Lamarkianism and antibiotics etc.

krd

Ziphius wrote: »

Thought I'd bump this thread as the New Scientist short list I posted earlier has been reduced to ten popular science books.

In order of influence they are:

[*]Silent Spring Carson

Carson, probably responsible for more death and human suffering than Stalin, Mao, and Hitler all rolled into one.

[*]An Essay on the Principle of Population Malthus

If Malthus had been correct, we'd all be, or at least the vast majority of us, dead by now.

Carson and Malthus were misanthropes who lacked imagination.

Ziphius

krd wrote: »

Carson, probably responsible for more death and human suffering than Stalin, Mao, and Hitler all rolled into one.

How so?

Edit Well I looked into this. It seems Carson was blamed with the deaths of millions due to her role in the banning of the pesticide DDT. DDT can be used kill malaria bearing mosquitoes responsible for millions of deaths.

It seems unfair to characterize Carson as a misanthrope. This quote from Silent Spring suggests she was well aware of the potential role of DDT in mosquito eradication and was cautioning against the indiscriminate, non-essential use in agriculture, rather than a total ban. Excessive use of pesticide, naturally, leads to evolved resistance.

No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored. The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is either wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are rapidly making it worse. The world has heard much of the triumphant war against disease through the control of insect vectors of infection, but it has heard little of the other side of the story—the defeats, the short-lived triumphs that now strongly support the alarming view that the insect enemy has been made actually stronger by our efforts. Even worse, we may have destroyed our very means of fighting ...
What is the measure of this setback? The list of resistant species now includes practically all of the insect groups of medical importance ... Malaria programs are threatened by resistance among mosquitoes ...
Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can" rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity" ..., Pressure on the pest population should always be as slight as possible.

Seems much of her criticism came, unsurprisingly, from the chemical industry and interests in agriculture.

Capt'n Midnight

Ziphius wrote: »

Even worse, we may have destroyed our very means of fighting ...

This

We wasted the golden age of antibiotics. Penicillin was a wonder drug. Be interesting to know how resistant bacteria are to phage, like the Russians use.

Like vaccines, the trick to malaria eradication is to get everyone on board, rather than doing it in dribs and drabs. Of course this is far easier said than done.

krd wrote:

If Malthus had been correct, we'd all be, or at least the vast majority of us, dead by now.

we are only here because of vastly improved yields and greater cultivated area. [URL="seafoodhttp://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/edu/learning/12_food/activities/salmon.html"]nearly half the world’s population gets the majority of its protein from seafood[/URL]

krd

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We wasted the golden age of antibiotics. Penicillin was a wonder drug.

Did we really waste the golden age of antibiotics?

This is actually a very interesting point to illustrate something. A diehard idea that keeps creeping back from the dead; Lamarkianism.

Something I've heard repeated in magazines, by medical professionals etc, that bacteria developed a resistance to our antibiotics because we were abusing them. That people were not taking their complete dose as prescribed, and failing to kill all the bacteria - that the germs that had survived, their survival meant they had developed a resistance to the antibiotic, and of course this resistance had been passed to future generations. And I have heard a very similar argument in relation to herbicides and pesticides. Do you see how the misconception can sneak its way back in.

Yes, the bacteria developed a resistance to the antibiotics - but it was not from exposure. The resistance had nothing to do with the antibiotic. The resistance came from a random mutation.

Hospital superbugs are not any more super than the bugs that came before them.

If you look at a can of Dettol, it says on the label "Kills 99.9% of bacteria and viruses". It sounds great, you've managed to massacre 99.9% of the germs, so there's only 0.1% of them left - you've reduced the enemy to a thousandth of its' previous size and you think you've won the war. And you haven't - because this where everything goes horribly wrong. The 0.1% is the mutant strain that is resistant to Dettol.

And now, you've wiped out its's competition for resources, (with pests and weeds, where there is sexual reproduction - you've wiped out the strains that might breed out the mutation). If you've really gone to town with the Dettol, your germs are now 100% resistant to Dettol. You're completely surrounded, and you're all out of ammunition.

And it's funny. An old nursing rule of thumb, that I think came straight out of Florence Nightingale's handbook - to open the windows and let the fresh air in. But of course doctors being clever clogs, realised that through the open windows, all kinds of germs and fungus spores were coming through. So, they sealed the windows, dosed the entire place in disinfectant, ran air-conditioning units that disinfected the air. They successfully killed 99.9% of the germs. And the super bugs appeared and took over.

And the reaction of hospitals has been more of the same failed weapon - even if they're successful in killing 99.9% of the superbugs with some new twist on the disinfectant, they're left with 0.1% of super resistant bugs.

Be interesting to know how resistant bacteria are to phage, like the Russians use.

You'll always have some bacteria that's resistant. The Lamarkian idea would be that the resistance is permanent - but it isn't. Antibiotics are fungi's immune mechanism. If bacteria could become permanently immune to a fungi's antibiotic, it would quickly overwhelm it. So, fungi must have a way of keeping things in balance. It kills just enough to survive, but not enough to lend an evolutionary hand to the bacteria that ends up wiping it out.

Like vaccines, the trick to malaria eradication is to get everyone on board, rather than doing it in dribs and drabs. Of course this is far easier said than done.

The trick is Africa is bloody huge, and doesn't have much money. It can be done, eventually it will be done.


But people like Carter have been part of the problem - and the "sustainable agriculture" brigade, the "organic" corn fuel crowd. They have made the situation worse. The Guardian newspaper sponsored a village in Uganda (to condescendingly teach the people "sustainable" development). The people of the village were mostly small farmers - tilling the land by hand. They regularly lost partially or completely, crops to pests - like the horned caterpillar. The ancient and "sustainable" method of "controlling" the horned caterpillar is to pick them off by hand - very time consuming, and they're hard to spot, and they can much their way through a lot in a few hours - so if you don't get them in time, your vegetables are gone. The modern method of controlling the caterpillar, is a teaspoon of pesticide, that can be bought at any American garden centre, in some water in a spray bottle, literally a few pence worth. Stop faffing about with your 80 grand all terrain Rang Rover and give the villagers a few kilos of the stuff you have in your garden shed.

we are only here because of vastly improved yields and greater cultivated area.

Yes, Malthus' "scientific" assumptions were wrong. Why are people still reading this crap, or thinking it's worth anything. It was misanthropic, nihilistic, and plain wrong. We are here, through vorsprung durch tecknik, better living through chemistry, the appliance of science.

Central to most religions, is a neurotic apocalyptic dread. The idea that through our sin - our loss of innocence - our evil modernity - that we are bringing about the end of the world. We can do a stunning environmental disaster, when we put our best Homer Simpson type minds to it. But the end of the world stuff, is a religious idea - and the second you see any of it dressed up as science an alarm bell should be ringing in your head.

People assume that an organic potato is better for them than one that isn't (but how could a potato be inorganic?). Because they think they've been hearing science - they haven't. The guy telling them the organic potato is better is a bloody hippy. And these ideas worm their way into the heads of people who should know better.

[URL="seafoodhttp://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/edu/learning/12_food/activities/salmon.html"]nearly half the world’s population gets the majority of its protein from seafood[/URL]

Where do they get the 70% figure? Per weight. here (Ireland), seafood protein is far more expensive than meat.

At some point in the future, everyone on the planet may have access to a machine, where you just press a button, and it pulls carbon and nitrogen, etc straight out of the air, and will give you as much foot on a plate as you ever eat in your life.

And that is a far more likely future than Malthus's doom.

krd

Never trust the opinion, scientific or otherwise, of someone, who wants fluoride removed from tap water, because they believe it's an international Jewish mind control plot.

Ziphius

krd wrote: »

Yes, the bacteria developed a resistance to the antibiotics - but it was not from exposure. The resistance had nothing to do with the antibiotic. The resistance came from a random mutation.

Well yeah, it's not Lamarkianism at work. But the antibiotic did select for resistance at the population level. The reason that it is recommended to take the full course of antibiotics and not stop half way through is not that the antibiotic will induce resistance into the bacteria. The reason is that stopping half way allows the bacteria populations, resistant or not, to increase in numbers. If the full course of antibiotics had been taken the immune system would have dealt with the remaining resistant bacteria. Thus improper usage of antibiotics increases the risk of resistant strains spreading.

Likewise overuse of antibiotics will, naturally, increase the chances of an antibiotic resistant strain being selected.

krd

Ziphius wrote: »

Well yeah, it's not Lamarkianism at work. But the antibiotic did select for resistance at the population level. The reason that it is recommended to take the full course of antibiotics and not stop half way through is not the antibiotic will induce resistance into the bacteria.

Antibiotics can no more induce resistance into bacteria, than tall trees can induce long necks in giraffes. Or that that long necked giraffe can pass its' new long neck onto its' progeny.

You sir... are a Lamarkian.

The Lamarkian idea just dies so hard because it's so intuitive. Watson and Crick should have been the end of the story, but it just won't die.

The reason is that stopping half way allows the bacteria populations, resistant or not, to increase in numbers. If the full course of antibiotics had been taken the immune system would have dealt with the remaining resistant bacteria.

You are wrong on several counts. Your natural immune system is completely independent of the antibiotic.

An antibiotic is an antibacterial toxin. Antibiotics are the immune system of fungi - that we have managed to harness. It's a toxin that kills bacteria, while not poisoning us, or the fungi.

Thus improper usage of antibiotics increases the risk of resistant strains spreading.

Even the proper usage of antibiotics will increase the risk of resistant strains spreading.

And the resistant strains were always going to spread. They are random mutations, whose mutation is an immunity to the antibiotic toxin. They would exist with or without antibiotics.

Likewise over use of antibiotics will, naturally, increase the chances of a antibiotic resistant strain being selected.

No, the antibiotic resistant strain will always be the one who gets away.

Nature looks so amazing it's hard not to believe there is some intelligent designer, or that their is some ordered mechanism plotting its' course. In reality its' insane randomness.

steddyeddy

You sir... are a Lamarkian.

As am I to a degree. Recent developments in genetics seem say that to something similar to Lamarkian is going on im some kingdoms (eukaryotes more than prokaryotes in truth).

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

As am I to a degree. Recent developments in genetics seem say that to something similar to Lamarkian is going on im some kingdoms (eukaryotes more than prokaryotes in truth).

one of the mechanism is that under stress DNA repair mechanisms don't work as efficiently so that the mutation rate goes up

it's not Lamarkian but the end result can appear to be similar.

As Nietzsche would put it "that which does not kill me makes me stronger"

steddyeddy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

one of the mechanism is that under stress DNA repair mechanisms don't work as efficiently so that the mutation rate goes up

it's not Lamarkian but the end result can appear to be similar.

As Nietzsche would put it "that which does not kill me makes me stronger"

And a lot of epigenetic inheritence seems to be pointing that way.

krd

steddyeddy wrote: »

As am I to a degree. Recent developments in genetics seem say that to something similar to Lamarkian is going on im some kingdoms (eukaryotes more than prokaryotes in truth).

Similiar....the thing is about Lamarkianism, is it's so seductive - it's a kind of thing your head just wants to fall into believing.

The truth is just so hard to believe. That the mechanism is just blind randomness. And the successful mutations look so ordered they seem by design.

Ziphius

krd wrote: »

Antibiotics can no more induce resistance into bacteria, than tall trees can induce long necks in giraffes. Or that that long necked giraffe can pass its' new long neck onto its' progeny.

I've edited my other post to add clarity. I left out a word which made my meaning a bit ambiguous. I'll restate here:

Antiobitic use does not induce antibiotic resistance into individual bacterium.

I think we're in agreement here.

krd wrote: »

You are wrong on several counts. Your natural immune system is completely independent of the antibiotic.

Wrong? On several counts? Do elaborate.

The immune system works with antibiotics to remove infection. I'm not saying that they are the same thing.

krd wrote: »

Even the proper usage of antibiotics will increase the risk of resistant strains spreading.

And the resistant strains were always going to spread. They are random mutations, whose mutation is an immunity to the antibiotic toxin. They would exist with or without antibiotics.

Well no, antibiotics do not make antibiotic resistant bacteria but they do create an environment in which antibiotic resistance is an advantage. Therefore we can say that antibiotic use selects for antibiotic resistance. In the same way, faster predators can select for faster prey.

krd wrote: »

No, the antibiotic resistant strain will always be the one who gets away.

This is why it is important to finish a course of antibiotics. To give the immune system opportunity to kill all bacteria.

krd wrote: »

Nature looks so amazing it's hard not to believe there is some intelligent designer, or that their is some ordered mechanism plotting its' course. In reality its' insane randomness.

Sure, mutation is random. But selection isn't. There is a degree of predictability to evolution. And I don't mean in old Lamarckian hierarchy of being way but in the arms race between predator and prey.

It's funny, you're views on evolution are actually far more Lamarckian than mine.

Ziphius

steddyeddy wrote: »

As am I to a degree. Recent developments in genetics seem say that to something similar to Lamarkian is going on im some kingdoms (eukaryotes more than prokaryotes in truth).

I'm actually a fairly through and through neo-darwinian. Selection at the gene level and all that. I still haven't read that book you recommended on epigenetics though. Perhaps I'll change my mind.

steddyeddy

krd wrote: »

Similiar....the thing is about Lamarkianism, is it's so seductive - it's a kind of thing your head just wants to fall into believing.

The truth is just so hard to believe. That the mechanism is just blind randomness. And the successful mutations look so ordered they seem by design.

Im not operating on belief. Im operating and basing my opinion on peer revied studies. DNA methylation was known for years. Methylation and acetylation of histones can switch on and off certain genes (as can operons) but recent study shows that these genes can stay switched on or off into the next generation. DNA is methylated in response to enviromental stimuli and interestingly enough the change is passed on in other generations. It seems to a degree changes made in one life are passed on to the next generation to some degree and that to me makes evoluationary sense.

krd

Ziphius wrote: »

I've edited my other post to add clarity.

Come on, you're not really allowed do that. That muddies the water. When I say something really stupid in a post - as I do with incredible regularity, I leave it there.

Wrong? On several counts? Do elaborate.

The immune system works with antibiotics to remove infection. I'm not saying that they are the same thing.

Since I was a child I've been hearing all kinds of garbled descriptions of how antibiotics work. And these garbled descriptions end up in the media and in various places. I don't know where many have come from.

The antibiotic is a toxin. It's a poison. It doesn't work in partnership with the immune system, it just poisons the bacteria that is not resistant to it. The immune system works independently. It can and does kill bacteria too, though it can be overwhelmed. An antibiotic can make life easier for the immune system - but there's no real interaction between the two.

Well no, antibiotics do not make antibiotic resistant bacteria but they do create an environment in which antibiotic resistance is an advantage. Therefore we can say that antibiotic use selects for antibiotic resistance. In the same way, faster predators can select for faster prey.

You're still framing it in a twisted way. Like saying the antibiotic selects for extinction, bacteria that does not have resistance to it. Or that faster prey select slower predators for extinction.

This is why it is important to finish a course of antibiotics. To give the immune system opportunity to kill all bacteria.

You still have the wrong idea. The immune system will kill as many of the bacteria as it can. The antibiotic will just kill as many of the bacteria as it can - some may have a greater or lesser resistance to it. Some bacteria will always get away. Maybe infect another host, or become extinct.

And this is where the wrong thinking has everything back to front. It might be better not to complete the whole course of antibiotics. As that may be increasing the population of antibiotic resistant strains. (this is if the lesser resistant bacteria compete with the resistant bacteria in some way)

Sure, mutation is random. But selection isn't. There is a degree of predictability to evolution. And I don't mean in old Lamarckian hierarchy of being way but in the arms race between predator and prey.

Selection is completely the wrong word. It's like saying the Lotto wheel selects the winner every week.

It's funny, you're views on evolution are actually far more Lamarckian than mine.

Again, you are wrong.



I'll give another idea of how it all happens. Among Africans there is a very high incidence of sickle cell anemia. And there's high incidence among black Americans. It's a genetic disease. People with sickle cell anemia have one advantage - they are immune to malaria. And it's simple as this. People with the sickle cell mutation were not killed by malaria, and as a result there were more of them, so they passed on the mutation. Leave it long enough, without any other intervention, everyone in Africa in the malarial zones would have become sickle celled. Then malaria would have died out (no or few hosts to infect). And then, because sickle cell has it's disadvantages, it would eventually die out too.

krd

steddyeddy wrote: »

Im not operating on belief. Im operating and basing my opinion on peer revied studies.

Peer revied?

DNA methylation was known for years. Methylation and acetylation of histones can switch on and off certain genes (as can operons) but recent study shows that these genes can stay switched on or off into the next generation.

You know, it's a massive stretch of the imagination to believe there is some kind of intelligent selection at that level. Is the methylation of the histones any better than random mutation. Mutation is a useful faculty - a useful adaptation. Full Lamarkianism - useful adaptations gained in the life of the organism and then past on to the next generation would be a wonderful faculty. Unfortunately, it just does not happen. You'd need an incredible level of intelligence at the cell level. And the cells would need to be in communication it just doesn't happen.


Now. I know someone who was doing research on yeast (they're not around so I can't ask them.) But one thing they were aware of and looking at, was the way different species of yeast share DNA/RNA. The effective way it works, is different yeasts will helpfully give each other modifications for their particular environment. .................But really what they do, is just flog bits of genetic code at each other - the useful bits stick. And because of the environment - just on the basis of the law of large numbers, those bits will be mostly useful. So it would appear there's some intelligence, when there really isn't.

DNA is methylated in response to enviromental stimuli and interestingly enough the change is passed on in other generations.

I do not believe the short necked predecessors of the giraffe, methylated their DNA and grew their necks longer, so they could reach the leaves on the higher branches.

It seems to a degree changes made in one life are passed on to the next generation to some degree

That degree might be so tiny as to be completely negligible.

and that to me makes evoluationary sense.

And it makes evolutionary sense to you,,,,,because you sir are a Lamarkian, who just won't give up the ghost.

Darwin wasn't happy with his own idea. He didn't publish for years. There's an ugliness to it.

Ziphius

krd wrote: »

Come on, you're not really allowed do that. That muddies the water. When I say something really stupid in a post - as I do with incredible regularity, I leave it there.

I've noticed.

krd wrote: »

Since I was a child I've been hearing all kinds of garbled descriptions of how antibiotics work. And these garbled descriptions end up in the media and in various places. I don't know where many have come from.

The antibiotic is a toxin. It's a poison. It doesn't work in partnership with the immune system, it just poisons the bacteria that is not resistant to it. The immune system works independently. It can and does kill bacteria too, though it can be overwhelmed. An antibiotic can make life easier for the immune system - but there's no real interaction between the two.

This is just semantics. We both know what antibiotics and the immune system are.

krd wrote: »

You're still framing it in a twisted way. Like saying the antibiotic selects for extinction, bacteria that does not have resistance to it. Or that faster prey select slower predators for extinction.

You said I was Lamarckian earlier :rolleyes: Nature selects traits -- genes -- that's why it's called "natural selection".

krd wrote: »

You still have the wrong idea. The immune system will kill as many of the bacteria as it can. The antibiotic will just kill as many of the bacteria as it can - some may have a greater or lesser resistance to it. Some bacteria will always get away. Maybe infect another host, or become extinct.

No, this is the reason why finishing a course of antibiotics is important.

krd wrote: »

And this is where the wrong thinking has everything back to front. It might be better not to complete the whole course of antibiotics. As that may be increasing the population of antibiotic resistant strains. (this is if the lesser resistant bacteria compete with the resistant bacteria in some way)

Funny, this was the argument used by Rachel Carson regarding pesticides. But she's worse than Hitler, right?

krd wrote: »

Selection is completely the wrong word. It's like saying the Lotto wheel selects the winner every week.

Selection is the word. I recommend this book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Species-Wordsworth-Classics-Literature/dp/1853267805/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1349455866&sr=8-2

krd wrote: »

Again, you are wrong.

This post actually makes you look more of Lamarckian. I'll give you a clue: there's more to his theory than just giraffes long necks

krd wrote: »

I'll give another idea of how it all happens. Among Africans there is a very high incidence of sickle cell anemia. And there's high incidence among black Americans. It's a genetic disease. People with sickle cell anemia have one advantage - they are immune to malaria. And it's simple as this. People with the sickle cell mutation were not killed by malaria, and as a result there were more of them, so they passed on the mutation. Leave it long enough, without any other intervention, everyone in Africa in the malarial zones would have become sickle celled. Then malaria would have died out (no or few hosts to infect). And then, because sickle cell has it's disadvantages, it would eventually die out too.

Er no, it is the heterozygous carriers (i.e. those who have the sickle cell and also a healthy copy) who have resistance to malaria and also no (or very minor) anemia. I don't really see how this example is relevant anyway.

krd

Ziphius wrote: »

This is just semantics.

Aw yes the wonderful contortions semantics can twist you into. There's really only a problem with semantics when there is some kind of contradiction that needs hiding.

We both know what antibiotics and the immune system are.

I'm not sure we both do.

You said I was Lamarckian earlier :rolleyes: Nature selects traits -- genes -- that's why it's called "natural selection".

I'm not convinced you're not.

No, this is the reason why finishing a course of antibiotics is important.

And then you... go on to contradict yourself, in the next statement.

Funny, this was the argument used by Rachel Carson regarding pesticides. But she's worse than Hitler, right?

Carson campaigned to have DDT outlawed - I think because you found some dead birds after a spraying near her house. She could have easily campaigned for the outlawing of Malathion.

Without Carson it would have only been a matter of time until the hippies came along to tell us that our supermarket apples were covered in deadly poison.

It's not just me who blames Carson for the hysterics, that even to this day, have condescending middle-class housewives insisting on "sustainable development" in places like Africa - in other words, you can't use pesticides, because they're "unsustainable".

This post actually makes you look more of Lamarckian. I'll give you a clue: there's more to his theory than just giraffes long necks

Yep, there is more to it. It's so ingrained in the psyches of some people they can't let go. So they frame their statements in such a way as to accommodate Lamarckianism, even though they openly deny that's what they're doing - when in fact, that's what they are doing.

Er no, it is the heterozygous carriers (i.e. those who have the sickle cell and also a healthy copy) who have resistance to malaria and also no (or very minor) anemia. I don't really see how this example is relevant anyway.

No you're just being a pedantic and punctilious nit picker, just trying to score points.

Ziphius

krd wrote: »

Aw yes the wonderful contortions semantics can twist you into. There's really only a problem with semantics when there is some kind of contradiction that needs hiding.

When discussing evolutionary biology absolute clarity of words is essential.

krd wrote: »

I'm not sure we both do.

Perhaps I was too generous. I, at least, know what they are.

krd wrote: »

I'm not convinced you're not.

Why would a Lamarkian use natural selection to explain something? I doubt you know what either term actually mean,

krd wrote: »

And then you... go on to contradict yourself, in the next statement.

This isn't a contradiction. Firstly finishing a course of antibiotics and using antibiotics sparingly are not a contradiction. Both are done to prevent evolution of resistance. Secondly, I mentioned this to draw attention to your own poor thinking. Why is it wrong when Carson to use this argument but not when you do?

krd wrote: »

Carson campaigned to have DDT outlawed - I think because you found some dead birds after a spraying near her house. She could have easily campaigned for the outlawing of Malathion.

Without Carson it would have only been a matter of time until the hippies came along to tell us that our supermarket apples were covered in deadly poison.

It's not just me who blames Carson for the hysterics, that even to this day, have condescending middle-class housewives insisting on "sustainable development" in places like Africa - in other words, you can't use pesticides, because they're "unsustainable".

Go back and read my earlier Carson quote. She warned against the overuse of pesticide as this would lead to evolution of resistance. Then you suggested the same thing regarding antibiotics.

krd wrote: »

Yep, there is more to it. It's so ingrained in the psyches of some people they can't let go. So they frame their statements in such a way as to accommodate Lamarckianism, even though they openly deny that's what they're doing - when in fact, that's what they are doing.

I've never seen this before.

krd wrote: »

No you're just being a pedantic and punctilious nit picker, just trying to score points.

:rolleyes: Poor choice of words. Why not try to justify your example rather than just hand wave it off.

Why don't you explain how you think evolution works.

steddyeddy

krd wrote: »

Peer revied?

Before dealing with your other points I’ll deal with this one. I assume you know what peer reviewed means and Ill assume you know that I meant peer reviewed. If you’re rebutting a scientific theory and you resort to criticising my spelling, grammar or syntax then what it really shows is that you lack understanding of what I’m putting forward. It’s not befitting a scientific conversation.

steddyeddy

Now Krd Ill deal with your scientific points as opposed to you non-scientific "rebuttals".

You know, it's a massive stretch of the imagination to believe there is some kind of intelligent selection at that level.

It’s not about imagination. I’m talking about experiments that were conducted and observations made.

Is the methylation of the histones any better than random mutation.

Yes because it builds a better gene machine and so ensures the propagation of the genes into future generations.

Mutation is a useful faculty - a useful adaptation. Full Lamarkianism - useful adaptations gained in the life of the organism and then past on to the next generation would be a wonderful faculty.

Its mostly driven by random mutation but the ability to silence genes throughout generations would greatly aid gene survival.

Unfortunately, it just does not happen. You'd need an incredible level of intelligence at the cell level. And the cells would need to be in communication it just doesn't happen.

I really think you need to examine that sentence for scientific inaccuracies.

krd

steddyeddy wrote: »

I really think you need to examine that sentence for scientific inaccuracies.

Within the context, I was not inaccurate. The cells in the neck of a woman, are not in communication with the eggs in her ovaries.

Unless, you think so.

krd

I may just throw this in here, for whateva.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22367-failed-malaria-drug-regains-its-potency.html

steddyeddy

Krd I meant to reply to your earlier post. All I can say is cells do communicate. The Notch-mediated juxtacrine signal functions between nearby cells but hormones and other biomolecules facilitate long range signaling.

Ziphius

krd wrote: »

I may just throw this in here, for whateva.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22367-failed-malaria-drug-regains-its-potency.html

Interesting. Although, this is entirely consistent with Darwinian natural selection.