny In other words, you are what your grandmother ate. But, wait, wouldn't that imply what every good biologist knows is practically scientific heresy: the Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics?

Studies done on agouti mice indicate it is possible.

Epigentics is to do with acquired traits that can be inherited.
Biologists have proven that certain types of cellular information can be transmitted from one generation to the next, even as DNA sequences stay the same.

Especially for BenV,
I will say again............. there possibly might be..... or there might not.
I am unable to find evidence of either, all I know is that shepherd dogs were tail docked for centuries and Shepherd dogs were the first dogs recorded to inherit the gene mutation.
This gene is shared with other working dog breed's that were tailed docked to breed.


I am only trying to find proof one way or the other.
Unless there is proof one way or the other then it still remains a mystery why this gene is only found in breeds of dogs that for centuries had their tails physically docked.

Ben V’s statement - “Do dogs breed with their tails?  If not, "cell memory" as you put it is irrelevant.”

Isn’t breeding about sharing genetics DNA whether it is bred naturally or in a test tube?
Can you explain your statement please.

‘Epigentics’ was spoken about in the 1800’s. Up until 20 odd years ago anyone speaking of epigenetic regulation was more or less an outcast. Until Andy Feinberg and Bert Vogelstein, both at Johns Hopkins University found the etiological link between epigenetic change and cancer.

Epigenetic regulates developmental genes during times of stress by releasing previously hidden or buffered phenotypic variation. This variation persisted in a heritable manner, generation after generation.

Couldn’t the gene mutation of shepherd, working dogs have happened due to the dogs that bred were always docked?

"Epigenetic has always been Lamarckian. Probably why science ignored it for so long.

It hasn’t been disproven or disproven.But worth a hugh governement grant after all, I imagine.

If the docked tailed dogs were the only ones to breed because of the breeder’s association’s standard. Then I would suggest that there is a good chance because of the stress placed on these working dogs their epigenome changed for survival.

The fact that if 2 dogs with this gene mate then fatality is high. But should the pup that survives mates then it could be like the mule, maybe.
Or is there a chance that the gene for long tail is lost forever. I don’t think that, I think genes get shuffled, not lost. All life has much the same DNA, it’s the information carried in the DNA that is important and how it is expressed.

I say nothing is impossible unless there is evidence and proof. I can’t find evidence for or against, its only other's opinions. Has there been any studies on bobtail genes in dogs that prove how it came about and its history?
Please show me the link.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #28 on: 18/06/2010 01:15:43 »

We know that physical injury like this does not lead to changes in DNA of germ cells, so we already do know that this doesn't work.
Ben V, can you prove or disprove... That Tasmanian Devils are genetically maturing earlier to be able to breed which may or may not allow them to pass on immunity to their offspring, has nothing to do with the fatal damage they are experiencing because of the cancer?

What is your thoughts here please?

We know DNA does not have to change!?
« Last Edit: 18/06/2010 01:18:51 by echochartruse »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #29 on: 18/06/2010 07:35:23 »
You have had my thoughts on that issue before, why bring it up again?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #30 on: 18/06/2010 15:30:53 »
Echochatreuse,
I see you are still ignoring the evidence.
Here it is in bold letters.
Jewish baby boys are still born with foreskins even after many generations of their removal.

I presume you are going to ignore this again because it doesn't say what you want to hear.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #31 on: 22/06/2010 03:36:36 »
Echochatreuse,
I see you are still ignoring the evidence.
Here it is in bold letters.
Jewish baby boys are still born with foreskins even after many generations of their removal.

I presume you are going to ignore this again because it doesn't say what you want to hear.

Remembering that dogs with the bobtail gene are still born with tails, they are just varying lengths.

But has anyone done a study to find out if the human foreskin is shorter, whatever, different from generations of not removing it?

Shaving a beard off promotes growth.

What study has been done to prove that removing foreskin has an effect or not similar to the various tail lengths of the dogs with the bobtail gene? Or maybe it promotes growth like shaving a beared! I'd like to see some evidence.

by the way just becasue you write something in bold letters doesn't mean it is true or proves anything.
« Last Edit: 22/06/2010 03:38:10 by echochartruse »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #32 on: 22/06/2010 07:07:54 »
"by the way just becasue you write something in bold letters doesn't mean it is true or proves anything."
No, but it stopped you ignoring it.

"Shaving a beard off promotes growth."
Not, so far as I'm aware in a man's sons, so it has no relevance to evolution.

"But has anyone done a study to find out if the human foreskin is shorter, whatever, different from generations of not removing it?"
Not as far as I know, but I'm sure there would be anecdotal evidence if there had been a change; have you heard of any?
If not you are just putting forward your hope rather than evidence.
 

Offline grizelda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #33 on: 22/06/2010 09:42:28 »
Epigenetic traits are aquired and can be inherited by the next generation.

Is there a gene for that?
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #34 on: 25/06/2010 05:35:14 »
"But has anyone done a study to find out if the human foreskin is shorter, whatever, different from generations of not removing it?"
Not as far as I know, but I'm sure there would be anecdotal evidence if there had been a change; have you heard of any?
If not you are just putting forward your hope rather than evidence.

So I assume we are both asking the same question.

Can we be sure that forskin has not changed in any way over the thousands of years or even decades without really investigating, testing and proving it otherwise it is just personal opinion.
If dogs can develop a bobtail gene,
If shaving a beard will promote its growth,
who knows maybe circumcision over vast periods of time and throughout all the generations who are circumsided, maybe, just maybe there is a difference.

I cant find evidence for or against. I truly don't think that a study has been done.
Now I'm not saying that there hasn't been a study done, just that it is impossible to google.
I can not find anything written about it at all.

Can we say with knowledge and proof, that removing the foreskin at birth over many generations has not alter the foreskin or anything else in any way?



« Last Edit: 25/06/2010 05:46:53 by echochartruse »
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #35 on: 25/06/2010 06:07:46 »
Epigenetic traits are aquired and can be inherited by the next generation.

Is there a gene for that?


Many various genes.

If 'C-sections Births Cause Genetic Changes That May Increase Odds For Developing Diseases In Later Life' - then maybe, maybe not the next stressful situation the new born finds themself in (may or may not) effect genetic change.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090629081443.htm

Diabetes and Asthma are 2 diseases which the genes can be inherited.

Remembering that change happens under stress.
« Last Edit: 25/06/2010 06:17:00 by echochartruse »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #36 on: 25/06/2010 07:00:13 »
"But has anyone done a study to find out if the human foreskin is shorter, whatever, different from generations of not removing it?"
Not as far as I know, but I'm sure there would be anecdotal evidence if there had been a change; have you heard of any?
If not you are just putting forward your hope rather than evidence.

So I assume we are both asking the same question.

Can we be sure that forskin has not changed in any way over the thousands of years or even decades without really investigating, testing and proving it otherwise it is just personal opinion.
If dogs can develop a bobtail gene,
If shaving a beard will promote its growth,
who knows maybe circumcision over vast periods of time and throughout all the generations who are circumsided, maybe, just maybe there is a difference.

I cant find evidence for or against. I truly don't think that a study has been done.
Now I'm not saying that there hasn't been a study done, just that it is impossible to google.
I can not find anything written about it at all.

Can we say with knowledge and proof, that removing the foreskin at birth over many generations has not alter the foreskin or anything else in any way?


Considering that humans have been conducting this "experiment" for several thousand years already, it's inconceivable that no one would have detected a difference between the ethnic groups involved by now, if there was any.

You are arguing that these influences would result in rapid genetic changes. If it were to take several thousand years and many generations, it would hardly be considered rapid.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #37 on: 25/06/2010 18:26:54 »
In regard to males who experience circumcision compared to those who don't, what I am saying is that there is no evidence for or against change, no one has done any study to find out if there is or isn't any change so it is just an opinion that some have that there isn't any genetic or other change. Just an opinion, a guess.

In regard to Cesarean births there has been study to show that there is a genetic change eventuating from a Cesarean birth and that it is inheritable.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #38 on: 25/06/2010 19:09:03 »
In regard to males who experience circumcision compared to those who don't, what I am saying is that there is no evidence for or against change, no one has done any study to find out if there is or isn't any change so it is just an opinion that some have that there isn't any genetic or other change. Just an opinion, a guess.


LOL! No evidence! Is four thousand years of evidence that it has no effect insufficient?
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #39 on: 25/06/2010 19:24:45 »
for Geezer, Do you deny rapid genetic change?
Quote from: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/01/000124075802.htm
A well established theory in genetic evolution states that even after millions of years of evolution, homologous genes in closely related species, such as humans and chimps, are barely distinguishable from one another. That the human and chimp sperm genes were so radically different suggests exceedingly rapid evolution.

please read...Simulated climate change provokes rapid genetic change in the Mediterranean shrub Fumana thymifolia
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119416704/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Rapid Genetic Change in Terrestrial Plants
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N25/EDIT.php

Rapid acceleration in human evolution described
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1043228620071210

Read more: Genetic evidence for punctuated equilibrium - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/25023/#ixzz0rt72JQ6v

Quote from: Life-history change in disease-ravaged Tasmanian devil populations http://www.pnas.org/content/105/29/10023.full
Rapid evolution on ecological time scales is now widely recognized in natural ecosystems

Quote from: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090730200634.htm
"Rapid change, contrary to previous opinion, really seems to be happening quite frequently in a number of locations around the world," Pergams said. "There seem to be significant correlations with 'people-caused' parameters, such as population density and anthropologically-caused climate change."

Quote from: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050205073412.htm
Environmental perturbations, on the other hand, can affect large fractions of a population and are thus more likely to play a significant role in genetic network evolution. This article will appear in the February 2005 issue of American Naturalist.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #40 on: 25/06/2010 19:35:46 »
for Geezer, Do you deny rapid genetic change?

No, I don't. All I'm saying is that the 4,000 year circumcision experiment has produced no genetic change.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #41 on: 25/06/2010 20:28:53 »

LOL! No evidence! Is four thousand years of evidence that it has no effect insufficient?


Quote from: http://www.circinfo.net/Circumcision_and_penis_length.html
Length in the 102 who were circumcised was 0.8 cm (5% or 1/20th) less than length in the 43 who were uncircumcised.

The above relates to the size of penis for circumcised men.

I have just read a magazine here that states men are born with various size forskins and recently more babies are noted to be born with extra long forskin.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #42 on: 25/06/2010 20:36:49 »
for Geezer, Do you deny rapid genetic change?

No, I don't. All I'm saying is that the 4,000 year circumcision experiment has produced no genetic change.

you mean nothing has been found? or can you show evidence?
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #43 on: 25/06/2010 20:44:00 »
As bobtail gene produces tails of various lengths in herding dogs. Human males are born with various lengths of foreskin, fact.

This is most probably relevant to a gene and it would be interesting to find out if circumcision has an influence.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #44 on: 25/06/2010 22:05:35 »
it would be interesting to find out if circumcision has an influence.

It doesn't. If it did, don't you think we wouldn't know about it after 4,000 years?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #45 on: 26/06/2010 15:08:05 »
This
"I have just read a magazine here that states men are born with various size forskins and recently more babies are noted to be born with extra long forskin."
is not consistent with any significant subset of the human race having a noticeably reduced foreskin for any reason, such as proposed lamarkian evolution among Jewish boys.

You have collected the evidence which proves that your idea is wrong.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #46 on: 26/06/2010 15:11:06 »
This
"I have just read a magazine here that states men are born with various size forskins and recently more babies are noted to be born with extra long forskin."
is not consistent with any significant subset of the human race having a noticeably reduced foreskin for any reason, such as proposed lamarkian evolution among Jewish boys.

You have collected the evidence which proves that your idea is wrong.

I am unable to find a scientific study for this exploring the genetic variation.
If you have evidence of such a study please let me know.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #47 on: 26/06/2010 17:43:04 »

I am unable to find a scientific study for this exploring the genetic variation.
If you have evidence of such a study please let me know.

There is probably a good reason you can't find any references. It might well be that there are none.

If you want to confirm your proposal of genetic change, the onus is on you to provide positive evidence that it exists. It really doesn't work the other way around.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #48 on: 27/06/2010 09:39:15 »
This
"I have just read a magazine here that states men are born with various size forskins and recently more babies are noted to be born with extra long forskin."
is not consistent with any significant subset of the human race having a noticeably reduced foreskin for any reason, such as proposed lamarkian evolution among Jewish boys.

You have collected the evidence which proves that your idea is wrong.

I am unable to find a scientific study for this exploring the genetic variation.
If you have evidence of such a study please let me know.

So, you accepted the magazine article as evidence when you thought it supported your belief, but once I showed that it proved you were wrong, it was no longer adequate.

It seems that you will go to considerable effort not to accept that you are wrong.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #49 on: 28/06/2010 00:09:31 »
I would just like to say that the  quote below is not substantiated, there is no proof that having foreskin removed from generations of children has no genetic change or has genetic change. This statement is opinion only not fact.

It may seem odd to consider this idea "It is like saying that if I have a hand chopped off, and then have a child, the child is likely to be born with no hand." but, if Lamarckian evolution worked, Jewish boys would be born with no foreskin.

Again, what I am saying is that there is no evidence for or against genetic change as there seems to be no study done.

Although, there has been study done to show that the size of penis is smaller in children who's foreskin has been removed.

Just like the bobtail gene produces various lengths of tails in herding dogs, I have found that babies have various lenghts of foreskin, but human foreskin has not been associated with any scientific study. Only observation.

I have read in a magazine (not scientific)that in a specific hospital it had been noted that some babies had seemingly longer foreskin than previous generations. The nationality of the babies have not been mentioned or whether they come from generations of having the foreskin removed or not.

The flippant remark by Bored Chemist should not be taken as proof until proven.

I have just put forward the information that I have found. I am not saying it does or doesn't. Whether the foreskin is short medium or large or extra large, there seems be be no study done to determine why. So why did Bored Chemist make such a statement without being able to back it up?

If a Cesarean birth can alter genes in a baby that can then be inherited, isn't that acquired?

If we all have the same genetic code then a mutation happens, causes a cancer that can be inherited such as breast cancer, isn't that acquired?

If Tibetans can develop 10 new genes (or the epigenome unravels these genes) to allow them to breath at high altitudes and this is inheritable isn't this acquired?

Just as babies born is specific months in specific locations are more proned to specific disease, everything has an effect. This is proven.

In each case an individual had to have the genetic make up which they were not born with, Not inherited but acquired and is inheritable. Then there is a great possibility that generations of foreskin removal as a child will effect generations to come. There is No study into this and therefore we can not be sure it does or doesn't have effect.

AGAIN - I am not saying it does or doesn't effect the following generations but you say 'it doesn't' without proof.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Are sharks and crocodiles evidence of Lamarckian evolution?
« Reply #49 on: 28/06/2010 00:09:31 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length