My research on modern ideas on Lamarckism has led me to Edward Steele, a controversial Australian Molecular immunologist. He has (indirectly) demonstrated a counterexample contradicting the Weismann Barrier. Now my instinct (as was his) was to suggest that the Weismann Barrier is therefore disproven, and we should be looking more closely as to when, why (or why not) there would be information feedback from somatic cells to germline cells.
I would also suggest that the Central Dogma of molecular biology should not be taken as gospel in evolution. It is not a proven fact as such - it is a simplification that demonstrates the orderly passage of genetic replicative information. It says nothing at all about the exceptions to this process (mutations). However, it is the very exceptions to the process which drives evolutionary progress. Natural selection is the big feedback loop for information about the environment to (indirectly) affect DNA. I am certain that there is extensive natural selection between sperm - However, this isn't exactly comparing one's fitness with others, because they are all from the one organism. An elaborate error correction mechanism (to obtain the best possible duplication of genes) is not actually selecting at all. It must be practically a simulation of how fit they will be in the environment - letting through genes and mutations that "pass the test" which must be indicative enough of adequate fitness through a living body.
3 comments:
Nothing should ever be taken as final and definitely proven. Even aspects of the theory of relativity and quantum physics are not "proven" to the final dot (although certainly accurate to a very high degree indeed). Why then should we take the prevailing dogmas of evolutionary biology as final. Of course, any new suggestion needs verification (usually by experiment and observation). Klaus
I am not suggesting that Evolutionary scientists are not *in principle* open minded. In practice they are very close-minded. One has to see that the only reason that these Dogmas initially took hold is Occam's razor. They are simple, easy to understand Models of what is happening. All I'm asking is that scientists stress the oversimplification of these *original* dogmas and make new, more nuanced, harder for the layman to understand, but more accurate dogmas. It would be a piece of cake to nuance the central dogma to allow for a more philosophical approach to evolutionary theory.
I am asserting that the central dogma mentioned as well as related ones about direct feedback from the environment are a *Big* barrier to the free flow of ideas and research results. Evolutionary scientists spend far too much effort, moneys, research and time into defending the dogmas. They portray "difficult" evidence (such as Steele's) as exceptions rather than pointers to new paradigms, and devote a lot of their propaganda into rubbishing unscientific counter-cultures (such as religious dogma).
Post a Comment