tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post2042169252665495249..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: Lamarck was right!gcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-29009980735202298822015-03-11T12:38:58.314-04:002015-03-11T12:38:58.314-04:00Neither of us being biologists, shouldn't we l...Neither of us being biologists, shouldn't we leave this debate to the biologists? Some of them apparently think it is Lamarckian and some don't, as my post acknowledged. gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-66458007206661079682015-03-11T12:31:32.923-04:002015-03-11T12:31:32.923-04:00This is not really Lamarckian inheritance.
The exa...This is not really Lamarckian inheritance.<br />The example you cite is the usual thing with epigenetic effects, methylation. It's an interesting effect but there are a few points to remember.<br /><br />1. The effect "wears off" in a generation or two and so cannot cause adapatation.<br />2. The ability to be methylated is coded for in the DNA sequence. So this is no violation of the central dogma.<br />3. It is best seen as an "extended phenotype" effect really. One geneticist used the phrase "blurring a phenotype across generations" which puts the point well.<br /><br />Interesting but not Lamarckian.Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976919713907046171noreply@blogger.com