Biology's Second Law. The Weismann barrier. The barrier that wasn't

[@Stevie-J]

I'm here after watching an interview with Denis Noble. His philosophical views regarding purpose, function, and intention are quite interesting. This video is very helpful for understanding the topic further, thank you

[@VelhaGuardaTricolor]

Funny I watched the other way around. But given the recent findings Mr.Noble mentions 2023 this video by Mr.Turner from 2012 shows its limitations.

[@Stevie-J]

@@VelhaGuardaTricolor Good point. I think public debate and informed conversations are very literally "the science." Mr Noble and Mr Turner are top rate scientists in that regard

[@emrecanaksakal8307]

Thank you proffesor, probably best real and serious video about it in all KZbin

[@macrotermiteman]

Many thanks! Scott Turner

[@RadicalCaveman]

Wow. You really go to the concept. I salute you, sir!

[@abableeah3070]

Great production. Thanks!

[@michaelparadjian2459]

Great explanation!!!

[@tristanotear3059]

There’s more about this in Jessica Riskin’s excellent The Restless Clock, in which she describes the titanic effort amongst biologists to NOT be Lamarkian. She concludes that, after all this storm and stress, Darwin turned out to be kinda ….Lamarkian.

[@NAScholars]

Yes, I am a big fan of Jessica Riskin's book. Even Darwin acknowledged (sideways) that adaptation had to be heritable in some way. Gene selectionism proposed an answer, but we are only recently coming to see the validity of the Lamarckian idea. Not only for the connection from DNA to function, but to the much broader scope of heritable adaptation.

[@tuulaniemi1826]

But how can this explain changes from one genesis species to another? Epigenetic explains, as far as I can see, only the variations within the species

[@macrotermiteman]

The important story about epigenetics is that it closes the one-way flow of information embodied in the central dogma (from DNA to RNA to protein, never back). This allows genetic information to be defined by the life experience of the organism, and makes adaptation heritable in a way not possible if the central dogma is true. It is fundamentally Lamarckian in scope, not Darwinian. As for the bigger question of macroevolution, well ... not there yet.

[@JohnHodge-dq2og]

What about evolution of social structure?

[@islamicschoolofmemestudies]

good explanation

[@borgholable]

so neo-darwinism should more accurately be called morganism , and darwin was a lamarckian after all , i wonder what dawkins would say to this

[@macrotermiteman]

Absolutely right. The irony is that Morgan himself thought his mutationism disproved the Darwinian (and Lamarckian) conception of evolution. It was only when Fisher, Haldane, and Wright figured out a way to introduce selection into the Hardy-Weinberg Law that mutationism suddenly became Darwinian again. And additional irony: Darwin himself was more of a Lamarckian than he wanted to admit.

[@nbrockway]

What about the Russian who preached that environment determines changes in genes?

[@macrotermiteman]

Do you mean Lysenko?

[@michelandre8106]

Ukrainian

[@macrotermiteman]

So, then, I'm guessing Lysenko, since he was Ukrainian. Lysenko was indeed a Lamarckist, although I'm not sure you can say he believed that the environment determines changes in genes, since he did not really subscribe to the concept of the Mendelian gene, or to Morgan's own gene-based mutationist concept. The big problem with Lysenko is not so much that he was a Lamarckian, but that he became an agent of Stalinist thuggery.

[@michelandre8106]

@@macrotermiteman lyssenko is an exemple of an ideology that replaced science. He managed to eliminate the botanist Vavilov. Nowadays epigenetic is used as an ideology for those who are too leasy to understand neodarwinism and also to learn about the biochemistery of the DNA.

[@macrotermiteman]

@@michelandre8106 Yes, Lysenko was a Stalinist thug. Vavilov was not his only victim. As for epigenetic "ideology", every legitimate science can be distorted in the hands of ideologues, but I would take issue with the laziness accusation. That's not helpful. If anything, the more we learn of the biochemistry of DNA, the less it supports a gene-centric view of evolution.

[@jonathanhume6628]

Disclosure: This video was funded by the Templeton Foundation

[@macrotermiteman]

Your point being ...?

[@geoffrygifari3377]

Hmmm... maybe i can improve the success of my offspring, not by strengthening my own muscles through blacksmithing and hoping that gets passed on, but by manipulating my testicles in such a way that the DNA in my germ cells get methylated in the best way

[@RadicalCaveman]

Manipulate those testicles!

[@papneuro]

Totally absurd.Your thinking:There has to be evolution.Since we don't observe any,we hypothesize nonsense.

[@macrotermiteman]

I’m afraid I don’t follow …