Talk:August Weismann

message: While the reference may well be accurate, there are probably less biased sources for information on Weismann than the antievolutionist Unification Church. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kezinge (talk • contribs) 03:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Can someone explain why, as stated here, 'the existence of non-reproductive castes of ants, such as workers and soldiers, cannot be explained by inheritance of acquired characters. Germ plasm theory, on the other hand, does so effortlessly.'
Is this really true, given what we now know about the haplodiploid nature of social insect genomes. It seems to me that once a random mutation had produced the possibility of workers queens and males then there is no reason why Lamarkian inheritance, if it exists, should not act specifically on workers, just as it could act specifically on males and females of diploid species, given that we now understand the role of imprinting via methylisation etc as a mechanism of differential gene expression between sexes. --Memestream 19:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ants - explanation required please 

message: I have re-written this, keeping old material wherever it was valid. Before anyone reverts, I must stress that the old introduction contained many common errors:
1 The Weissman barrier and the Central Dogma are quite separate ideas, one concerning preservation of the germline, the other the mechanisms of RNA and DNA.  Crick did not simply re-state Weissman, and I can provide citations from major works which point out the fallacy of this common error if required.
2 Weissman did not, as was stated in the article, consider natural selection to be the only mechanism of evolution. Nor, for that matter did Darwin!. No one in the field disputes the fact that natural selection occurs but it is only one component. Many do dispute the way in which genetic change occurs - change being the other component of Darwinian evolution.  Darwin was mostly Lamarckian. The modern sythesis, also known as neo-Darwinism is not Darwin's theory of evolution, it is Darwin limited by Weissman and Fisher in particular. I hope I have made all this clear.
3 The article as it existed was too bold in stating that we now know Weissman to have been correct. In fact, though the modern synthesis assumes this, experimental proof has never been put forward, and the one thing we do know now, since the discovery of retroviruses and reverse transcriptase, is that there is no theoretical reason to suppose that the Weismann barrier exists, and there is considerable, controversial, evidence that it does not exist. See for example, the book 'Lamarck's signature' by Ted Steele which lists a lot of research evidence.
---Memestream 15:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro re-written to correct many factual errors 

message: I have created a category at Commons for Weismann. I note that Britannica also has another image of him here, which would quite likely be public domain? Richard001 (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I want to know for how much generation wiesmann's experiment in rat was????was it for 19 generations?? Debajyoti2 (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  wiesmann's experiment in rat 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on August Weismann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061024155730/http://science.discovery.com/convergence/100discoveries/big100/biology.html to http://science.discovery.com/convergence/100discoveries/big100/biology.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on August Weismann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927070422/http://carnegieinstitution.org/cover/top_100/ to http://carnegieinstitution.org/cover/top_100/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified