On 12/16/2016 4:50 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
I'd like to suggest the recent lecture by Denis Noble
in the British Physiological Society:
http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/video/dance-to-the-tune-of-life-lecture/699
Thanks for the reference. That led me to some of his earlier articles.
The one from 2012 covers many of the points in Noble's lecture and his
recent book:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262309/pdf/rsfs20110067.pdf
The attached diagram, Noble12.jpg (copied from that article), summarizes
the issues:
1. The arrows pointing up are assumed by 20th c. Neo-Darwinists:
Genes determine the proteins, which determine the cells, which
determine the organs, which determine the organism.
2. But some 20th c. research (starting with Conrad Waddington, who
coined the term 'epigenetics' in the 1930s) implied that acquired
traits can be inherited. But Waddington was largely rejected
because his ideas were contrary to Neo-Darwinism.
3. 21st c. research shows that Waddington was right. Noble's diagram
shows the downward arrows that have a causative effect on earlier
stages. Noble does not deny the upward arrows, but he points out
that the downward arrows reduce the randomness by filtering out
most of the less promising mutations.
4. Those downward arrows have two effects: (a) they preserve the
faithful transcription of the overwhelming majority of genes,
and (b) they guide or facilitate the mutations that may be useful.
5. The Neo-Darwinists were partly right in saying that mutations
are random, but they were wrong in rejecting the idea that
inherited properties (epigenetic) could guide (or at least
facilitate) useful mutations.
6. This argument provides some support for Lamarck's claim that
acquired traits could be inherited. It also provides support
for Darwin's original writings, in which he showed a high
regard for Lamarck and agreed with some of his hypotheses.
7. Conclusion: Darwin's original 19th century views were more
accurate than the 20th c. Neo-Darwinian dogma, which rejected
any hint of Lamarckian tendencies. The Neo-Darwinists were
guilty of blocking the way of inquiry.
The URL of Noble's 2012 article also has links to related articles and
reviews by Noble and others. Most of them can be freely downloaded.
John
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
