Talk:Inheritance of acquired characteristics

message: These bits from the original "inheritance of acquired traits" article have not survived the merge:
:According to this theory giraffes have long necks because shorter giraffes spent their lives stretching their necks to reach their food, foliage, and they passed on this trait to their young, creating over generations the modern giraffe.  Today most scientists view this theory of evolution as incorrect. Lamarck believed that species changed of their own free will and if a limb or body part was not used, the body part could completely fall off or disappear if the animal wished it to.
On that note, I was wondering whether it is of interest that the giraffe example of notre cher Chevalier is not possible on anatomical grounds - the giraffe actually has no muscle to elongate its neck beyond the length dictated by its skeleton, and gravity is acting unfavourably! [1] However, the giraffe example may be worth mentioning because it may be more familiar to many people than either "Lamarckism" or "acquired traits".
[1] Stretching requires transverse muscles and a "hydraulic" body - both of which many worms possess. The giraffe's tongue would have been a more plausible example! - Samsara 06:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bits from acquired traits

message: The arguments proffered in this article might well have been provided by the late Soviet "biologist" Trofim D. Lysenko.  It sorely needs updating by someone trained in molecular biology to reflect current thinking.
*I agree.  The end of the second paragraph says, "However, these models have been disproven".  Then the next paragraph gives an example that supports the model.  So which is it??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.212.108.131 (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lysenko Lives!!

message: This page seriously needs to be cleaned up. Right now it's a mess of examples and arguments loosely connected with rhetoric. Phrases such as "the triump of the central dogma of molecular biology" and "insult to the intelligence of the reader" come to mind.
I propose the following structure:
1. History
2. Support for theory(ies)
3. Criticism of theory(ies)
the whole page is generally bias- what we need is more info on the topic b4 u adjust it be more neutrul 211.29.196.46 13:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are examples of bad writing (which needs to be fixed) rather than NPOV in the content.  Please fix these problems, but the NPOV tag should be removed.  -Gomm 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV, from both sides of the debate... 

message: i suggest adding link to freely available paper Dismantling Lamarckism (2006), which makes deep and interesting insight into this theme. it can be easily found with google, just type the title. 62.65.183.37 03:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  paper Dismantling Lamarckism 

message: This article is outdated ; Recent studies in Epigenetics show that the genome is not the only information passed down to offsprings but information from the phenotype and acquired characters are also transmitted. ( some reference : Sex-specific, male-line transgenerational responses in humans.)
Guillaume Rava. 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Came to the talk page intent on raising the exact same point, just shy of four years later. I'm going to tag the article for a full rewrite and raise the issue over at WikiProject Biology.   — C M B J   02:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Epigenetics to the rescue

message: "dismal failure" in the last line is vague and emotive language not suitable to an objective assessment of the subject.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.162.183 (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emotive language 

message: Genomes, and the specific duties of genes both singularly and corporately are believed to be the reason for actions and lifestyles of the individual? As I understand what it is that a read from the accompanying articles, is that it ,(changes in behavior) bring about physical changes in certain cells. But I don't see the correlation between that, physical change, and the actions taken by the individual? The odd or defective gene then, would predispose one to continue behavior of a similar type, somewhere in that person's ancestry? If this is true, then the individual has less of a chance to not do those things which are outside the norms of society? I am thinking of two subjects specifically. Addiction and homo sexuality happen because a person is predisposed to become involved because of his genes, and far less then on his or her environment is what this conclusion implies? If this is true for these two groups, is it also true of other groups? Does a criminal commit crimes because he was predisposed, or is it more attributed to their environment, and the choices they made? In short, no one should be held accountable if his ancestors were involved in the same type of activity? 
  This article has more questions then answers, because I am not a geneticist, and I would never dispute physical findings as documented in the laboratory. However, I maintain that human actions toward violence or other activities outside societal norms are because of the environment that they grew up in, and how the individual responds to that environment, especially in the younger years. Once that person has grown to adulthood, if their mind is sound, they are wholly responsible for the decisions they make and the actions they take. But if they are acting out only which through their genetic make up, then no one is responsible for their actions. 
  To a geneticist who reads this, they might find my argument to be more philosophical then scientific, but it occurs to me, that if odd actions by the individual are accountable to an errant gene of some sort, that it should be possible to isolate that gene and remove it, or treat it with chemicals.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.36.181 (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human activity from genes