From RocketSlinger@SBCGlobal.net (please email me there with comments if
desired)
This web
page last updated 19 Sept. 2018
Link to
main page: www.rocketslinger.com/
A
Research Proposal to Investigate A Probably-Crazy-but-Maybe-Not, Neo-Lamarckist
Hypothesis
Yours
Truly, AKA RocketSlinger, will be the first to humbly admit that I am way out
of my professional field here, but here goes anyway. Maybe someone has a rich uncle, or the right
connections to find funding to try testing such a wild idea as is described
below… I know for sure that I have
neither, so please read the below.
BACKGROUND
is as follows: Lamarckism, what is
it? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
and http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/lamarckism.html
or Google it for yourself… In modern days
it may start to become conflated with epigenetics; see http://www.technologyreview.com/news/411880/a-comeback-for-lamarckian-evolution/
for an example of that. Also see http://www.precisionnutrition.com/epigenetics-feast-famine-and-fatness
... Only slightly tangential to the
topic is the political abuse of genetic theories; AKA, believing in certain
theories because it is “nice” or “politically correct” to believe such things,
and cruel or NAZI-like to believe in the real evidence, or, in science
practiced honestly. There’s “nothing new
under the sun” here; these kinds of things have been going for a long-long
time. Please (if interested) research
“Trofim D. Lysenko”; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko
for example. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
wrote a wee tad about my good buddy Trofim, who sent his detractors to the
Gulag. Trofim thought that if he threw
wheat seeds into snow-banks for long enough, they could learn to grow in the
snow, even though any poorly educated Russian farmer could have told him otherwise
(in no uncertain words, with some colorful words to boot, I am sure!). “Stupid” farmer-slobs who questioned Trofim
got their just deserts in Siberian slave camps. And
today, in the USA, anyone studying “politically incorrect” subjects cannot get
their papers published! Even if they are
factual and dispassionate (not obviously political, or at least not obviously
of the WRONG politics). See for example,
http://reason.com/blog/2018/09/10/math-paper-censorship-quillette-pc-left#comment
, AKA
“A
Mathematician Says Activists Made His Paper Disappear Because Its Findings
Offended Them” “At behest of a
feminist professor, an academic journal's board reportedly threatened to
‘harass the journal until it died.’” Politics trumps
science, and violators are still figuratively sent to the gulag in the USA, as
well. But I digress… I could digress some more about people
formulating Lamarckist theories about cutting the tails off of mice for many
generations, and observing the offspring STILL
growing tails. Formulate a stupid
experiment, you get stupid results, duh!
For further digression on related topics, and
non-mainstream ideas about biology, please read about Rupert Sheldrake in http://discovermagazine.com/2000/aug/featheresy/ and http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/05/rupert-sheldrake-interview-science-delusion
. AND http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-rupert-sheldrake/why-bad-science-is-like-bad-religion_b_2200597.html
.
But I am done digressing…
REALLY now!
NEW WHACK-JOB
HYPOTHESIS HERE: Just suppose (I
personally somewhat doubt it is true, but it would be SO cool to discover
otherwise) that some animals have come up with some unknown mechanism by which
their bodies can correlate nutrient levels in their bloodstream with hormone
levels in their bloodstreams, and alter their genetics or epigenetics of their
offspring accordingly. Example: Rats and growth hormones and testosterone… Think growth, aggression, “steroid rage”,
etc. Now postulate a sudden change in
the environment of the rats: All their
predators are gone, and food is WAY plentiful.
If evolution (AKA Mother Nature or God for the theological-minded) had
given the rat’s bodies a way-smart mechanism, the way-smart mechanism might
somehow “notice”, so to speak, that when growth and aggression hormones surge
in the rats, they eat more food (nutrients in the bloodstream go up). The rats fight and grow more, they get more
food (in that kind of environment). The
rats’ bodies “notice” this correlation, and then through messages sent to their
gonads, gametes, methylation of their genes, epigenetics, whatever magic
buzzwords you want to attach, they make dang sure that their offspring are yet
bigger and more aggressive than they are.
A WAY smart way to rapidly adapt the species to the environment, as you
might be able to imagine…
Without much more
imagination, way can postulate the inverse…
More and more predators saturate the environment, and food is
scarce. The rats that “learn” via
correlation of aggression hormones and food levels… Pick too many fights, spend too much time
letting your wounds heal while you almost starve to death… These could “learn” that in their
newly-changed environment, that they had better be way meek, shy, and secretive,
and SMALL, because food is scarce.
Growth and aggression hormones would be negatively correlated with food
levels in the bloodstream, and a reproductive mechanism to “read and heed”
these signals (and pass them to offspring) would be VERY adaptive.
A testable
hypothesis?!?! Heavens, yes! Start with two reasonably sized populations
of rats, genetically identical from one group to the other, but with a “normal”
amount of genetic diversity. Group “A”
of rats shall be the “Lance Armstrong” group of rats. Momma rats in this group, when pregnant, are
given a nice, rich, fat diet for 3 days at a time, while they get growth and
aggression hormones injected (testosterone, growth hormones, synthetics, XYZ,
sorry, I am not well enough educated in this field to fill in the
details). Then they go on a
semi-starvation diet for three days at a time, and they get NO growth and
aggression hormones. Maybe they even get
some sort of “downer” or “mellow” hormones during this time (oxytocin, for
example). Cycle repeats for duration of
pregnancy… Then the baby, juvenile, and
non-pregnant adults go through similar cycles (cycles being longer and longer
in time as they mature), so that adult rats are on, say, 1 month feast cycles
with growth and aggression hormones, and one month cycles of famine and NO
growth and aggression hormones (plus “downer” hormones if such things are
plausible).
The
anti-Lance-Armstrong group of rats should be subjected to the exact OPPOSITE
treatment… Feast on the
downer-hormones-regime, famine on the growth and aggression hormones
regime. Do this for, say, 11 generations
of rats. On the 12th
generation, cease all artificial intervention, and have “blind” and impartial
evaluators evaluate their sizes and levels of aggression, between the two
groups.
Now, is the
hypothesis to be tested here, REALLY all that whacked-out and far-out? No, on second thought, I really do NOT! Read http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130710182941.htm
and you will see that we collectively have accumulated evidence, for quite some
time now, that female mammals have some mysterious way of “choosing” the sex of
their offspring. The mechanism? Totally unknown… But the evidence is clear that mammals can do
this. If they can skew the sex of their
offspring in response to cues from the environment, then why not the size and
level of aggressiveness as well?
Who can fund
this? Please? It may not pan out at all; I personally
suspect it is a long shot. BUT… If this thing is REAL… We’d be way smart (well advised) to know
about it! In the meantime, hopefully,
the patent “trolls under the bridge” have hereby been fended off on matters
associated with the basic design of this possible experiment…
Here are some
related ideas from another contributor (anonymous) :
The social and
ethical pressures/environment that parents experience during the course of
their lives may be the source of epigenetics. Culture alone may not be
responsible for parents and children sharing strengths and weaknesses. The
lifestyle choices and actions parents take may help the child “do in Rome as
the Romans do” by changing gene regulation and expression through epigenetics. http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/R2/R159.full
Transposons don’t post yet Transposons may copy a gene that is frequently
expressed while the organism is growing so that there are more copy numbers of
that gene to better serve the cell/organism’s needs based on its current
environment.
The choices an
individual makes and what type of environment they expose themselves to may
also modify gene methylation and activity/regulation on a daily basis. We do
not know how neuroplasticity works, or how the brain can change/heal itself in
such amazing ways (see The Brain That Changes Itself), but our lifestyle
choices may amplify or silence certain genes.
While the DNA bases
themselves do not change, the DNA molecule’s regulation could be much more
plastic than we thought it was.
Update Add-On as of 14 Sept. 2018
Here is something that I have stumbled
across in my readings: See https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25502
by Athena
Vouloumanos. Here is
an out-take from there:
“But more recent studies–using modern
reproduction techniques like in vitro fertilization and proper controls–can physically
isolate generations from each other and rule out any kind of social
transmission or learning. For example, mice that were fear-conditioned to an
otherwise neutral odor produced baby mice that also feared that odor. Their
grandbaby mice feared it too. But unlike in Pavlov's studies, communication
couldn’t be the explanation. Because the mice never fraternized, and
cross-fostering experiments further ruled out social transmission, the newly
acquired specific fear had to be encoded in their biological material.
(Biochemical analysis showed that the relevant change was likely in the
methylation of olfactory reception genes in the sperm of the parents and
offspring. Methylation is one example of an epigenetic mechanism.) Natural
selection is still the primary shaper of evolutionary change, but the
inheritance of acquired traits might play an important role too.
End of out-take.
Source there is not documented, but I bet it is as below (AKA, for more
details, see below):
https://www.nature.com/news/fearful-memories-haunt-mouse-descendants-1.14272 “Fearful
memories haunt mouse descendants” … “Genetic imprint from traumatic
experiences carries through at least two generations.”
See also http://news.emory.edu/stories/2013/12/smell_epigenetics_ressler/campus.html
and http://www.emoryhealthsciblog.com/tag/brian-dias/
…
So then my comments
about that: “Trofim
D. Lysenko” (cursed be his name) was just off-base…
Don’t be stupid! Don’t be cutting
the tails off of mice, and be pretending that their offspring have shorter
tails. Be more subtle and ingenious in
your experiments!
And so yet once
more… PLEASE see if you can run, or find
someone to run, the above-described experiment, as here on this web page! The idea may not be so crazy after all!!!
Call it epigenetics
rather than semi-Lamarckism and THEN it might be worthy of experimental
investigation!