Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!news.chalmers.se!news.gu.se!gd-news!d6245.shv.hb.se!sa209
From: sa209@utb.shv.hb.se (Claes Andersson)
Subject: Re: Lamarckian Evolution
Message-ID: <sa209.102@utb.shv.hb.se>
Sender: usenet@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: d6245.shv.hb.se
Organization: Department of Scocial Science
References: <D1ty93.9xJ@lincoln.gpsemi.com> <3ec0a0$7es@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3eg6an$k8m@laplace.ee.latrobe.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 18:07:03 GMT
Lines: 68

In article <3eg6an$k8m@laplace.ee.latrobe.edu.au> khorsell@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:

>In article <3ec0a0$7es@gap.cco.caltech.edu> brown@altair.krl.caltech.edu (C. Titus Brown) writes:
>>In article <D1ty93.9xJ@lincoln.gpsemi.com>,
>>David Whipp <whipp@roborough.gpsemi.com> wrote:
>>>The Lamarckian view of evolution is that the experience of an
>>>individual may be passed to the next generation when it reproduces
>>>(i.e. in the genes).  Although largely discredited in wet-life
>>>evolution, there is no reason why it can't be attempted in a-life.
>>
>>Two things; first, there was a paper in the AL III Proceedings, by Ackley and
>>Littman, titled "A Case for Lamarckian Evolution".  This looks like
>>something in which you might be interested...

>There is quite a growing body of evidence that Lamarck wasn't wrong.

>I noticed 2 things -- one in a late last year issue of Discover & then
>some work done in Australia. It seems the belief that the germ cells
>(i.e. DNA thereof) can not be modified (other than more-or-less randomly) 
>by environmental factors might be an oversimplification. The work
>I'm referings to covered single-celled cases (in Discover magazine)
>and mice and higher mammals (the Australian work).

>The following is an article I posted to soc.culture.australian
>as part of a general news service. It isn't meant to be
>terribly accurate, but some details are there if you need to
>track it down.

>---
>           Darwinian theory maybe not exactly 100% right

>Canberra 5 Dec. Findings in a recent Australian study show genetic
>changes may be passed to offspring. Scientists from the ANU and
>Wollongong Uni say the "genetic blueprint" of various mammals
>may apparently be altered during the lifetime of a parent. The genetic
>material in reproductive cells can be altered and changes can be
>passed to offspring.  The findings may be a shock to Darwinian theory
>that generally assumes the genetic makeup of reproductive calls is
>fixed. It has been part of the theory that evolution was undirected
>and the result of random changes and combinations of genes. If true,
>the ANU/W study indicates evolution is not as random as standard
>theory indicates.  Rather than Darwinian "big steps" during
>development there may be a "regular update" of genetic information
>during the evolution of a species.  The frequency for such changes has
>not been determined and the study is set to continue.

>[The Sep Discover "Survival of the Mutable" p 27 also indicates other
>research has recently revived the ghost of the once generally reviled
>Lamarckian evolution theory. In a study by John Cairns, a respected
>British biologist, it was found that certain characteristics could be
>passed on by single-celled E. Coli that were determined by the
>environment of the parent, rather than strictly by the parents genetic
>makeup. We live in exciting times].

 Still, what's most comforting with the Darwinian evolution theory is that 
it is very logic. Natural selection can bring order to chaos just because of 
it very logical ability to do so, nothing strange with it. What, on the 
other hand, would be strange AND hardly logical is a step between where the 
gametes in a magic way "knows" in advance what will be good for the 
offspring. What someone who advocates any sort of Lamarckian evolution 
implies is that something picks the right genes by hand, or how would the 
environment which evidently acts on the phenotype be able to alter the 
GENOTYPE is a meaningful way? I think it falls on the fact that it is 
impossible.. unless ordinary Darwinian evolution has evolved some sort of 
gene-alterating device with an ability to look into the future. Genetic 
psychohistory! :->

Claes Andersson. University of Bors. Sweden
