Talk:Inheritance of acquired characteristics

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)

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)

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.

• I agree. The end of the second paragraph says, "However, these models have been disproven". Then the next paragraph gives an example that supports the model. So which is it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.212.108.131 (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Came to the talk page intent on raising the exact same point, just shy of four years later. I'm going to tag the article for a full rewrite and raise the issue over at WikiProject Biology.   — C M B J   02:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge with soft inheritance

There seems to be overlap with soft inheritance and there are references over there. Zab (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

AGREED. There is also a dead-end article with blending inheritance stub that I have been working on which appears to me to be another example of soft inheritance. Perhaps Lamarckian theory and blending inheritance can be merged into a more comprehensive soft inheritance article. Squididdily (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. It should also give the alternative title / name of "use and disuse inheritance", see On the Origin of Species#Variation and heredity for references, including.[1] . . dave souza, talk 22:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Dave's note above -- Perhaps that alternate title/name reference might best be linked to the existing Pangenesis article (i.e. perhaps adding a note in the Pangenesis article about Darwin first started developing Pangenesis during his writing of Origins and adding the link there for On the Origin of Species#Variation and heredity) Squididdily (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In retrospect, I am thinking soft inheritance may not be the right place for this merge...I do agree, generally, there is a need to restructure these stubs of the historical "inheritance models" batted about in the 19th c. and before, but I am thinking a better target repository for merging them might be in the heredity#history section instead -- thoughts? Also, there are a number of these pre-mendel inheritance models that I have run across recently -- Inheritance of acquired characters,blending inheritance,maternal impression,telegony (pregnancy), Preformationism. Geoffroyism, and also various unnamed inheritance hypotheses kicked around by ancient Greek ideas already noted in heredity#History article that might best be merged here as well. Any other thoughts on where best to put this stuff or which to merge and which to leave separate? Squididdily (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't Inheritance of acquired characters (this article) simply part of Lamarckism? It seems to me that this may have been the driving "inheritance model" that served several other larger theory-proposals/hypotheses -- e.g. Pangenesis,Lamarckism, and Lysenkoism -- which all seemed to depended upon this model (even though it is credited to Lamarck). Is that how other's interpret why this article isn't simply rolled up into Lamarckism itself? Squididdily (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good question. With the exception of the wordiness over at Lamarckism there is little reason not to move this article over there. Soft inheritance could almost be copy-merged to a section as well. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 06:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. This article should not be merged with Soft Inheritance. Merging with Lamarckism would be acceptable other than the wordiness -- most people find this page because of Lamarck's ideas or in contrast with modern evolution which is also what Larmarckism hits. The only problem is that most people would want this short answer and the whole Lamarck article would blugeon them with detail when they just want the contrast to modern thought. Merge to Lamarck acceptable, but this might make a good summary of the concept alone.

SOFT inheritance is different. It includes acquired characteristics, but a number of other things as well. This topic, because of its very frequent discussion in learning evolution warrants its own page while soft inheritance is a superset of less publicly known and relevant things. This article probably gets a lot of views due to its consistent discussion in evolution classes, while even graduate students in evolution may not have cause to look up soft inheritance. It also has many unrelated and less noteworthy concepts in the superset Soft Inhertiance. NotTires (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would definitley remove the part on this article that relates Lamarck to Aristotle. Aristotle specifically states in the great chain of being that the world is fixed and a species CANNOT change. To him the earth was full and nothing new could be added.

I.A.C -as the environment changes 1)an aminals activity pattern changes(behavioral change) 2)increased or decreased use of certain body parts 3)body parts become altered 4)new trait (acquired during this life is passed down)

PROBLEMS WITH I.A.C 1)offspring do not inherit changed in a parents body 2) only changes in the gametes or sex cells may be inherited

• HOWEVER- epi-genes (the "second" code) suggest that behaviors,diets and even chemical exposure may change our gene expression and some of these changes may be passed down to our offspring

Emotive language

"dismal failure" in the last line is vague and emotive language not suitable to an objective assessment of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.162.183 (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  Genomes, and the specific duties of genes both singularly and corporately are believed to be the reason for actions and lifestyles of the individual? As I understand what it is that a read from the accompanying articles, is that it ,(changes in behavior) bring about physical changes in certain cells. But I don't see the correlation between that, physical change, and the actions taken by the individual? The odd or defective gene then, would predispose one to continue behavior of a similar type, somewhere in that person's ancestry? If this is true, then the individual has less of a chance to not do those things which are outside the norms of society? I am thinking of two subjects specifically. Addiction and homo sexuality happen because a person is predisposed to become involved because of his genes, and far less then on his or her environment is what this conclusion implies? If this is true for these two groups, is it also true of other groups? Does a criminal commit crimes because he was predisposed, or is it more attributed to their environment, and the choices they made? In short, no one should be held accountable if his ancestors were involved in the same type of activity? 
 This article has more questions then answers, because I am not a geneticist, and I would never dispute physical findings as documented in the laboratory. However, I maintain that human actions toward violence or other activities outside societal norms are because of the environment that they grew up in, and how the individual responds to that environment, especially in the younger years. Once that person has grown to adulthood, if their mind is sound, they are wholly responsible for the decisions they make and the actions they take. But if they are acting out only which through their genetic make up, then no one is responsible for their actions. 
 To a geneticist who reads this, they might find my argument to be more philosophical then scientific, but it occurs to me, that if odd actions by the individual are accountable to an errant gene of some sort, that it should be possible to isolate that gene and remove it, or treat it with chemicals.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.36.181 (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 

Human activity from genes

  Genomes, and the specific duties of genes both singularly and corporately are believed to be the reason for actions and lifestyles of the individual? As I understand what it is that a read from the accompanying articles, is that it ,(changes in behavior) bring about physical changes in certain cells. But I don't see the correlation between that, physical change, and the actions taken by the individual? The odd or defective gene then, would predispose one to continue behavior of a similar type, somewhere in that person's ancestry? If this is true, then the individual has less of a chance to not do those things which are outside the norms of society? I am thinking of two subjects specifically. Addiction and homo sexuality happen because a person is predisposed to become involved because of his genes, and far less then on his or her environment is what this conclusion implies? If this is true for these two groups, is it also true of other groups? Does a criminal commit crimes because he was predisposed, or is it more attributed to their environment, and the choices they made? In short, no one should be held accountable if his ancestors were involved in the same type of activity? 
 This article has more questions then answers, because I am not a geneticist, and I would never dispute physical findings as documented in the laboratory. However, I maintain that human actions toward violence or other activities outside societal norms are because of the environment that they grew up in, and how the individual responds to that environment, especially in the younger years. Once that person has grown to adulthood, if their mind is sound, they are wholly responsible for the decisions they make and the actions they take. But if they are acting out only which through their genetic make up, then no one is responsible for their actions. 
 To a geneticist who reads this, they might find my argument to be more philosophical then scientific, but it occurs to me, that if odd actions by the individual are accountable to an errant gene of some sort, that it should be possible to isolate that gene and remove it, or treat it with chemicals.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.36.181 (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 

Non-fringe, non-loony inheritance of acquired characteristics principle

Hi,

I have a vague memory of reading it in ... Dennett? It pertains a mechanism whereby an individual can develop a trait to a degree that it enhances survival, changing the frequency of that trait gene in the gene pool. Butler's Principle? Bolton's Principle? B ... ?

Somebody?

T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Found it! - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_effect (Thank you, wiki list of effects)

And so I wonder why BE is so little referenced, both in this article and in e.g. Nature vs Nurture, Lamarckism, etc.

T88.89.219.147 (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)