The Sins of the Fathers, Take 2

At tributes to Darwin, Lamarckism—inheritance of acquired traits—will be the skunk at the party.

By Sharon Begley | NEWSWEEK
Published Jan 17, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Jan 26, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: visualedtech @ 08/26/2009 10:29:49 PM

    The obersvations suggest that there is another cellular, biological system that controlls the function of genes. These are reffered to as "Marks". These "marks" turn on or turn off genes at precise and prescribbed times during a cell's lifecycle. So, we now have new questions: What are they?, How do they operate?, What controls them. We do know that the enviroment can alter the genetic functioning of these "marks" in the parent during periods of egg or sperm formation.
    These "marks" are probably responsible for the differntiation of cell physiology and function in an organism. All of our cells have the same genetic material, yet they function as skin cells, heart cells,,,etc.
    More questions: Are "marks" inherited through multiple generations? Can they have had a significant effect on evolution?
    These have yet to be investigated.
    For evolution to occur, a small reproductive population must be isolated from the total population. The expression of recessive gene combinations will result in different physiologies from the main population. These new combinations will be subject to enviromental survival. There are many ":sub-species" in all living species. The species do not reproduce with each other, even though they would produce viable offspring.
    Each scientific theory provides us with a tool to understand our world. As we understand and observe more, we amend or discard the previous theories. The quest for knowledge, is one step at a time on an un-ending staircase of discovery.

    • Posted By: genebean @ 10/26/2009 11:10:49 AM

      Yes, there are marks that distinguish between stem cells and other cells that contain the same DNA, however, chemical signals also cause different genes to be expressed in different cells. Such a signal could explain some of the observations mentioned.

  • Posted By: genebean @ 10/26/2009 11:06:42 AM

    There is a lot of evidence that evolution works in a much more complicated way than previously thought. There are now arguments to the effect that new thinking regarding the mechanisms of evolution could eventually drastically affect medicine and that blind belief in the old ideas is delaying medical advances.

    http://www.azinet.com/aging/evolution_controversy.pdf

  • Posted By: mikerhonda @ 01/22/2009 10:04:05 AM

    Dear Logic-Reason:
    Mutations are NOT evolution. Mutations happen all the time. Evolution is when cats change into dogs etc etc. That has NEVER happened and will NEVER happen.

    • Posted By: Somite @ 01/22/2009 10:51:54 AM

      Actually evolution is any change in gene frequency. What you are describing is impossible and therefore does not contradict the theory of evolution

      • Posted By: mikerhonda @ 01/22/2009 1:04:21 PM

        According to Darwin, we EVOLVED from apes which EVOLVED from the lower animals which EVOLVED from rocks. Darwin said it happened-however I do agree with you-he was wrong.

        • Posted By: MesaClay @ 08/25/2009 8:14:01 PM

          @mikerhonda: Where in Darwin's writings did you read that we "evolved from rocks?" Where in Darwin's writings did you read that "cats change into dogs?" I must've missed that chapter.

      • Posted By: mikerhonda @ 01/22/2009 1:04:38 PM

        According to Darwin, we EVOLVED from apes which EVOLVED from the lower animals which EVOLVED from rocks. Darwin said it happened-however I do agree with you-he was wrong.

  • Posted By: 4lr384 @ 07/19/2009 2:49:05 AM

    o err is human...

    Of course science is nature...double duhh...

    But as the title of this article implies; judging ones actions based on "the sins of their fathers" is erroneous and implies determinism without thought goven to randomness or learned behavior. In this context, the slippery slope leans toward hate crimes and intolerance.

  • Posted By: 4lr384 @ 07/19/2009 2:48:25 AM

    To err is human...

    Of course science is nature...double duhh...

    But as the title of this article implies; judging ones actions based on "the sins of their fathers" is erroneous and implies determinism without thought goven to randomness or learned behavior. In this context, the slippery slope leans toward hate crimes and intolerance.

  • Posted By: Kat00 @ 01/22/2009 7:09:41 PM

    Any college undergrad could easily come up with answers to these observations without evoking the theory of Lamarckism. The author of this article should read up on something called "epigenetics"; events such as the "switching off", rearrangement, or recombination of genes in response to environmental factors is not something that is new to science.
    And in response to sunspear: it doesn't make sense to ask why apes are not evolving into humans. An organism, going by the theory, is evolved to fill a particular niche in nature. A trait evolves to solve a "problem" that nature presents to an organism. Even considering that, the chance that two different species would evolve the exact same set of traits to solve the same set of problems is nest to impossible. Also, what evidence suggests that evolution has stopped? When your frame of reference is an average of 75 years compared to a process that takes place over millions of years, why would you be observing speciation? During a lifetime, it is only possible to see small scale adaptations. As a trained scientist, you should know these things.

    • Posted By: JesusR @ 01/22/2009 7:21:13 PM

      So you believe we as humans are different or have evolved from 2000 yaers ago? Or is that still not enough time to see a change in us? Come on, it takes more faith to believe in the "Big Bang" theory than it does to believe in God. what was so wrong with the apes that they were forced to become human.

      • Posted By: scienceteacherofgreatkids @ 06/14/2009 5:09:44 PM

        God is Nature...duh

        I do dig Jesus though....because what's wrong with Peace, Love, and Forgiveness?

        ...nothing

      • Posted By: 4lr384 @ 05/25/2009 11:26:06 PM

        This artcicle was actually presented by my university, with no scientific data

      • Posted By: joe_mama @ 01/22/2009 9:37:52 PM

        Actually humans have changed over the last 2000 years. We're bigger, stronger, faster, smarter and live longer lives.

        Just because we haven't developed a third arm (to hold our cell phones), doesn't mean we haven't changed. Besides, in evolutionary terms, 2,000 is nothing.

        Love,
        JM

        • Posted By: JesusR @ 01/23/2009 1:11:06 PM

          The "normal" people have not grown bigger, faster or stronger. The ones that have grown were the ones taking suppliments and steriod. The reason we getting bigger is because we eat everything in sight. I know you don't believe the average person is getting bigger, stronger, faster.

          • Posted By: AzureDays @ 02/19/2009 12:47:24 AM

            if you read the latest publication of....I forget, some science mag, it states that we are really still evolving. I only flipped through it in Whole Foods, but some it stated that our skulls had gotten thinner, our teeth and jaws smaller, and our height shorter, among others.
            Check it outtt.

      • Posted By: realist989 @ 01/22/2009 7:38:06 PM

        Well, modern Homo sapiens can be traced back nearly 200,000 years, so no 2000 years is not such a long time to go without species change. That said, there are plenty of changes in Homo sapiens in the last 2000 years - just none that have led to speciation. On another note, the big bang theory has nothing to do with biological evolution - it is based upon physics and astronomy and purports something that would have happened long before there was any life on earth.

  • Posted By: BeetleBoy5 @ 02/02/2009 1:09:57 PM

    Sorry Newsweek, I have to cancel my subscription. I understand you are not a science publication, but then please refrain from publishing such illconceived, poorly researched and frankly ambiguous pot stirring pseudo-science articles. While the examples cited are certianly interesting they can all be explained by epigenetic factors. Others have covered the specifics errors in Sharon's logic sufficiently, so I'll save the electrons, but really...c'mon, please!

    • Posted By: 4lr384 @ 05/25/2009 11:27:32 PM

      And, they really shouldn't present this garbage in science classes at Universities, either

  • Posted By: MrsHatfield @ 02/08/2009 11:44:08 AM

    Its obviously how the fetus is affected through the food, blood etc it is getting from its mother- just like alcohol can cause birth defects, fear hormones can cause spiky helmets. Mom eating too much sugary crap food gets into the fetus, not to mention affects the way she raises the child, feeding it on the same bad for you stuff. That's not inheritance, that nurture not nature. You're trying to ascribe nurture (which we all know about already) to nature, which it's simply not. The genes are all there in the DNA, the DNA has no question. It's like breaking your growth plate in your legs, and evolution has adapted it towards the positive in this water flea. This article shows a complete misunderstanding and misinterpretation of evidence. And honestly it sounds like the majority of this article was made up. Sources please?

    • Posted By: alsofaraway @ 02/19/2009 12:43:55 AM

      absolutely correct it is actually not a description of acquired characterstics but of inheritted

  • Posted By: 4lr384 @ 05/25/2009 11:23:17 PM

    This is the skunk, because it stinks. Where is the research backing? Or is this really more of your science fiction Begley?

  • Posted By: 4lr384 @ 05/25/2009 11:22:22 PM

    This is just like the name says---the skunk of the party. They actually proliferate this nonsense at the universities. This is not about biological evolution, it is about language evolution. Beware---as the name implies, this is all about the "sins of our fathers." Your name displays your ancestry through language. Nothing more, nothing less.

  • Posted By: observer84 @ 02/10/2009 5:20:35 PM

    Lamarkism is not what is going on here. Mrs. Hatfield is also not quite correct, because according to the article the mother could have long since healed from the wound and her babies would not be directly affected by the injury.

    Genes turn on an off in response to triggers-like hormones turning on genes for adult development during puberty. When a water flea gets hurt, it triggers a change in the genes that are encoded and THAT change is passed on.

    But what a quack of an article; I am also dissappointed. Lamarkism is not a valid theory and this finding is interesting, but by no means "revolutionary." Sheesh.

  • Posted By: debbieahearn @ 02/01/2009 10:34:51 PM

    Interesting. It makes sense that evolution and adaptation may occur in ways that are not accounted for by Darwin's theory alone. However, the human studies done in London are flawed because they do not take into account the effects of environment and socio-economics. For example, smoking may be correlated with other unhealthy behaviors which lead to obesity. These behaviors and lifestyle may be passed down through generations and account for the findings. Same with overeating and diabetes. The problems with the gestational studies have been discussed in other comments. That said, the renewed interest in Lamarkism may lead to discoveries which expand upon Darwinian views of evolution.

  • Posted By: debbieahearn @ 02/01/2009 10:33:23 PM

    Interesting. It makes sense that evolution and adaptation may occur in ways that are not accounted for by Darwin's theory alone. However, the human studies done in London are flawed because they do not take into account the effects of environment and socio-economics. For example, smoking may be correlated with other unhealthy behaviors which lead to obesity. These behaviors and lifestyle may be passed down through generations and account for the findings. Same with overeating and diabetes. The problems with the gestational studies have been discussed in other comments. That said, the renewed interest in Lamarkism may lead to discoveries which expand upon Darwinian views of evolution.

  • Posted By: steve_julie2000 @ 01/28/2009 7:22:48 PM

    Amidonc, you're absolutely right about gestational effects, such as hormones from the mother or her embryos, affecting an offspring's traits. Androgens from a male fetus, for example, have well-studied effects on female twins (e.g. see the work by Dennis McFadden from U Texas).

  • Posted By: amidonc @ 01/28/2009 3:38:50 PM

    This is not really new news. Anyone who has ever researched pregnancy already knows that DNA is not the whole story. Hormones, teratogens, lack/abundance of vitamins, etc. all cause babies to be different than what they are strictly genetically coded for. This is no way discredits evolution, because the mother affects only one generation. Having a helmet does not increase the chance of having a helmeted baby, so therefore it is not a genetic changing of the species.

  • Posted By: amidonc @ 01/28/2009 3:34:58 PM

    This is not new news- anyone who has ever researched pregnancy knows that the mother's actions affect their child. Smoking during pregnancy causes a smaller, sicklier baby. Same DNA, but chemicals like teratogens and hormones can all influence the development of the embryo. I'm sticking with Darwin until I see something better than this.

  • Posted By: Acmo @ 01/28/2009 6:57:06 AM

    If you'd like to learn more on the subject, read "Survival of the sickest" - very clever book, and convincing too!
    Looks like Lamarck is back to stay...

  • Posted By: Jim55SD @ 01/27/2009 8:50:17 PM

    I'm guessing that it takes energy in the short life of a water flea to put these extra spines on their body and so they are already programmed somewhere in their DNA only to be triggered by a need as when a known predator is in the neighborhood. Thus when this predator, who carries a chemical marker l like kairomone, the mother then picks this up, tirggering her own response to arm her children. So this isn't lamarckism as the author would like you to believe but still old good old survival of the fittest as those that were able to pick up this chemical signal and had the extra armor, were those that passed on these traits. While at the same time, not wasting any energy on growing these spines when they were in a safe enviroment free of predators.

    So thus your question is answered Sharon, the fleas have the trait for more armor but only trigger it when a predators chemical signal from kairomone causes her to involuntary arm her children against them.

  • Posted By: truth-is-it @ 01/22/2009 8:55:42 PM

    Good points are being brought. How would anything evolve a look a like eye without the knowledge of how it benefits it (the moth) ? Why would camouflage a protective coloration in animals: the devices that animals use to blend into their environment in order to avoid being seen by predators or prey, especially coloration, sometimes shape . How is this knowledge passed on to DNA. It would take 10,000s of changes to get from a to b. There are hundreds examples that can be given . Did a four legged animal start with 1 leg then 2 then 3 then 4 over millions of years or all at once 4 ? Do we know for sure this flea uses its helmet for defense . What mechanism (s) would allow this to happen regardless of the time it took. How would DNA be informed to be changed without knowledge to pass on to our genes . Our environment would have to communicate with our DNA in some way regardless of time. This would imply knowledge from some source the place where something begins, the thing from which something is derived, or the person or group that initiated or created something.

    • Posted By: Tura Satana @ 01/25/2009 6:49:54 AM

      What mechanism (s) would allow this to happen regardless of the time it took. How would DNA be informed to be changed without knowledge to pass on to our genes .

      -Random mutation. Lamarckian evolution has been rejected (this flea has not changed that). And yes, by far most random mutation is harmful and those get weeded out, often at embryonic stage or in early life so those organsims never have the chance to reproduce. Hurrah for the occasional beneficial mutation!

      Our environment would have to communicate with our DNA in some way regardless of time.

      -Well, it does not, except in the limited sense of gene expression. Most of the time environment communicates simply by preventing some of us from passing on our genes.

    • Posted By: Tura Satana @ 01/25/2009 6:49:34 AM

      How would anything evolve a look a like eye without the knowledge of how it benefits it (the moth)?

      - All the different stages of the development of the eye are useful in themselves: they are all found today in living organisms, for example dots of light receptive cells and cups with light receptors - only good for sensing the direction of light - are found in various simple organisms such as worms. These would probably not benefit from a fully seeing eye, as they have not the nervous system capable of processing so much information.
      Nautilus has an eye like a pinhole camera, with no lense: just a hollw space with light receptors in the back. From the cup shape this is indeed a very small step.
      Various animals then have a fully enclosed eye like ours, but with less complex cornea and lense arrangement.
      The eye has evolved WITHOUT any knowledge of what the end product would be, and in moths it has indeed evolved through a different path. They have compound eyes: in essence lots of small, narrow, cup-type eyes, and this is not as efficient arrangement as the camera-type eye: evolution does not always come up with the absolute best answer every time.

      Why would camouflage a protective coloration in animals: the devices that animals use to blend into their environment in order to avoid being seen by predators or prey, especially coloration, sometimes shape.

      - Is this a question? Camouflage evolves the same as any other trait, and indeed offers the few instances when we have been able to observe evolution in action, as when it was noted that moths took on darker hues in polluted areas, better matching the soot-darkened environment.

      How is this knowledge passed on to DNA. It would take 10,000s of changes to get from a to b.

      -Yes, so it does sometimes.

      There are hundreds examples that can be given . Did a four legged animal start with 1 leg then 2 then 3 then 4 over millions of years or all at once 4 ?

      -Ancestors of four legged animals started with 4 limbs, that were originally simple fins, as you would know had you opened any biology textbook.

      Do we know for sure this flea uses its helmet for defense .

      -No, but we can device various tests to support this: we can test if the spiky fleas are avoided by predators, for example, we can also test other hypotheses like if they are more attractive to opposite sex perhaps.



Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse