Wow - even these brief synopsis require a lot of brain glucose to understand! A simple abstract in layman's terms would be nice. Wondering what you think about the random mutation foundation of biology. Seems evidence for some kind of passing on of of behaviors ala Lamarckian like mutations via epi-genes - a methylation process yet not part of the actual DNA ladder, but over time/generations of repeated behaviors - would not it become part of the DNA? When I first studied evolutionary processes around 20 years ago for my first book - there was no agreement or consensus on how mutations happen over time - some scientists would claim 50-100,000 years and yet the evidence for just a few thousand showed up in the thinner blood of Tibetan people and lactose tolerant humans. Respected biologist Stephen J Gould had his 'punctuated equilibrium' hypothesis - which describes occasional sped up mutations but not how or why or where etc. I am just finishing Schrodinger's What is Life - his physics stab at how biology and evolution work from the 1940-50s - which he praises Lamarck but also went along with status quo Darwin selection concept denying any chromosomes being affected by behavior or reactions to the environment (epi-genes upends this strongly held idea) yet he spent pages thinking it over in writing, making the sold point that only random mutations can't satisfactorily explain all the diversity. I mean anyone who sees a hummingbird with a super long beak designed to go deep into the flower for nectar - common sense would dictate some kind of mutations over time that are selected - but also mutations occur making that beak grow a certain way - no? Anyway, from my own recent research - there is a debate heating up within the Evolutionary Biology field - based on 20 years of new evidence/proofs supporting the Lamarck concept that genetic traits are shaped by behaviors/reactions to the environment. The paradigm is shifting and long overdue in my humble opinion.
Thanks for the comment. It'd be great to have further elaboration, but I am stretching to the limits of the time I have for this public service!
Concerning the rest of the comment, it's an interesting research field and there is much we don't fully understand. It means a lot of work to do and good news for evolutionary biologists in the next future.
Wow - even these brief synopsis require a lot of brain glucose to understand! A simple abstract in layman's terms would be nice. Wondering what you think about the random mutation foundation of biology. Seems evidence for some kind of passing on of of behaviors ala Lamarckian like mutations via epi-genes - a methylation process yet not part of the actual DNA ladder, but over time/generations of repeated behaviors - would not it become part of the DNA? When I first studied evolutionary processes around 20 years ago for my first book - there was no agreement or consensus on how mutations happen over time - some scientists would claim 50-100,000 years and yet the evidence for just a few thousand showed up in the thinner blood of Tibetan people and lactose tolerant humans. Respected biologist Stephen J Gould had his 'punctuated equilibrium' hypothesis - which describes occasional sped up mutations but not how or why or where etc. I am just finishing Schrodinger's What is Life - his physics stab at how biology and evolution work from the 1940-50s - which he praises Lamarck but also went along with status quo Darwin selection concept denying any chromosomes being affected by behavior or reactions to the environment (epi-genes upends this strongly held idea) yet he spent pages thinking it over in writing, making the sold point that only random mutations can't satisfactorily explain all the diversity. I mean anyone who sees a hummingbird with a super long beak designed to go deep into the flower for nectar - common sense would dictate some kind of mutations over time that are selected - but also mutations occur making that beak grow a certain way - no? Anyway, from my own recent research - there is a debate heating up within the Evolutionary Biology field - based on 20 years of new evidence/proofs supporting the Lamarck concept that genetic traits are shaped by behaviors/reactions to the environment. The paradigm is shifting and long overdue in my humble opinion.
Thanks for the comment. It'd be great to have further elaboration, but I am stretching to the limits of the time I have for this public service!
Concerning the rest of the comment, it's an interesting research field and there is much we don't fully understand. It means a lot of work to do and good news for evolutionary biologists in the next future.