The scientists believe that the theories of Darwin and Mark coexist, and even complement each other
Some time ago he received Prof. Yitzhak Papel A phone call from his brother: "You're a scientist, so maybe you could help me with an argument I had with friends: which came first, the egg or the chicken?" This conversation led to a collaboration between Prof. Pepper, from the Department of Molecular Genetics at the Weizmann Institute of Science, and Dr. Oded Ravavi from Tel Aviv University. in the article they published The two in the scientific journal Biology Direct They claim that biologically, the eternal question - which comes first: the egg or the chicken - is not a paradox at all. And not only that, but it can even be used as a parable illustrating the gap between two versions of the theory of evolution: Lamarck's version and Darwin's version.
At the beginning of the 19th century, the French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck argued that the diversity of species in nature was created as a result of the transmission of acquired traits through heredity. According to his theory of evolution, living beings are subject to environmental influences that cause them to change, in order to adapt to the environment, and these acquired changes are transmitted to their offspring through the egg or sperm. In other words, the chicken (which adapted to the environment and changed itself) preceded the egg. On the other hand, according to the modern version of evolution, which developed from Darwin's theory, the new species are created following genetic mutations that occur in the egg or sperm - and only then are they tested according to their suitability to the environment; That is, according to this view, the egg preceded the chicken.
Since Darwin's concept is much more widespread in nature, in most cases the egg precedes the chicken (at least in terms of perception). But if Lamarckian evolution also takes place in nature, then in some cases, the chicken is the one that precedes the egg.
For about 200 years, the perception was widespread that Lamarck was wrong, but recently scientists began to discover that there are cases in which the concept he presented was still valid; That is, there are cases where the acquired changes are indeed inherited. Prof. Pepper wrote recently Another article, which was published in the scientific journal Cell, in which he proposed - together with research student Idan Frumkin, and with former research student Dr. Avihu Yona, currently a post-doctoral researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) - a series of possible explanations for how evolution occurs according to Lamarck's concept - on the molecular level . The scientists maintain that when changes occur over time as a response to new environmental pressures, evolution acts as a kind of relay race, where at each stage of the process the "stick" is "passed" to the next one, thus accelerating the transition to the next stage.
The scientists propose to represent the types of adaptation of the living creature to environmental conditions according to the time span in which they exist: starting with short-term changes that do not affect the DNA at all, and ending with long-term adaptation, which changes the genetic load. Among the short-term changes are those that affect gene expression, but do not change the DNA sequence. This happens, for example, when in response to being at a high topographical height, the body produces more red blood cells that allow it to deal with a lack of oxygen. If harsh conditions persist for a long time, the environmental adaptation goes up a notch, to the epigenetic level - where, for example, changes in DNA occur that do not affect the genetic sequence. But in the end, if the harsh conditions continue to exist for a very long time, mutations may occur - that is, a change in the DNA sequence itself. In this way, just as Lemark claimed, the parents can pass on to their offspring the changes that occurred in their bodies during their lifetime, through changes in the genetic load of the egg and sperm cells.
Prof. Pepper and his research partners believe that the evolutionary messenger race developed because it allowed living creatures to quickly adapt to new conditions. But it is possible that the same mechanism is also used by cancer cells. It is known, for example, that these cells often contain extra copies of chromosomes. This phenomenon may develop in cancer cells as a kind of "messenger" in the messenger race: it increases the number of genes that contribute to the development of cancer, and spurs the formation of mutations that help the tumor develop faster.
|
When the cell divides, DNA mutations occur one in a billion letters; Errors in the number of chromosomes in a cell occur once in 100,000 divisions.
#Science_Numbers
|
28 תגובות
Ori
On the one hand - the environment cannot influence the DNA in a deliberate way. The reason is that the genetic code is unidirectional.
On the other hand - the environment is definitely inherited, through consciousness. There is no genetic difference between us and the ancient lake from 50,000 years ago. Even in many animals, a lot of information is passed on to the offspring through learning from the parents.
The combination between the two approaches is possible: the one who has the ability to pass on to his offspring, traits that have been improved during his life so that it fits the environmental conditions (Lemark), his chance of survival increases (Darwin).
It seems that the ability to build a nest like that of the sparrowhawk or the swallow was acquired and developed over time. It doesn't seem logical that the bird's knowledge/ability to build such a complex structure. Created as a result of a genetic mutation just randomly.
Evolution and in particular the theory of species has not been empirically scientifically proven.
A populist theory to free people to do what they want
On the other hand, a testimony handed down by thousands of people without interruption is more reliable - the status of Mount Sinai
The basic question is still asked:
What is the mechanism that causes genetic changes as a result of "environmental stress"?
It is not clear from the article.
As long as no answer is given to this question, Lamarckism has no revival.
Beauty
"The fact that the scientific community ignores the facts,
and tries to refer to other topics
In order to sow sand in the poor, and prevent seeing the facts that knock down the theory..."
What are you talking about?
Where do you see a little sand in the poor?
Scientists have found a new developmental mechanism that works in addition to natural selection and are publishing it. Where do you see facts being ignored?
Miracles
Many things Darwin does not know. In fact, the theory has undergone so many changes of how the mechanism of clarification works.
It would have been more correct for me to write a theory of selection rather than Darwin.
The question about the ears is really interesting, and if I understood correctly it still does not have an unequivocal answer. It may be that the genes that cause droopy ears are related to other genes that affect behavior. In the fascinating experiment they carried out in Russia of domesticating foxes. The only refinement they exercised was a lack of reluctance and fondness for humans, yet after many generations foxes with drooping ears were created.
A.
It is true what you say, but Darwin did not fully understand it. He did think there was an influence of parents on offspring. In the Origin of Species, he writes, for example, that the ears of farm animals are drooping because they don't need to be afraid of madmen.
A.
The mere raising of this question constitutes a contradiction to the correctness of the theory.
The fact that the scientific community ignores the facts,
and tries to refer to other topics
In order to sow sand in the poor, and prevent seeing the facts that knock down the theory...
Beauty
This is not the usual question of the chicken and the egg. The question is inspired by the original question and it is: when does any change begin? In the parents' generation or the children's generation.
At the beginning of the theories of evolution, it was thought that the changes start in the parents' generation, their use of a certain organ develops it in them (stretching the neck of a giraffe, for example, or training an antelope to run) and then they give birth to offspring if a trait is developed. In other words, the chicken comes before the egg.
Darwin brought a new theory of natural selection. So that every change starts in the children's generation (that is, already in the swamp). So as if the egg came before the chicken.
Today, new mechanisms of information transfer outside the genes are being discovered, so that actually changes that are the result of environmental pressures that start in the parent's generation, can be passed on to the children's generation. So sometimes the chicken comes before the egg.
In other words:
Who even asks this question
A sign that he does not understand the basis of this theory...
How much nonsense can you write?
The question of "what came before" ignores the "evolutionary" nature of the theory...
If these are small steps of development,
How can you even ask such a question?
The transition was bilateral. Why do you think there are blond Jews? Also the assertion that the Jewishness according to the mother is because of the rapes that took place. The community's support should also be included in the calculation, so I don't know how many have really died from poverty.
Regarding the Jews and the hiton tradition of the eloi with the gentleman's daughter:
Well, this is the Middle Ages. His wealth the family gained would certainly have resulted in a better survival of descendants in the face of the lack of food, and diseases, and the fact that paying taxes to the local estate owner would certainly have been an important survival factor for the community and the family.
On the other hand, 1000 years in which this prakitaka was applied (if indeed it was applied with sufficient piety and not as some curiosity) would not have been enough to create a genetic change in the population.
On the third side, we have to remember what the Christians did with their smart young people - they sent them to a monastery, thus cutting down these stored gardens.
And on the fourth side, it should be remembered that these were not completely separate communities, there was definitely a movement of people from one side to the other (a movement that was mainly one-way).
In addition to all of these, the stew must be taken into account as a factor in the selection of the kashers. The Jews who really survived were the ones who managed to get up from the traditional Shabbat meal.
Miracles
I agree with your opinion.
Bouncer…
I have also heard of such a study, and of a study that claims that certain tribes are more violent because of acts of rape they have committed in the past.
These studies show a correlation between observations, but they do not prove dependence.
And maybe these are topics that shouldn't be explored too much, so as not to encourage things we don't want. For example, there are those today who claim that because the poor have more children, and because there is a correlation between intelligence and income, then the level of intelligence in the world is decreasing.
may be…
Unlike you, with your sly insinuations, misplaced arrogance, and rampant stupidity, I do understand what I'm saying.
You have your own agenda, which you don't exactly hide, and apart from preaching, you have never contributed to the discussion here.
I'm not commenting for you, I'm commenting so that none of your nonsense misleads someone who really wants to learn.
If you don't want me to address your comments, go away. If you don't have anything smart to answer, then don't answer.
Bouncer
Regarding the Jews
The question is whether students who were considered elite in studies had a higher chance of being matched. I highly doubt it. It seems ineffective to me because they all got married in the end, but I did hear such a theory. The argument is that he will marry earlier and with a richer family.
1. I don't understand what the big innovation is here, and what it has to do with Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. It sounds like the researchers are merely proposing another mechanism (environmental pressure) that may cause mutations (in the sperm and egg cells) that are passed on to the offspring. Is it really news to anyone that mutations in sperm or egg cells may be passed on to offspring? I do not think so.
Lemark talked about something completely different, he talked about how when an animal makes frequent and systematic use of a certain part of its body (for example the giraffe that stretches its neck to reach the high leaves of the tree) the part will change as a result of its use, and this change will be passed on to its offspring.
Where in this study do they talk about organs that change as a result of using them? Or about the fact that the aforementioned changes in those organs are passed on to the offspring?
2. "Scientists maintain that when changes occur over time as a response to new environmental pressures, evolution acts as a kind of relay race, where at each stage of the process the "stick" is "passed" to the next one, thus accelerating the transition to the next stage.
Again, I'm not sure what's new here. Is it new that evolution works as a relay race and that genes are passed from generation to generation like a race stick? And what about acceleration? Where is acceleration here? Is the speed of changes increasing over time? Why?
3. Obviously the egg was first. The dinosaurs laid eggs, from which the chickens later evolved.
Very confused and unclear article.
Miracles,
Because you do not understand the meaning of what you write,
I ask in every language of request. Not to respond to me in the future...
with gratitude.
may be…
No, it didn't happen randomly. The information that is completely represented is not random, although the mutations are random.
I have done research in the past that used a genetic algorithm. We ran the experiment several times - we always got the same results, even though the mutations were random and even though the starting conditions were different.
Living beings also had such "experiments" in nature. They got the same result there too. Good examples are the eyes and the bacterial flagellum.
Immanuel,
It's really amazing that creatures get a lot of information in DNA...
But it developed randomly?
Thanks for the comment. This may also happen.
We'll leave it because we won't drive Google crazy, and I'll keep an eye out for this option.
my father
The chicken and the egg came together and evolved together. Initially it was a single-celled creature that evolved due to a genetic error, a creature was created inside of which grew another creature's cell wrapped in a membrane.
And so slowly after hundreds of millions of years mistake was added to mistake (when bad mistakes caused the extinction of mutations) both the egg and the chicken began to develop together ……. And by the way, all non-mammal creatures were created from the same small particle that evolved over time. Both theories are correct because it has already been proven that not only changes are transferred.
- The egg is one cell that divides into specialized cells that form the chicken
Therefore: the egg preceded the chicken,
- It is written: "…….a response to being at a high topographical height,
The body produces more red blood cells...
This is not true, if the writers go to a high altitude they will suffer from a lack of oxygen,
For their origin in residents who live at high altitude, for many generations
allowed a mutation to produce more red blood cells,
Those with the mutation had an advantage over others and thus the selection left them.
Lemark cut off mice tails and waited for a litter of tailless ones...
In the Negev, barbs (mice) gnaw the tails of their friends,
Neither Lamarck's mice nor tailless spiny spinys,
There are those who claim that: since throughout the generations the Jews have promoted scholars
Today they have higher intelligence than others, don't they?
I do not understand this Lamarque attack at all. In the end, everyone will remember that everything comes from DNA and Darwinian evolution. All these markers, which influence the expression of the DNA and cause a more widespread production of red blood cells - are products of the DNA itself, and are activated by external conditions through mechanisms that are also dictated by the DNA. The entire mechanism was created as an evolutionary result designed to allow a response to environmental conditions that require the production of more or less red blood cells. It may be as ancient as land creatures with blood circulation.
In general, the wording of these claims seems quite strange, and I would like Dora - the elementary school nature teacher - to make some sharp comments about it. I was mostly destroyed by the "mutations may occur" - they may or may not occur, and it is possible that a creature with three additional legs will be produced, which will also stand the test of Darwinistic evolution.
In short, we need a more realistic explanation, with explanations at the molecular level of each step in this "messenger race" - that will show how they themselves are not mechanisms created by Darwinian evolution.
In the end we will get a combination of Lamarck with Darwin as the evolution of species.
Yehuda
The article was already published on the website 40 days ago under a different title:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/end-of-chicken-and-egg-paradox-2802163