Fascinating.... Darwin and Lamarck

[laptoppop]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/180103

 

[Biblewriter]

From the linked article:

A 2006 study by the same scientists found that when fathers smoked as young boys, their sons tended to be more obese than did the sons of men who did not smoke as boys. Similar to the lab mice, the experience of the parents is visited upon the children and even the grandchildren.

We already read about this in the Bible.

The Lord described himself as "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." in Exodus 20:5, Numbers 14:18, and Deuteronomy 5:9

 

[RobertByers]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/180103

Indeed there are new ideas about body change. They talk about a island where lizards suddenly developed new organs. just from the diet. They say its evolution from old evolution dna triggers but still it shows something not suspected.
DNA sensitivity is a welcome discovery to me since I insist marsupials are just placentals who suddenly changed for some need. so their dna , hand in hand, changed likewise.
This study must show that a creatures dna changed indeed from some need.
So its dna must be different then its cousins. So extend this idea with a big change making big dna change. So dna differences between marsupials/placentals is, by this study, trivial matters.
AMEN

 

[laptoppop]

No, the weird part was that you have two critters, with and without the "helmets" whose DNA is the SAME. There's more to heaven and earth, than is dreamed of in your philosophy, Mr. Darwin!

 

[Mallon]

Out of curiosity, have you ever met an evolutionist who denied the action of mechanisms other than natural selection in evolution, pop? Personally, I can't say as I know of any evolutionist who insists that natural selection is the ONLY factor in evolution. There are many mechanisms known. Natural selection is simply the most prominent.

 

[mark kennedy]

I agree that it's fascinating and the actual mechanism is as yet unidentified. As the article concludes, 'last word on inheritance and evolution has not been written', but one thing is certain. Darwinian gradualism has never been anything more then a generality.

Thanks for sharing the article.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[laptoppop]

Out of curiosity, have you ever met an evolutionist who denied the action of mechanisms other than natural selection in evolution, pop? Personally, I can't say as I know of any evolutionist who insists that natural selection is the ONLY factor in evolution. There are many mechanisms known. Natural selection is simply the most prominent.

Perhaps -- but this is just strange. Physical features in the offspring, not based on DNA, but rather based on the life experience of the mom? I don't think anyone these days would have seen that coming!

 

[shernren]

No, the weird part was that you have two critters, with and without the "helmets" whose DNA is the SAME. There's more to heaven and earth, than is dreamed of in your philosophy, Mr. Darwin!

Here's a quick question. Does this finding actually help creationism?

For example, when the anti-evolutionist says "Evolution doesn't work because mutations can't generate new information", maybe the anti-creationist can now say: "New information isn't needed for structural change, anyhow. Remember the epigenetics experiments?"

If you define evolution as "any naturalistic explanation for how life or its features developed" (as creationists often do, anyhow), then epigenetic plasticity is certainly one form of evolution, even if it is not narrowly Darwinian.

 

[Mallon]

Perhaps -- but this is just strange. Physical features in the offspring, not based on DNA, but rather based on the life experience of the mom? I don't think anyone these days would have seen that coming!

Epigenetics have been known for some time. It's not unheard of these days.

 

[The Barbarian]

I

ndeed there are new ideas about body change. They talk about a island where lizards suddenly developed new organs. just from the diet.

Nope. Natural selection.

They say its evolution from old evolution dna triggers but still it shows something not suspected.

Hmm... according to Darwin, this should happen if the diet changes. Plant material takes more time to digest, so those with more circuitous digestive passages will tend to survive. Over time, you get the lizards with more complicated alimentary tracts. No surprise there, except that it happened a bit faster than most scientists would have expected.

DNA sensitivity is a welcome discovery to me since I insist marsupials are just placentals who suddenly changed for some need.

No evidence for that one. Indeed, we would see some artifacts of placental animals in them, as we see vestiges for any evolved organism.

 

[Mallon]

It's also worth mentioning that marsupials differ from placental mammals not just in their form of gestation, but in the morphology of the hip bones, reproductive organs, teeth, and brains. I would be curious to know how all these changes fit within your model, RobertByers.

 

[RobertByers]

It's also worth mentioning that marsupials differ from placental mammals not just in their form of gestation, but in the morphology of the hip bones, reproductive organs, teeth, and brains. I would be curious to know how all these changes fit within your model, RobertByers.

Well I've dealt with this before.
Reproductive organs, teeth, and parts of the brain would change when a need was to met to increase production for creatures moving into areas furthest from the ark.
Hip bones would be, hadn't heard about that, a minor adaption just like other "orders' changed in other places on earth for local reasons.
Its fine but we need another thread.

 

[Assyrian]

So, how long do you think dingos have been in Australia?

 

[Mallon]

Well I've dealt with this before.

I hope you won't mind if I ask some more questions, then. I'm interested in exploring your model.
1) Marsupial fossils are known from all over the globe, yet they are a dominating presence only in Australia. How does your model account for this history and distribution of Marsupialia?
2) Do you view the evolution of the pouch as "new information"?
3) Are marsupials all one "kind"? Did they all evolve from a single common ancestor?

Or do you see all mammals as a single "kind", given that you think marsupials descended from placental mammals?
4) Are marsupials evolving at the same rate today that you figure they evolved in the past? If not, what is the mechanism that controls their rate of evolution?

Reproductive organs, teeth, and parts of the brain would change when a need was to met to increase production for creatures moving into areas furthest from the ark.

5) How do you think, say, the different tooth counts of marsupials allowed them to better colonize Australia?

Hip bones would be, hadn't heard about that, a minor adaption just like other "orders' changed in other places on earth for local reasons.

6) Adaptation for what?

Thanks for the answers, Robert. I appreciate your time.

 

[laptoppop]

Epigenetics have been known for some time. It's not unheard of these days.

So what does this do with the biblical story of the speckled sheep?

A close reading of the story just describes the actions, but does not actually say that their lifestyle changed the sheep's offspring. It leaves room for the shepherd to have been thinking he was causing the speckles when it was actually just God doing it. On the other hand.... it just gets curious.

Has anyone actually replicated the sheep experiment over a few sheepish generations?

 

[RobertByers]

I hope you won't mind if I ask some more questions, then. I'm interested in exploring your model.
1) Marsupial fossils are known from all over the globe, yet they are a dominating presence only in Australia. How does your model account for this history and distribution of Marsupialia?
2) Do you view the evolution of the pouch as "new information"?
3) Are marsupials all one "kind"? Did they all evolve from a single common ancestor?

Or do you see all mammals as a single "kind", given that you think marsupials descended from placental mammals?
4) Are marsupials evolving at the same rate today that you figure they evolved in the past? If not, what is the mechanism that controls their rate of evolution?


5) How do you think, say, the different tooth counts of marsupials allowed them to better colonize Australia?


6) Adaptation for what?

Thanks for the answers, Robert. I appreciate your time.

I wrote an essay called "Post flood Marsupial migration Explained" by robert byers. just google.

They were around the planet after the flood.
No evolution but quick innate adaptation of creatures to fill the earth from the farthest places from the ark.
Many kinds of creatures also colonized earth with changes for local needs like these marsupials.
once the need is met and over they just stay in the last gear they were in. no more change goes on.