Lamarckism and the Honeyguide

[soniaj]

Hi,
I'm new here, but hoping for some feedback and opinions. I had not heard of Lamarckism until I read an article recently in which it was claimed that Lamarckism is the only reasonable explanation for the behavior of the Honeyguide. See: http://www.maverickscience.com/Evolution/On_Racial_Memory/on_racial_memory.html

I don't know how credible this website is, but I'm curious to hear your comments on this idea.

Thanks,
Sonia

[David George]

I am not sure how valid this is but here goes my biology teacher told that when a person has short sight or long sight problem his offspring has 90% chance of getting the same problem.This is very similar to what lamarck told.

[Kiezel]

I am not sure how valid this is but here goes my bilogy teacher told that when a person has short sight or long sight problem his offspring has 90% chance of getting the same problem.This is very similar to what lamarck told.

I don't think such an analogy to Lamarck's ideas would work in this case. The offspring of an individual who suffers from being nearsighted can likely inherit the same trait, but unintentionally through the passing of the parent's genes.

Lamarck believed that organisms were consciously aware of their needs, and made an attempt to obtain such needs in their lifetime. They would then proceed by passing on those acquired characteristics (i.e., a longer neck developed by a lifetime of stretching to eat from higher branches) to their offspring. I suppose you can think of it as this: Orange pickers in Florida could likely pick oranges faster if they had an extra hand, but you don't see humans attempting to grow an extra hand in just one lifetime and then intentionally passing the trait onto their kids.

Lamarck also jumped the bandwagon in believing that life should be categorized in the manner of a stair step ladder with “primitive” organisms nearer the bottom and more “advanced” forms (humans being one of them of course) nearer the top. Of course nowadays, it its accepted that the evolution of life should be viewed more as “tree” than a “ladder.”

[David George]

Alright accepted but the germplasm theory states changes in the somatoplasm does not affect the germplasm.And this theory is one of the main theories used to prove lamarck was wrong.But the example I told goes against it.

[herb386]

I don't think your example does go against that argument. Sight problems are generally caused by a mixture of environmental and genetic factors. In the parent, the same genetic factors are present in the germ cells and the somatic cells. This means that the parent will experience the sight problems (due to somatic cells) as well as pass them on to their offspring (due to germ cells) without changing the germplasm or the somatoplasm during the individuals lifetime.

[soniaj]

The article I reference is specifically dealing with the evolution of complex instinctual behaviors more so than physical traits. Any comments on that aspect?

Sonia

[damien james]

I don't think your example does go against that argument. Sight problems are generally caused by a mixture of environmental and genetic factors. In the parent, the same genetic factors are present in the germ cells and the somatic cells. This means that the parent will experience the sight problems (due to somatic cells) as well as pass them on to their offspring (due to germ cells) without changing the germplasm or the somatoplasm during the individuals lifetime.

You misunderstood David. He meant with this

But the example I told goes against it.

that his germplasm example go against lamarckism.

[David George]

Don't worry Lamarck I will fight for you until my death I swear.Lets say that a boy watches TV for long hours and acquires a eye defect and if that boys son has an eye defect when he is a child it sure proves lamarck atleast partially.

[James]

Don't worry Lamarck I will fight for you until my death I swear.Lets say that a boy watches TV for long hours and acquires a eye defect and if that boys son has an eye defect when he is a child it sure proves lamarck atleast partially.

No it doesn't.

[supersport]

Don't worry Lamarck I will fight for you until my death I swear.Lets say that a boy watches TV for long hours and acquires a eye defect and if that boys son has an eye defect when he is a child it sure proves lamarck atleast partially.

I would suggest that traits that are produced by hormones may possibly be inherited. Of course since there are no tests to prove this one way or the other, it's hard to know for sure. I submit that evolutionary biology is afraid to test this. If someone can point me to such tests to prove me wrong I would love to see it.


I'm not sure the eye thing would qualify.

[soniaj]

I don't think the eye thing qualifies. That would be damage that would not serve any benefit for the offspring to inherit--same as the chopping off of the mouse's tail idea.

What I would like to know is if there is a way for the body to recognise and pass on beneficial changes. And the idea of behavioral changes seems to be on another level as well. Taking for example the honeyguide, how does a given, complex, learned behavior become "instinctive"--as it seems to be with that bird?

Sonia

[loveangel]

I would suggest that traits that are produced by hormones may possibly be inherited. Of course since there are no tests to prove this one way or the other, it's hard to know for sure. [/quote]


i agree with what you were stating. hormones could be passed to the newly born baby(ies). but there aren't enought proof of this theory(perhaps) but how about the psychological factors???? could it be inherited too??? maybe yes, it does.... we could obviously determine if that person is like to that person(i.e. to his mother or to his father... like if the father is punctual the child could also inherit this attitude.)