Genetic Drift?

[englishrick]

here is a thread i wrote ages ago,,,,,

im not sure if i too the concept too far, but its a cool thread ither way


Domestication Syndrome and "Lamarck, the scourge of neo-Darwinists"
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=140661&page=2

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

my reading of it is fine Head, point being whilst lamarck was dismissed, many seem to be looking back into it. no smoke without fire so to say

Edit: I presume you were replying when I added the 2nd article.

Kopite

That's the disconnect between the popular scientific publications's article about the research, and the actual findings of the research. Popular publications sometimes report natural selection in Lamarckian-sounding language because it is rhetorically convenient. Easy to understand but confusing to those of us who's understanding is somewhere between that on the average gardener and that of an expert in the field, unless we are willing to dig a lot deeper into some of the underlying science.

Whilst newer discoveries have been made which put us in mind of portions of Lamarck's theories, no one is really "looking back into it".

No biologist is saying Lamarck was correct or anywhere near correct, only that mechanisms have been discovered which act similarly, and that to a limited degree some of the concepts from his theory could apply. And the second article you posted and I quoted is a good example of that.

Statements like "could be construed as a form of soft inheritance" are a very far cry form "lamarck may have been right all along".

They have found mechanism through which it could be possible, but have yet to find it occurring or having had occurred. , the biologist the article is talking about clearly stated "it has to be determined whether the environment can induce an epigenetic change in an organism that can be inherited in subsequent generations. Certainly, nobody has shown that an epigenetically induced beneficial or adaptive change has been inherited."


I'm not saying it cannot be as you imagine it to be, only that nothing has shown it to be and there are known observed mechanisms for most inheritance and most biological responses.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Wasn't Mendel's work laid idol for decades?

but lamarck was debunked 15 decades ago, and it was mendel's work which in large part was used to discount lamarck.

Lamarckian inheritance, at least in the sense Lamarck intended, is in conflict with the findings of genetics and has now been largely abandoned -- but until the rediscovery of Mendel's laws at the beginning of the twentieth century, no one understood the mechanisms of heredity, and Lamarckian inheritance was a perfectly reasonable hypothesis.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html

 

[dank.frank]

Soooo essentially what you are saying, Head, is that...

If a plant is exposed to very poor conditions, a cut is taken, rooted...and nursed back to health and allowed to exist in proper conditions, that there should be absolutely ZERO difference in the quality from the original...ie NO genetic "drift"...? Simply because there has been no TRUE mutation, that once placed in a proper environment, it should respond by doing what it is genetically configured to do...which never changed...


dank.Frank

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Soooo essentially what you are saying, Head, is that...

If a plant is exposed to very poor conditions, a cut is taken, rooted...and nursed back to health and allowed to exist in proper conditions, that there should be absolutely ZERO difference in the quality from the original...ie NO genetic "drift"...?


dank.Frank

that has been my experience.


I'm not saying that there has never been a clone that actually permanently changed at a genetic level, But I am saying that if there is then it is a very rare rarity not a regular occurrence.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

You have inherited features that are not in your genes - a particular language and culture, a particular community and physical location, things that came to you both from parents and from others. These can be passed down through generations, but are not passed as packets of DNA; factors such as these are called epigenetic factors.

Other organisms can pass along epigenetic factors through learning, physical placement in territory, and other things. Organisms that reproduce asexually by physically dividing will pass on bits and pieces of themselves directly to offspring. This is, in a way, the inheritance that Lamarck's theories were based upon.

An entire subdiscipline, memetics, has grown up around this idea, with memes being the epigenetic equivalent of genes. Whether such inheritance can really be described in classic evolutionary terms is a bit controversial still.

http://faculty.fmcc.edu/mcdarby/animals&plantsbook/history/06-explaining-life-genes.htm
This material at this link is very easy to read, and chock full of goodies for the inquisitive.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

My experience also.
Clones can pick up diseases but really they don't change, at least in the short term of a few decades. Keep them healthy, and try and destroy anything with serious health problems. Have backups at different locations if you can.
I might add to stay away from Lamarckism, and Lysenkoism, they are not worth the time unless you want to understand what harm a little misunderstanding of science can do to the simple minded.

-SamS

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

http://faculty.fmcc.edu/mcdarby/animals&plantsbook/history/06-explaining-life-genes.htm
This material at this link is very easy to read, and chock full of goodies for the inquisitive.

I'll be contacting that fella, I think. His definitions of epigenetic and memes are outdated. http://www.fmcc.suny.edu/

Noun

S: meme (a cultural unit (an idea or value or pattern of behavior) that is passed from one person to another by non-genetic means (as by imitation))

Robin Holliday defined epigenetics as "the study of the mechanisms of temporal and spatial control of gene activity during the development of complex organisms."Thus epigenetic can be used to describe anything other than DNA sequence that influences the development of an organism.
The modern usage of the word in scientific discourse is more narrow, referring to heritable traits (over rounds of cell division and sometimes transgenerationally) that do not involve changes to the underlying DNA sequence

The concept of curtural memes(popularized by Richard Dawkins) has been differentiated from the biology of epigenetics, giving each it's own distinct definition.


Perhaps I'll be able to talk him into refining his summary.


Other than that, it is a good read into a lot of basic concepts.

 

[RNDZL]

not trying to be argumentative but shape a better concept of genetics, epigenetics and some cause and effect terminology

this should serve as a fair real life example, i dont know

if i have a female plant in flower and i spray it with gibberlic acid and it produces a male flower is this not epigentic response?

now if take pollen from the flower and self pollinate it, what influence does this have or not have on the resulting progeny? and what is it classified as?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

not trying to be argumentative but shape a better concept of genetics, epigenetics and some cause and effect terminology

this should serve as a fair real life example, i dont know

if i have a female plant in flower and i spray it with gibberlic acid and it produces a male flower is this not epigentic response?

yes

now if take pollen from the flower and self pollinate it, what influence does this have or not have on the resulting progeny?

none, other than lowering the probability of male expression in the offspring, but that is a function of the genome not the response.

and what is it classified as?

Feminized.


The vast majority of epigenetic effects are not transgenerationally heritable, but are heritable in that they last through multiple cell divisions instead of being reset at the first mitosis the cell undergoes.


The only thing 99.99% of cannabis growers need know about epigenetic response, it to only clone healthy branches and keep your plants in the environment which makes them appear the healthiest.

 

[RNDZL]

.

none, other than lowering the probability of male expression in the offspring, but that is a function of the genome not the response.

The vast majority of epigenetic effects are not transgenerationally heritable, but are heritable in that they last through multiple cell divisions instead of being reset at the first mitosis the cell undergoes.

ok tyvm, makes more sense now when used in a scenario i can understand a bit better

lets say you clone a epigneticaly effected branch and its all you have left of a strain and you wish to preserve and restore it

If the epigentic effect were being replicated, could a simply change or introduction of hormones stimulate new growth that were cells are being reset. There seems to be some dramatic differences in some cellular structure in these stages

i ask because it seems that there would be a standard of things that could plague a cutting and perhaps a battery of things can be done to determine what it is via process of elimination

say you have a plant that is one of a kind and not the same and you suspect you have no clue what it is

could you not root a cutting and place one in environment treated to eliminate pests, one designed to eradicate disease, one designed to allow introduction of hormones such as kelp based tea and use the plants response in each environment as a gauge

if theses are diagnostic tests you can use can use strong applications of treatments you would not give plant you intended to flower just for the purpose of determine the general category of issue you are having

it seems with some reasonable experiments a conclusive result could give answer in a scenario where a plant is in decline and there is no definitive cause or the scientific resources to define it on a cellular level

a

 

[englishrick]

My experience also.
Clones can pick up diseases but really they don't change, at least in the short term of a few decades. Keep them healthy, and try and destroy anything with serious health problems. Have backups at different locations if you can.
I might add to stay away from Lamarckism, and Lysenkoism, they are not worth the time unless you want to understand what harm a little misunderstanding of science can do to the simple minded.

-SamS

hay sam

epigentics and Lamarck is fun subject,,,,its never serious,,,everyone allways laughs,,,,,but i gota admit,,,,something rings true about Lamarck,,,his ideas about muscle`s are crap,,but the idea that the enviroment and experence of an indervidual can massivly effect progeny and overall evoloution of a population is starting to ring true for me,,

when Darwin`s theory of mans evoloution got debunked i started to doubt many things,,,,,my attention was drawn to evoloutionary stratagies,,,,,i started to think more about "event stimulation",,,now the way i see it,,,,,im just praying someone outhere has developed somsorta repair cycles, to bring us back to the good old days

thanks for keepin an eye on us

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

please explain to me how natural selection has been debunked.

 

[englishrick]

no,,,,,in the beginning Darwin said Monkeys evolved into Humans, that theory has been proven wrong,,,,,,natural selection is still sound,,,,its the evoloution of man thats been proven wrong

 

[englishrick]

this sorta stuff makes me laugh

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

No, it is only one specific idea about the evolution of man that was proved wrong. Man is still the product of natural selection. Man is still a result of evolution. Just from a common primate ancestor instead of from any modern ape chimp or monkey. That you think the evolution of man has been proven wrong makes me laugh.

having a few of the minor details wrong does not debunk the evolution of man from an ape like primate.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/06/30/human-ape-ancestor.html
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/05/19/skeleton-primates.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

 

[englishrick]

Darwin didnt factor this into his "evoloution of man" theory atall,,,,he favoured selection and did not like the idea of the enviroment programing all expreshion...

over time i believe we will see more holes in more theorys

 

[ROJO145]

What are we up too now?6....7 times?Wrong again,wrong again,wrong again,wrong again,.........ya startin to see the pattern yet?Is anything at all sinkin in,forget it,i kno the answer!God himself could tell ya different and you would argue!!Ya dont even have the fucking basics down and ya still runnin yer suck,its maddening!!! yer not discusing a god damn thing,you hear nothing!!!

 

[englishrick]

ok..im wrong

while Darwin invoked the inheritance of acquired characters as a subsidiary mechanism to the natural selection of random variations, his modern-day disciples, the neo-Darwinists, have strenuously opposed any taint of Lamarckism. They insist that genetic variations – changes in base sequence of DNA – arise by random mutations unrelated to the environment or their survival value, which are then subject to environmental selection; those mutants that survive, survive, while the rest die out (see Why Lamarck Won’t Go Away, ISIS scientific publication). This belief is encapsulated in Francis Crick’s Central Dogma of molecular biology, which decreed that genetic information flows strictly one-way from DNA to RNA to protein (that determine the characteristics of the organism selected by the environment), and never in reverse. In their words, the environment can never pass information back to the genes, so acquired characters cannot be inherited.

Since the mid-1970s, if not before, molecular geneticists have been turning up evidence that increasingly contradicts the Central Dogma, and by the early 1980s, the new genetics of the ‘fluid genome’ had emerged , (see Living with the Fluid Genome, ISIS publication). But apart from a few ‘heretics’, no one dared to say a word against the Central Dogma or the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution which depends on it.

 

[kopite]

That's the disconnect between the popular scientific publications's article about the research, and the actual findings of the research. Popular publications sometimes report natural selection in Lamarckian-sounding language because it is rhetorically convenient. Easy to understand but confusing to those of us who's understanding is somewhere between that on the average gardener and that of an expert in the field, unless we are willing to dig a lot deeper into some of the underlying science.

Whilst newer discoveries have been made which put us in mind of portions of Lamarck's theories, no one is really "looking back into it".

No biologist is saying Lamarck was correct or anywhere near correct, only that mechanisms have been discovered which act similarly, and that to a limited degree some of the concepts from his theory could apply. And the second article you posted and I quoted is a good example of that.

Statements like "could be construed as a form of soft inheritance" are a very far cry form "lamarck may have been right all along".

They have found mechanism through which it could be possible, but have yet to find it occurring or having had occurred. , the biologist the article is talking about clearly stated "it has to be determined whether the environment can induce an epigenetic change in an organism that can be inherited in subsequent generations. Certainly, nobody has shown that an epigenetically induced beneficial or adaptive change has been inherited."


I'm not saying it cannot be as you imagine it to be, only that nothing has shown it to be and there are known observed mechanisms for most inheritance and most biological responses.

I agree with that,

Re Bold highlight: That being what he and Darwin seemed not to agree on, the enviroment or more to point how it effects the organisim.

Personally I have it as Darwin's natural selection(adaption) and Lamarcks (and Lysenko) enviromental effects (adaption), not one or the other, and then theres the mechanism (drive) for the 2. So is it random or not, hopefully in due time we will know all.

I guess it depends if RNA(Ram as I refer to it) can alter DNA (hard drive).

http://www.ufz.de/data/Bossdorf et al9690. 2008 Ecol Lett.pdf

Originally Posted by Sam_Skunkman View Post
My experience also.
Clones can pick up diseases but really they don't change, at least in the short term of a few decades. Keep them healthy, and try and destroy anything with serious health problems. Have backups at different locations if you can.
I might add to stay away from Lamarckism, and Lysenkoism, they are not worth the time unless you want to understand what harm a little misunderstanding of science can do to the simple minded.

-SamS

lol then I am to be considered simple minded. but perhaps that says more about you than me ?

Kopite