4 results found.
... Science Frontiers ONLINE No. 13: Winter 1981 Issue Contents Other pages Home Page Science Frontiers Online All Issues This Issue Sourcebook Project Sourcebook Subjects The Propagation Of Acquired Characteristics Almost all biologists reject Lamarck's idea that characteristics acquired by a parent can be transmitted to the progeny. In the field of immunology, especially, experimental findings are stimulating a revival of forbidden Lamarckism! Taylor reviews several experiments in which acquired immunity seems to be passed along from generation to generation. This, of course, directly contradicts the Dogma of Evolution and Weissmann's closely related doctrine of the inviolatability of the germ plasm. But Taylor goes on to suggest several ways to circumvent Weissmann's doctrine, the most interesting of which employs viruses to carry acquired genetic information from generation to generation. (Taylor, R.B .; "Lamarckism Revival in Immunology," Nature, 286:837, 1980.) Comment. The possible role of viruses and other "disease carriers" in the unfolding (rather than "evolution") of life is only now being widely recognized. Could it be that the price of evolution and/or the responsiveness of life to environmental pressures is a certain level of infection? From Science Frontiers #13, Winter 1981 . 1981-2000 William R. Corliss ...
Terms matched: 1 - Score: 34 - 15 May 2017 - URL: /sf013/sf013p07.htm
... Science Frontiers ONLINE No. 15: Spring 1981 Issue Contents Other pages Home Page Science Frontiers Online All Issues This Issue Sourcebook Project Sourcebook Subjects The Evolutionary Struggle Within Ted Steele, an immunologist, has come up with experimental evidence showing in some cases that acquired immunity may be transmitted to progeny. When Steele's research was announced, many scientists and science writers rushed to the defense of Darwinism. They pointed out with unseeming vigor that a revival of dread Lamarckism or the Inheritance of Acquired Characters was not indicated. It is true that Steele has proposed a Darwinian interpretation of his findings, but his theory adds a startling new dimension to the development of life. In essence, Steele asserts that an organism's immunological system is really the evolutionary scenario in miniature and compressed in time. The body's immuno-logical system is trying to cope with up to 10 million defensive cells. The only defensive cells that survive and multiply are those that happen to encounter an invader that they can lock onto and destroy. The "fittest" defensive cells are those that have just the right characteristics to knock off invaders, and only they survive permanently in the body's defensive arsenal, giving it acquired immunity. The Lamarckian part of this story occurs when the RNA of the selected defensive cells gets passed on to the organism's progeny. (Tudge, Colin; "Lamarck Lives -- In the Immune System," New Scientist, 89:483, 1981.) Comment. The picture evolving here is one of a hierarchy of evolutionary struggles -- say, ...
Terms matched: 1 - Score: 29 - 15 May 2017 - URL: /sf015/sf015p09.htm
... which mutations to produce to adapt to the stressful situation. Cairns made his directed-mutation hypothesis in response to an unusual finding -- data that strongly hinted bacterial mutations might occur more often when beneficial." The above quotation is the lead paragraph in a long BioScience article that details the consternation Cairns' results have created in the biological community. The problem that biology-as-a -discipline has is that it has deified a paradigm: neo-Darwinism. Now, neo-Darwinism is supported by many experiments showing that some mutations are indeed random. Consequently, as M. Gillis re-marks in her BioScience article, the biological community 'got locked into its belief that an organism cannot control its own mutation.' Furthermore, Cairns' claims recall the long battle with Lamarckism, a subject that biology has closed-the-book-on. In a nutshell, Lamarckism has been interred since the 1950s, and 'Nobody wants to give the appearance of straying from the neoDarwinism fold.' Gillis goes on to review some recent experiments supporting those of Cairns. But, impressive though these may be, there have been neo-Darwinian explanations for some of the results. Even so, more and more biologists are now willing to accept at least the possibility of non random mutation of bacteria. But, in the end, all participants in the debate recognize a great void: There exists no acceptable mechanism by which a life form can steer its own evolutionary way; that is, shape its own genome. What besides natural selection can do this? ( ...
Terms matched: 1 - Score: 24 - 15 May 2017 - URL: /sf075/sf075b06.htm
... that which is currently in vogue -- the deterministic view that random mutation combined with natural selection invariably leads to higher forms of life. But, as already stated, Popper hates determinism and believes that deterministic mechanisms are noncreative. They lead only to deadends. Instead, he prefers "active" Darwinism in which the "idiocyncracies of the individual have a greater influence on evolution than natural selection" and that "the only creative activity in evolution is the activity of the organism." There you have it! Whose side is Popper on? Does it really matter? (Perutz, Max; "A New View of Darwinism," New Scientist, p. 36, October 2, 1986.) Comment. It is unclear how the acts of individuals can modify organisms. Sounds like Lamarckism. From Science Frontiers #49, JAN-FEB 1987 . 1987-2000 William R. Corliss ...
Terms matched: 1 - Score: 14 - 15 May 2017 - URL: /sf049/sf049p12.htm
