Re: Re: canute These are not hertical concepts. I'm not sure you guys are understanding what epigenetic inheritance is. I am not as well versed in evo-devo as I should be, but epigenetic effects are regulatory effects which can create new combinations of genes and alleles, which then can be exposed to selection. Some of these epigenetic interactions can be inherited. Therefore, epigenetic effects can potentially be evolutionarily important. However, at the genome level, it is not anti-Darwinian to accept that these effects can be inherited, and they're no more Lamarckian than saying that the effects of mutagenic environmental factors are Lamarckian (you know, like radiation exposure).
Re: Re: Re: paul I do emphatically object to that idea. I cannot fathom how you would assume otherwise from what I've written.
Re: Re: Re: Re: reply I don't know how else to explain it to you. Perhaps you could read some more on the topic. Then the Baldwin effect has nothing to do with evolution. Crap! Birds have evolved no such trait. It's like saying, "I learned how to speak French. Therefore I have evolved an ability to speak French." Of couse, no such thing happened. Why can't you apply this to the above example?
No but survival is what ensures a gene being passed on and survival for social creatures like humans must have some monetary link because there are certain people who will never go cold, starve or be homeless. While i can see your point that even though inherited wealth can stay within a blood-line for generations and protect them up to a point, this material wealth is not linked to any particular gene and therefore less favorable genes will be 'weeded out' in the future, i think that there will always be someone who doesn't care for romantic values and notions of 'love' etc and will go for the shiny 'reward'. In a society that values, protects and praises capital- capitalism, then there is not much that competitors can do. Did you know that there are more laws protecting property than there are to prevent or punish child abuse! Where do you think the police force came from?! Those with capital agree to share it for their co-operation. This force is then used to protect themselves (imo). There will always be those who do not understand this kind of society in a wider context (as any adult should) and will just want to be a 'player' within that society. A society such as Capitalism is based on the possession of Capital! It's as simple as that! Capital=success. It's what the society has been built on. Anyone with enough money can buy some property and start a business and as the owner of that property they can exlude entry, have rules of conduct or remove people.
but neville, reproduction isn't about being comfortable, it is about reproducing. If poor people reproduce under less comfortable situations they still reproduce and still multiply their genetic information. Genes don't care about having a heated toilet seat as it were. or something like that. look around you and you will see that the poor people in your society still reproduce like little rabbits despite their less comfortable situation. Do they really have less offspring?
I'm not saying they do! I was saying about chances of survival: having a home means that you are more likely to survive due to things like warmth and cleanliness (diseases etc) than without one! I understand that you are refering to a principle of Darwinism which says that 'the reproducion rate is inversely proportional to the survival rate' i.e. if baby crocodiles have a short life expectancy (say a day) then it is likely that the species will die out unless their genetic-coding/physiology states that they give birth to many new croc's in one go (and increase the chances of survival) Any crocodiles without this coding/physiological advantage are likely to become extinct! In us (humans) however it can be seen that even the housing is grouped together. Some areas exlude the poor from their housing with the prices (birds of a feather flock together). The police are less likely to patrol these areas because of the lack (perceived lack!) of crime. It is thought that these people, and their children, are responsible members of society and do not need watching. These people are less likely to be caught for a crime because of this and end up in a punishment system such as prison where the chances of death must increase! I would say that a simple thing such as housing can affect evolution. Apart from natural conditions affecting the chances of survival (cold and damp will affect a childs survival rate greatly i would think!) there are other factors. These may seem minor yet i would say they are relevant. When growing and exploring the environment, maybe even the travelling the world, then one encounters other people. It is these perceptions that determine ones life paths. Money is todays method (in our society anyway) for keeping warm and having the neccesities for survival. Less money will mean a threat to the necessity's of life (the bear necessity's?! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ). If one could only afford to live in certain areas because of financial factors then not only is one going to be living in an area which is more likely to be patrolled by the police and therefore decrease the risk of survival (the risk of capture is increased immediately regardless of how much more crime is committed) but one will also have to take on an ascribed name of where they live: which becomes as much of ones identity as ones name. What I am saying is that when ones meets people it is likely that one would 'get further' in life i.e. have a more respected job and more money (and better chances of survival!) if, when asked, they live in Chelsea or Middlesborough rather than: Oldham (Old Ham), Pity Me (In Sussex/Essex/somewhere around there), Brown Willy (similar area) or Crouch-End. Even things like this effect life chances (imo) yet if you can only afford particular housing you not only have less chance of survival but you also label yourself so and therefore have no chance to move forward. There are advantages to the society as a whole by keeping some people down (i'm not condoning this just observing it!). Somebody has to do the manual work and who better than those who have little choice. Those with a choice between living or dying. This housing point also shows how as well as the area naming (which some people may regard as flimsy argument) there is the greater probability that if you are poor yourself, you will be living in an area with other people of similar circumstances, and so you are more likely to experience crime yourself just becuase of your locality! The opposite, the rich, is also true! (it is strange how even the design of some housing is designed to keep people down. The cheapest and most common in england, the Terraced houses, are built with adjoining walls. Neighbours live chained to each other: they can hear each others rows, they know when they go to bed and get up, they can hear when they go to the toilet etc. Someone has designed these housed this way!
yes neville that is all clear...but it is a fact that poor people have more children than rich people... that's why in the developing world the population is growing much faster than in the developed world. reproductive success is apparently not stimulated by wealth at all in our world.
So why is the power of the rich held by few?? i thik it's becuase no one cares Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! . There are more important things in life.
The rich have a longer life expectancy than the poor, but that is irrelevant the point under discussion here. From the Darwinian point of view, the only issue is whether you live long enough to reproduce and, for girls in the inner city poverty areas, that seems to be about age 15 these days.
Re: Re: Re: Re: paul You said that birds with the ability to open milk bottles reproduced more successfully. It follows that birds with better evolved abilities to learn how to open milk bottles pass on their genes more successfully. Then you deny that the success that birds have in what might be considered to be their workplace, in which they 'earn' milk, has any evolutionary effect. This seems self-contradictory.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: reply You told me that the birds were an example of the Baldwin effect. You then told me that the birds inherit precisely nothing from their parents realting to opening milk bottles. It follows that the Baldwin effect is no more than the effect of the fact that birds can learn to open milk bottles. It follows that Mr. Baldwin was off his rocker. I am not convinced that other evolutionists would refer to his work if this was the case. Not at all. From what you say there is no such thing as the Baldwin effect. Where the hell did it come from if they did not evolve it? Birds have an ability to learn that includes the ability to learn how to open milk bottles. Are you saying that evolution does not explain this? Do bird brains not evolve? I did, and have here again.
Don't slip into paranoia. I live in a terraced house and love it. It is a very sensible way of building houses, and fosters a sense of community rather than indulge in the marketing ploy of putting a three foot gap between house to pretend that they are independant castles and worth more because of it. Mind you terraces have to be well built to work. A fact that encourages builders to put up cheap detached stuff. Pardon my picking out this irrelevant issue.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: paul not in the least. the ability to open milk bottles is not 'evolved.' birds don't have a 'workplace,' and you will continue to be confused if you insist upon anthropomorphizing the issue.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: reply in response to now your just be contrary for the sake of it. if A = B (my example of the Baldwin effect) and A is not C (as you said my example had nothing to do with evolution) then B is not C (as I stated given your assumption). Dude, don't take it out on me if you don't understand evolution. Do more reading, there's plenty out there.
paul how about: behavior that was learned in the first generation may become instinctual in successive generations? the genotype remains unchanged?
review of book The evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith(1998) is unaware of Steele's newer research, and mentions only far less interesting exceptions to the central dogma, but has an open mind to Lamarckism: "it is not so obviously false as is sometimes made out." (9). Steele rightly criticises Richard Dawkins(10) and Daniel Dennett's (11) condemnation of Lamarckism. They don't know the evidence Lamarck's Signature. How Retrogenes Are Changing Darwin's Natural Selection Paradigm steele responds Before closing I would like to state that our data and analyses have been peer reviewed and published in quite a few professional journals these past few years ie. we have passed through many critical 'negative selection gates' in science and as yet we have not been refuted by the professionals in the field. Our most recent definitive paper which closely approximates and underpins the book is.. Blanden RV, Rothenfluh HS, Zylstra P, Weiller GF & Steele EJ 1998 The signature of somatic hypermutation appears to be written into the germline IgV segment repertoire. Immunological Reviews 162 : 117 - 132. response Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! :m: It's not all in our genes
[/QUOTE] This was basically what i was trying to say, but in a boobed way. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Im not surprised neither do I. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sorry, I couldn't think of anything else to say. Your right Spuriousmonkey! They must be muliplying faster than aids.
