Talk:Inheritance of acquired characters
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Inheritance of acquired characters is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. See comments. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology. | |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] Weismann's tail chopping
This article needs something about the experiment where they cut off rats' tails for many generations, but the tails of the offspring were always there. Of course, that was basically an experimental strawman attack on inheritance of acquired characters (since mutilation is not the kind of acquired characters the theory means), but it has historical significance.--ragesoss 00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- If you mentioned that, you'd also have to mention the fact that some Rottweilers do come out tailless, which in all likelihood is nothing at all to do with inheriting acquired characters, but it will count as counterevidence to the rat example.
- More relevant is probably the evidence that C. H. Waddington presented:
- What may be less well known is that [Waddington] attempted to recover Lamarck's reputation by means of studies of the veinless phenotype in flies - which can be genetic or induced by high temperatures.
- Source - Samsara 06:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- According to Ernst Mayr, who learned his Lamarckism in Germany in the 1920s, although Weismann's experiment seems like refuting a strawman today, it was no strawman at the time. (Also, I think it was mice, not rats [I checked-- it is mice]) -- MayerG 07:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Revisions--MayerG 09:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I also think that would be adequate to mention Weismann´s mutilation experiment, at least briefly. For the "evidence" part, I´ve read in an old book something that was pointed by a few as an evidence of inheritance of acquired characters: some sort of wild pig have its "knees" (actually wrists) with ticker skin, which is thick already in the prenatal development. As skin thickens with time, because of impacts or something (like fighter´s knuckles or a bass´ player finger tips), and the wild pig usually "kneels" on its wrist, they reasoned that the kneeling firstly caused the thickening, that was then inherited. If I ever find more about it on the internet, I´ll post something.
About development affected by outer conditions, again heat, there´s a even more interesting example (which I also do not remember any source now), of some mammal that develops, while inside the womb, larger ears when developing under higher temperatures. That theoretically could serve as a mean of dissipation of body heat. However, it has nothing to do with inheritance of acquired characters, not even with strict lamarckism (despite of these things being popularly associated with the term anyway), but with of adaptative change, not lamarckian because it´s not willingly, or by individual efforts, which I think that was also a tenet of "true" Lamarckism. I also think, that´s more like a "spandrel", a happy coincidence than any real mechanism of adaptive change (maybe does not even is good enough for its presumed functioning). --Extremophile 05:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bits from acquired traits
These bits from the original "inheritance of acquired traits" article have not survived the merge:
- According to this theory giraffes have long necks because shorter giraffes spent their lives stretching their necks to reach their food, foliage, and they passed on this trait to their young, creating over generations the modern giraffe. Today most scientists view this theory of evolution as incorrect. Lamarck believed that species changed of their own free will and if a limb or body part was not used, the body part could completely fall off or disappear if the animal wished it to.
On that note, I was wondering whether it is of interest that the giraffe example of notre cher Chevalier is not possible on anatomical grounds - the giraffe actually has no muscle to elongate its neck beyond the length dictated by its skeleton, and gravity is acting unfavourably! [1] However, the giraffe example may be worth mentioning because it may be more familiar to many people than either "Lamarckism" or "acquired traits". [1] Stretching requires transverse muscles and a "hydraulic" body - both of which many worms possess. The giraffe's tongue would have been a more plausible example! - Samsara 06:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Humm... the giraffe´s neck is also pointed as somewhat strawman by some, such as S. J. Gould. He said that Lamarck only mentioned that in one paragraph, among many other examples (which I do not know, but I´m curious about), and someone else before him that made of that a big deal, and a classic example. --Extremophile 06:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lysenko Lives!!
The arguments proffered in this article might well have been provided by the late Soviet "biologist" Trofim D. Lysenko. It sorely needs updating by someone trained in molecular biology to reflect current thinking.
[edit] NPOV, from both sides of the debate...
This page seriously needs to be cleaned up. Right now it's a mess of examples and arguments loosely connected with rhetoric. Phrases such as "the triump of the central dogma of molecular biology" and "insult to the intelligence of the reader" come to mind.
I propose the following structure: 1. History 2. Support for theory(ies) 3. Criticism of theory(ies)
the whole page is generally bias- what we need is more info on the topic b4 u adjust it be more neutrul 211.29.196.46 13:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- These are examples of bad writing (which needs to be fixed) rather than NPOV in the content. Please fix these problems, but the NPOV tag should be removed. -Gomm 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] paper Dismantling Lamarckism
i suggest adding link to freely available paper Dismantling Lamarckism (2006), which makes deep and interesting insight into this theme. it can be easily found with google, just type the title. 62.65.183.37 03:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Epigenetics to the rescue
This article is outdated ; Recent studies in Epigenetics show that the genome is not the only information passed down to offsprings but information from the phenotype and acquired characters are also transmitted. ( some reference : Sex-specific, male-line transgenerational responses in humans.) Guillaume Rava. 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
