It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"It has taken a painfully long time to properly acknowledge that environment can influence inheritance," he told me. "I think academia has discouraged experiments testing environmental modification of inheritance," because the inheritance of acquired characteristics —Lamarckism— drives the self-appointed evolution police crazy.
They might want to spend more time reading studies and less energy manning the barricades.
SOURCE: What Alters Our Genes
Thus to obtain a knowledge of the true causes of that great diversity of shapes and habits found in the various known animals, we must reflect that the infinitely diversified but slowly changing environment in which the animals of each race have successively been placed, has involved each of them in new needs and corresponding alterations in their habits. This is a truth which, once recognised, cannot be disputed. Now we shall easily discern how the new needs may have been satisfied, and the new habits acquired, if we pay attention to the two following laws of nature, which are always verified by observation.
FIRST LAW
In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears.
SECOND LAW
All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young.
Here we have two permanent truths, which can only be doubted by those who have never observed or followed the operations of nature, or by those who have allowed themselves to be drawn into the error which I shall now proceed to combat.
Naturalists have remarked that the structure of animals is always in perfect adaptation to their functions, and have inferred that the shape and condition of their parts have determined the use of them. Now this is a mistake: for it may be easily proved by observation that it is on the contrary the needs and uses of the parts which have caused the development of these same parts, which have even birth to them when they did not exist, and which consequently have given rise to the condition we find in each animal.
I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations—so common and multiform in organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree in those in a state of nature—had been due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation. Some authors believe it to be as much the function of the reproductive system to produce individual differences, or very slight deviations of structure, as to make the child like its parents. But the much greater variability, as well as the greater frequency of monstrosities, under domestication or cultivation, than under nature, leads me to believe that deviations of structure are in some way due to the nature of the conditions of life, to which the parents and their more remote ancestors have been exposed during several generations.
Originally posted by soficrow
Lamarck WAS on to something, as was Darwin. ...Lamarck was trying to explain an epidemic of health problems that suddenly started appearing in city populations along with the industrial revolution. At the same time, archeology was exploding as a study and fossils were turning up pretty much everywhere - proving evolution and suggesting an association with environmental change. Lamarck was just trying to connect the dots. Which made him a pariah with the industrial barons whose profits he threatened.
...The main issues affecting Lamarck's work at that time were political and economic, NOT scientific.
I'm not saying Lamarck was entirely correct - just that polarizing Lamarck and Darwin throws the baby out with the bath water - and supports an old, old pro-corporate, pro-profit, anti-health strategy.
- sofi
I'm actually with you on your main point. Since industrialisation, we are carrying out one uber experiment on the population of this planet and the planet itself. The outcome will be clear enough in time (and we see the effects already) and covers a wide-range of areas (from health to climate to biodiversity). And the industrial bigwigs would prefer we keep heads in sand, and carry on buying random stuff to weigh us down, whilst we fill their pockets. We ignore the interdependence of nature at our peril, as we only have a single sample to play with.
Our myopia is pretty crazy.
Originally posted by C0bzz
Since industrialization living standards have dramatically increased which has had a DIRECT result on living standards. It improved them dramatically. Without industrialization, you would be dead - and so would most people on this planet.
Of course, everyone rants about industry lobbying against the theory of Global Warming, completely denying the fact that most proponents of global warming have a massive financial and political stake invested in it.
Which environmentalist group are your opinions from? Wonder who it's sponsored by...
'data is in, we can make a reliable conclusion!'.
Originally posted by C0bzz
'data is in, we can make a reliable conclusion!'.
The only group who I keep hearing that from is from the IPCC.
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports.
In other words, let's dramatize the issue to get more funding.
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both)
However, I don't want Sofi's interesting thread to become a discussion polluted by climate science denial.
Originally posted by C0bzz
Nice deflection. Likening me to a holocaust denier? Too funny.
Fine I'll make my own thread on it later this week.
I know that living standards have increased, never said otherwise. You might be surprised to know I'm no luddite.
Do they? I would say that scientists are the biggest proponents. Scientists have a 'massive' financial stake? You should get yo ass into academia and then make that comment. In fact, a researcher in climate science would most benefit from saying 'we're not sure yet, we need more research. Give me dosh for a new project!'. They seem to be saying 'data is in, we can make a reliable conclusion!'.
Which is just an assessment of the scientific data. I've actually heard it from every major scientific organisation across the world. The research is pretty clear.
ABE: I can actually show how inane your argument has been thus far. You're saying that I'm consuming others opinions paid and bought, then you give me this:
Which is just a quote mine that you have picked up as a packaged opinion sourced from some denialist website likely bought and paid for by industrial interests.
What has happened here is a dishonest method of decontextualising the words of another to provide something the person never meant. It's a common technique used by another pseudoscientific group with an ideological agenda, creationists.
He then states how media coverage is generally acquired by playing the scaregame, which sometimes forces scientists to make more simplistic statements of a technical subject which sometimes lose the caveats - relying on soundbites (which are known to be effective - see politicians).
What has happened here is a dishonest method of decontextualising the words of another to provide something the person never meant. It's a common technique used by another pseudoscientific group with an ideological agenda, creationists.
No, that's another misrepresentation. It said 'climate science' denial. If you had denied the holocaust, I would have said 'holocaust' denial. Denialism can be applied to many areas. HIV denial, for example.
Originally posted by C0bzz
You rant about industrialization and claim that it is anti-health. How is it anti-health if industrialization always seems to have a positive effect on living standards?
Excuse me? Last time I checked, quotes are not packaged opinions. They are quotes, straight from the horses mouth, no context had been changed. For you to insinuate otherwise is not only dishonest but a flat out lie. None of my views come from any quote
Your argument falls flat on its face right here. You get the full quote, even though it does not change any meaning at all - it is exactly the same as the shortened one I posted.
And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.
In other words, let's dramatize the issue to get more funding.
Yes - and that's exactly the thing that's wrong with it. Fear mongering, pseudo scientific statements based on incorrect climate models in order to get public attention, especially from the UN so that it "assumes the role of a world government".
Well honestly I have no idea what creationists have to do anything.
Likening people to holocaust deniers is a very common tactic, however if that was not your intention then I apologize.