The Root of All Evil

Originally posted by micarr
Genes trasmit in a Mendelian fashion as you know and ideas, notions, inventions etc. by a process more akin to the unfairly in my view discredited theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics of the great 19th century French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. The new field of epigenetics and the histone code hypothesis is very exciting and I think shows how far Lamarck was ahead of his time.

OK, that's it, I've got to start studying this stuff, "Lamarckian epigenetics" has been buzzing around the brain-cave for too long now. So, is there a popularised book on the subject?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
OK, that's it, I've got to start studying this stuff, "Lamarckian epigenetics" has been buzzing around the brain-cave for too long now. So, is there a popularised book on the subject?

"Lamarckian epigenetics" is extremely controversial i.e. transmission of new gene expression states from generation to generation arising from local experience and does not exist so far as is known. See wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarck and references therein for an introduction to epigenetic inheritance and the re-emergence of his ideas in the context of the inheritance of stable gene expression patterns between generations. The transmission of human ideas can however involve quasi-Lamarckian mechanisms by horizontal information transfer i.e. you teaching me a skill but this information is not "hard-wired" into my DNA for vertical genetic transfer (father to son i.e. generation to generation) so my kids will have to learn anew how to mow the lawn for example! "Jews and other religious groups have been circumcising men for hundreds of generations with no noticeable withering of the foreskin among their descendants" is a good example of the non-Lamarckian mechanism of evolution whereas the meme here is the religious practice of circumcising young men which presumably possessed a selective advantage i.e. religious groups who had these cultural traits had more offspring however it does not necessarily have to be beneficial for survival per se and can actually be overtly deleterious to the group/sect longer term or particularly non-members which is essentially Dawkin's thesis.

Originally posted by micarr
I was thinking of the early Archaean sediments from Isua, Western Greenland where the first forms of microfossiltic life are known from and were identified as blue green algae - the famous stromatalites. I have not kept up to date obviously! 😉 If the earth is ~4.5 × 10e9 years old it is really remarkable to me that something as "complicated" as a blue-green, ...[text shortened]... hypothesis is very exciting and I think shows how far Lamarck was ahead of his time.

Hey dude.

I'm guessing you're one of those science dudes too? I'm a post-doc at Massey Uni in NZ, working on protein biochemistry / turnover / plant physiology, and anything else that come my way. et tu brute?

I did a few courses in my undergrad (dundee uni, scotland) on evolution of life, as well as land plants and even quaternary paleontology, and I try to keep up, but i'm increasingly busy nowadays. Anyhoo, in some Aussie sediment banks fossil 'spheres' were found in the rock and dated to 3.95 BYA, although the first chemical evidence of oxygenic photosynthesis is dated to 3.8 BYA. It is a stretch but I think that the 3.95 BYO figure is probably pretty close, especially because the first orgs would have been heterotrophic rather than autotrophic. It's reckoned that the planet cooled enough to allow the formation of oceans (110C-ish? - lower partial pressure, see) around 4 billion years ago, which gives a good solid 50,000 years of random RNA bases knocking into each other, millions of times every second. Not so unplausible. Especially when you consider how abundant both the necessary chemicals and how much energy were available. Nowadays, pretty much whereever there is energy for something to live there is something living there, for example deep sea hydrothermal vents. Not a great leap of the imagination required.

Re Dawkin's memes. I think it's more a statement of how far behind Dawkin's is with regards his thinking on this idea, rather than how far ahead Lamark was... Oh look Professor Dawkins, a passing bandwagon - let's jump on!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Hey dude.

I'm guessing you're one of those science dudes too? I'm a post-doc at Massey Uni in NZ, working on protein biochemistry / turnover / plant physiology, and anything else that come my way. et tu brute?

I did a few courses in my undergrad (dundee uni, scotland) on evolution of life, as well as land plants and even quaternary paleontology ...[text shortened]... ahead Lamark was... Oh look Professor Dawkins, a passing bandwagon - let's jump on!

Lamarck is a personal hero of mine. He coined the word biology in 1802 and is largely remembered, if at all, for being "wrong" with his descent of acquired characteristics mechanism for organic change over time versus the Darwinian descent with modification over time as taught in Ireland when I was a secondary school kid. This is quite a good approach to teach kids science as an ameliorative process but ultimately wrong I feel as everyone Darwin included paid homage to Msr Lamarck later in the 19th century as the first to describe organic evolution even if the mechanism was not the right one. It's a bit like how the great artist JW Turner was "rediscovered" as an impressionist by Monet and others painting in London when the phrase was coined in the 1870s or how Braque and Picasso and the early Cubists loved Cezanne.

I find it very troubling that in the US this "intelligent design meme” if I can call it that is trying to be foisted as a theory of equal status on school kids when some of the very best scientists in the world are from the States which her people should be hugely proud of.

Lamarck was a polymath and a visonary and did long range weather forecasting for Napoleon and got in to some trouble for this! Simply teaching the idea that the notion of passing on to offspring characteristics that were acquired during an organism's lifetime as "wrong" and completely inconsistent with modern Mendelian genetics this is now no longer supported by some of the work on DNA methylation, protein methylation and histone deacetylation. A lot of the epigenetic work was discovered in plants as I am sure you know and please see on pubmed Rapp and Wendel New Phytol. 2005 Oct;168(1):81-91.

With respect to the origins of life - if life is indeed so "probable" in the RNA world scheme presented it is strange why life has not been found outside earth yet and many of the moons such as Titan and Ganymede and others could support life I think and hope I live long enough to see the experiments done however evidence of absence and absence of evidence and all that.

I studied in Edinburgh and have good friends working in Dundee. The city has a great reputation now in molecular biology as well as jam, jute and journalism 😀 I am a virologist so busy busy. Do you know Father Jack? Feckin' birds!

Originally posted by micarr
Lamarck is a personal hero of mine. He coined the word biology in 1802 and is largely remembered, if at all, for being "wrong" with his descent of acquired characteristics mechanism for organic change over time versus the Darwinian descent with modification over time as taught in Ireland when I was a secondary school kid. This is quite a good approach to teac ...[text shortened]... ournalism 😀 I am a virologist so busy busy. Do you know Father Jack? Feckin' birds!

Well, chemical signals indicative of life have been found on various planets in our solar system, but what with varying solar output and such those traces of life (or perhaps more excitingly, perhaps these chem signatures are perhaps 'fossils' of the proto-life that must have existed here at some point) got cooked or froze... Never mind, some planets are just born luckier than others.

Personal scientific hero has to go to Antoine Lavoisier. Oxygen and SI - good work that man. Tax collecter though. No-one's perfect.

A typical quote from Dawkins's that I thought might be of interest reflecting his attitude toward political correctness and the religious: "Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!".

Originally posted by micarr
A typical quote from Dawkins's that I thought might be of interest reflecting his attitude toward political correctness and the religious: "Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not ...[text shortened]... quely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!".

That is a really nice quote.

I personally wouldn't say that religion is the root of all evil, it can also be a great force for good. But good people would be good without religion, religion doesn't make people good.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
That is a really nice quote.

I personally wouldn't say that religion is the root of all evil, it can also be a great force for good. But good people would be good without religion, religion doesn't make people good.

But good people would be good without religion, religion doesn't make people good.

Oh. I beg to differ. Could you somehow prove your assertion -- or at least back it up with some substance?

You do realise that all I have to prove is one person who become good through religion... perhaps not so hard, lets see... whose testimony shall I choose first?

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]But good people would be good without religion, religion doesn't make people good.

Oh. I beg to differ. Could you somehow prove your assertion -- or at least back it up with some substance?

You do realise that all I have to prove is one person who become good through religion... perhaps not so hard, lets see... whose testimony shall I choose first?[/b]

I think scotty meant that religion is not a precondition for good people to behave in a good manner. So while religion is sufficient for some people to be good, it is not necessary for them to be good.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]But good people would be good without religion, religion doesn't make people good.

Oh. I beg to differ. Could you somehow prove your assertion -- or at least back it up with some substance?

You do realise that all I have to prove is one person who become good through religion... perhaps not so hard, lets see... whose testimony shall I choose first?[/b]

Well, if a person does not do bad things only because they are scared of eternal damnation then I'd have to say that, irrespective of their actions, they are not a good person. A good person does good things irrespective of any penalty or reward. Telerion (I think) gave us the example of his charity work, and RBHILL shot him down saying that without religion it meant nothing. Is that your position Hal, that you can only be good if you are a (christian) theist?

Hal, I trust you think you are a good person. This begs the question then, 'if I could disprove religion tomorrow, would that automatically make you a bad person?'.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, if a person does not do bad things only because they are scared of eternal damnation then I'd have to say that, irrespective of their actions, they are not a good person. ....

A Christian is not motivated to do good out of fear of damnation - he does good out of gratitude for being saved. He knows he good deeds will never save him.

Originally posted by Coletti
A Christian is not motivated to do good out of fear of damnation - he does good out of gratitude for being saved. He knows he good deeds will never save him.

Ah, so he's bribed to do them. Thanks for clearing that up. Or would our theoretical christian not do them were he not saved?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, if a person does not do bad things only because they are scared of eternal damnation then I'd have to say that, irrespective of their actions, they are not a good person. A good person does good things irrespective of any penalty or reward. Telerion (I think) gave us the example of his charity work, and RBHILL shot him down saying that without r ...[text shortened]... en, 'if I could disprove religion tomorrow, would that automatically make you a bad person?'.

Thank you for the good word, but I'm not our Good Samaritan. I'm pretty selfish and rotten actually.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Ah, so he's bribed to do them. Thanks for clearing that up. Or would our theoretical christian not do them were he not saved?

If it's a bribe, I'd call it overkill. Here, have eternal salvation, now do me a few good works. But God does not need anything from us, so it does not make sense for him to bribe us. There is no quid pro quo. Salvation is a free gift.