> Now all that is changing. No one is arguing that Lamarck got everything right, but over the past decade it has become increasingly
> clear that environmental factors, such as diet or stress, can have biological consequences that are transmitted to offspring without
> a single change to gene sequences taking place. In fact, some biologists are already starting to consider this process as routine.
> However, fully accepting the idea, provocatively dubbed the "new Lamarckism", would mean a radical rewrite of modern evolutionary
> theory. Not surprisingly, there are some who see that as heresy. "It means the demise of the selfish-gene theory," says Eva Jablonka
> at Tel Aviv University, Israel. "The whole...

> http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19926641.500-rewriting-dar...
> Rewriting Darwin: The new non-genetic inheritance
> 09 July 2008
> From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
> Emma Young
>
>  HALF a century before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, the French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck outlined his
> own theory of evolution. A cornerstone of this was the idea that characteristics acquired during an individual's lifetime can be
> passed on to their offspring. In its day, Lamarck's theory was generally ignored or lampooned. Then came Darwin, and Gregor Mendel's
> discovery of genetics. In recent years, ideas along the lines of Richard Dawkins's concept of the "selfish gene" have come to
> dominate discussions about heritability, and with the exception of a brief surge of interest in the late 19th and early 20th
> centuries, "Lamarckism" has long been consigned to the theory junkyard.
>
> Now all that is changing. No one is arguing that Lamarck got everything right, but over the past decade it has become increasingly
> clear that environmental factors, such as diet or stress, can have biological consequences that are transmitted to offspring without
> a single change to gene sequences taking place. In fact, some biologists are already starting to consider this process as routine.
> However, fully accepting the idea, provocatively dubbed the "new Lamarckism", would mean a radical rewrite of modern evolutionary
> theory. Not surprisingly, there are some who see that as heresy. "It means the demise of the selfish-gene theory," says Eva Jablonka
> at Tel Aviv University, Israel. "The whole discourse about heredity and evolution will change" (see "Rewriting Darwin and ...

> On Jul 12, 8:53 pm, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>

>>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19926641.500-rewriting-dar...
>> Rewriting Darwin: The new non-genetic inheritance

>

> I've had some thoughts on this in the past (posted about it) and i
> imagined that there is some possible "desire" passed onto the
> offspring somehow.
>
> So for example the the need to peck deeper by a bird was being
> constantly hammered into the brain and therefore did actually transfer
> this need down to the offspring to some degree; perhaps giving the
> natural selection a helping hand or actually being even more prominent
> in the determining the traits of the offspring.

> On Jul 12, 8:53 pm, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>

>>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19926641.500-rewriting-dar...
>> Rewriting Darwin: The new non-genetic inheritance
>> 09 July 2008
>> From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
>> Emma Young

>

>>  HALF a century before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, the French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck outlined his
>> own theory of evolution. A cornerstone of this was the idea that characteristics acquired during an individual's lifetime can be
>> passed on to their offspring. In its day, Lamarck's theory was generally ignored or lampooned. Then came Darwin, and Gregor Mendel's
>> discovery of genetics. In recent years, ideas along the lines of Richard Dawkins's concept of the "selfish gene" have come to
>> dominate discussions about heritability, and with the exception of a brief surge of interest in the late 19th and early 20th
>> centuries, "Lamarckism" has long been consigned to the theory junkyard.

>

>> Now all that is changing. No one is arguing that Lamarck got everything right, but over the past decade it has become increasingly
>> clear that environmental factors, such as diet or stress, can have biological consequences that are transmitted to offspring without
>> a single change to gene sequences taking place. In fact, some biologists are already starting to consider this process as routine.
>> However, fully accepting the idea, provocatively dubbed the "new Lamarckism", would mean a radical rewrite of modern evolutionary ...

>> So for example the the need to peck deeper by a bird was being
>> constantly hammered into the brain and therefore did actually transfer
>> this need down to the offspring to some degree; perhaps giving the
>> natural selection a helping hand or actually being even more prominent
>> in the determining the traits of the offspring.

>
> Perhaps i'm not interpreting the article correctly but the "mutations"
> in any genetic shift that occur are possibly influenced by the
> parental "needs". With the word "need" being a subjective idea. Rather
> than by pure chance aka natural selection. Obviously the these things
> can be fairly basic but have over the generations become complex
> within the basic framework. If that makes sense. So we'd really WANT
> that longer beak to peck out the grubs...

>>> So for example the the need to peck deeper by a bird was being
>>> constantly hammered into the brain and therefore did actually transfer
>>> this need down to the offspring to some degree; perhaps giving the
>>> natural selection a helping hand or actually being even more prominent
>>> in the determining the traits of the offspring.

>

>> Perhaps i'm not interpreting the article correctly but the "mutations"
>> in any genetic shift that occur are possibly influenced by the
>> parental "needs". With the word "need" being a subjective idea. Rather
>> than by pure chance aka natural selection. Obviously the these things
>> can be fairly basic but have over the generations become complex
>> within the basic framework. If that makes sense. So we'd really WANT
>> that longer beak to peck out the grubs and therefore pass down that
>> need to the offspring if any transference were possible. This would
>> seem somewhat likely considering the diversity.

>

>> The mutation factor is an interesting arena of consideration.

>
> But the peck or behavior would have to cause a mutation in the ...

> HALF a century before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of
> Species, the French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck outlined his
> own theory of evolution. A cornerstone of this was the idea that...

> On Jul 13, 2:00 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>

>>>> So for example the the need to peck deeper by a bird was being
>>>> constantly hammered into the brain and therefore did actually transfer
>>>> this need down to the offspring to some degree; perhaps giving the
>>>> natural selection a helping hand or actually being even more prominent
>>>> in the determining the traits of the offspring.

>

>>> Perhaps i'm not interpreting the article correctly but the "mutations"
>>> in any genetic shift that occur are possibly influenced by the
>>> parental "needs". With the word "need" being a subjective idea. Rather
>>> than by pure chance aka natural selection. Obviously the these things
>>> can be fairly basic but have over the generations become complex
>>> within the basic framework. If that makes sense. So we'd really WANT
>>> that longer beak to peck out the grubs and therefore pass down that
>>> need to the offspring if any transference were possible. This would
>>> seem somewhat likely considering the diversity. ...