Login

Join for Free!
118907 members


Was Lamark True?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Was Lamark True?

Postby David George » Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:44 am

Gerenuk is an antelope found in Africa.It has a long neck and a body of a antelope.In somali it means girrafe necked.If a person sees this animal he might say Lamark was right or it might have a small doubt about Lamark's theory.But the giraffe evolved in a different way and the gerenuk evolved in a different way.It is like seeing a dolphin and a whale.The giraffe and gerenuk evolved in two different ways as their DNAs are not same.The gerenuk is found in the deserts of somalia are plants are scarce when the gerenuk was only an antelope which lived in the grasslands due to environmental factors,competiton,etc they might have ran to the deserts seeing only few plants if these plants were quite tall then might end up having no food.Hence they evolved a longer neck for a better survival.The giraffe's ancestor might have resembled an Okapi a relative of giraffe which lives in the rain forest when the okapi was pushed to grasslands due to competion,etc it might have ended up in the grasslands where it evolved a longer neck than okapi to reach plants like the Boabab hence the giraffe evolved. :twisted:
User avatar
David George
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: India [place where religion rules people]

Postby alextemplet » Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:01 am

Lamark was pretty well advanced for his time but he was still wrong. He hypothesized that an animal could change itself during adulthood; for example, he believed that giraffes could stretch their necks to reach food at higher levels, and that's how they got such long necks. Today we know that all depends on their genetics. He was close but no cigar.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby Nithin » Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:30 am

I beg to differ with Alex. He says Lamark was wrong in believing that giraffes could stretch their necks to reach food at higher levels, and that's how they got such long necks.
I was always a fan of Lamark. I am a fan where a good imagination is involved and a good debate can be held.
There are certain exercises which involve in stretching of human body. It has been proved that these exercises boost the height of a person. So how can ALex say that Lamark was wrong. I agree that every thing is due to the information stored in genes, but for those genetic information to express or over express or under express there are several agents maybe physical, chemical or biological. Why can't stretching be taken as a physical agent. And also for mutation to occur there are several agents, so why can stretching be taken as a physical agent for a gene coding for height to mutate?? I think that i sound foolish but here is my arguement for supporting Lamark.....
User avatar
Nithin
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:24 pm
Location: India, Asia. (Too many people!!!)


Postby alextemplet » Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:35 am

Well, Nithin, I don't mean quite so much that physical changes after birth aren't possible, but if such changes cannot be transferred to offspring (through genes, of course), then they're worthless from an evolutionary perspective. That's where Lamark was wrong, by saying that changes like stretching that occur after birth can be passed on to offspring, and they can't.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby David George » Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:49 am

Well Nithin Lamark was near to a sucess but use and dissuse was only a temporary character and hence could not be transfered to the offspring as said before by Alex.I am glad to hear that you are a fan of lamark so am I.The mutation part of what you argued is right a mutation can cause a longer neck but it does not have any relation of the streching of a girraffe's neck.From which state are you Nitin?I am from Tamil Nadu,Chennai.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
-Theodosius Dobzhansky
User avatar
David George
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: India [place where religion rules people]

Postby Nithin » Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:33 pm

Well guys i guess i got carried away. Sorry. Well point taken anyway Alex and David. David I'm from Trichy. Tamil Nadu (I guess u know it)
NITHIN

Known to human mind is a handful,
Unknown is a galaxy!!!

After you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth
User avatar
Nithin
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:24 pm
Location: India, Asia. (Too many people!!!)

Postby kiekyon » Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:31 am

actually, lamarck may not be too wrong after all.

there is a new theory stating that not all traits are passed down through gene

they call it epigenetic meaning non-genetic information affecting development that is routinely passed from 1 generation to the next

some even call this lamarckism

e.g. nutrition and smoking habit in early life can be passed down the male line, influencing the health of sons and grandsons and etc..
kiekyon
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:10 am
Location: Malaysia

Postby February Beetle » Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:37 am

kiekyon wrote:actually, lamarck may not be too wrong after all.

there is a new theory stating that not all traits are passed down through gene

they call it epigenetic meaning non-genetic information affecting development that is routinely passed from 1 generation to the next

some even call this lamarckism

e.g. nutrition and smoking habit in early life can be passed down the male line, influencing the health of sons and grandsons and etc..

Can this also be passed down through females, or no?
Image

Man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. - Henry Benson
User avatar
February Beetle
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Kansas

Postby kiekyon » Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:24 pm

it is sex-specific, meaning the grandfather's diet affect those of the sons and grandsons
grandmother's diet will influence the health of her daughter and granddaughter
kiekyon
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:10 am
Location: Malaysia

so...

Postby Vincenze » Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:56 am

So would you guys agree that Lamarks only real mistake was thinking that a change in adult life would be passed to the next generation. Surely after many generations if the evolutionary force for a change remains then the change will occur, right?

Vincenze.
Vincenze
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:48 am
Location: Australia

Postby kiekyon » Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:55 am

well, as i say earlier nutrition may be inherited to influence the health of later generations
so, lamarck can still be correct
though i dont think he would have known about the genes
kiekyon
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:10 am
Location: Malaysia


Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests