Ed, At 17:28 06/11/2010 -0400, you wrote (in your usual civilized way):
Wait a minute! Isn't epigenetics a little like the Lamarkian theory that acquired characteristics are inheritable, a theory long driven off the stage by geneticists beginning with Gregor Mendel.
Yes, it is very close -- but not quite. There's a subtle but important difference. One example that shows the difference is that of body size and weight. Wherever intensive manual agriculture was practised around the world, the nutritionally poor diet (carbohydrate-rich, protein-poor) resulted in short and underweight individuals compared with man in Neolithic times. This was due to epigenetic effects on the normal developmental genes in the embryo. When diets began to improve during industrial times -- from about 200 years ago in Europe -- epigenetic control began relaxing in stages and, within about five or six generations, the size and weight of babies improved each generation -- and, of course, in the adult. In the UK, for example, upper middle-class individuals had recovered full Neolithic size and weight about three generations ago while most of the population are only just about reaching it now. (Americans got there sooner. Even as late as the 1940s when American soldiers were arriving in England preparatory to the invasion of Germany-occupied Europe, it was noticed that on average they were several inches taller and many pounds heavier than English soldiers.) The full recovery of normal weight and size appears to take about five or six generations of a nutritionally adequate diet -- each new generation stepping upwards, as it were, (roughly a gain of about a quarter-pound in birth weight each successive generation). The same effect is now occurring in parts of Asia because they are now weaning themselves away from an almost exclusively rice/millet/wheat diet. The Japanese are still about two generations away from full epigenetic recovery while other Asians such as the Vietnamese or the Chinese are still distinctly small and are still several generations away from full Neolithic stature. (The Dalits of India are still probably a couple of centuries away from full stature -- if indeed, they ever receive an adequate diet.)
None of the above involved changes to genes themselves (and to the normal repertoire of variations within the genes), but only to the degree of epigenetic control over 'standard' genes as they develop the embryo. However, where nutrition became excessively poor over extended periods then there are instances when genes themselves have mutated in order to cope better. Even now there are still five or six pygmy races around the world -- deep in rain forests or in arid mountain regions (where they hunt or gather very little protein) to which they were pushed long ago by other hunter-gatherers or, subsequently, farming races. Pygmy races don't respond to better diets. They remain pygmies even after several generations. Their descendants can only recover to 'normal' body size after many generations of actual interbreeding with non-pygmies when the gene-variations responsible for small size are finally bred-out of existence.
Even though Darwin and Wallace originally presented almost identical papers on evolution to the Linnean Society in 1858 and both were opposed to the Lamarckian theory which was strong at that time, Wallace in later years drifted towards a position that was similar to Lamarck's and he and Darwin seriously fell out. Wallace subsequently took a lot of flak from most biologists who were then fully enrolled in the Darwinian camp and became disregarded without any income. However, now that the fact of epigenesis is well and truly established, it is now realized that Wallace's ideas were actually closer to the mark than Darwin's. It's only in recent years that Wallace's role in evolutionary theory is being given full credit.
Keith
The following is from Wikipedia:Lamarckism (or Lamarckian inheritance) is the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea>idea that an <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism>organism can pass on <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristics>characteristics that it acquired during its <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifetime>lifetime to its <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offspring>offspring (also known as <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_of_acquired_characters>heritability of acquired characteristics or <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_inheritance>soft inheritance). It is named after the French biologist <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Lamarck>Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (17441829), who incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories. He is often incorrectly cited[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed>citation needed] as the founder of soft inheritance, which proposes that individual efforts during the lifetime of the organisms were the main mechanism driving species to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation>adaptation, as they supposedly would acquire adaptive changes and pass them on to offspring.After publication of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin>Charles Darwin's theory of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection>natural selection, the importance of individual efforts in the generation of adaptation was considerably diminished. Later, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_genetics>Mendelian genetics supplanted the notion of inheritance of acquired traits, eventually leading to the development of the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis>modern evolutionary synthesis, and the general abandonment of the Lamarckian theory of evolution in biology. In a wider context, soft inheritance is of use when examining the evolution of cultures and ideas, and is related to the theory of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics>Memetics.I believe the Russians tried to apply Lamarkian principles to agriculture after the revolution. But all of this is beyond me, so I'll quit here lest I risk and attack from Chris.Ed----- Original Message ----- From: <mailto:[email protected]>Ed WeickTo: <mailto:[email protected]>Keith Hudson ; <mailto:[email protected]>RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATIONSent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Epigenesis -- was Indian prejudiceInteresting, Keith. What you are suggesting is that the catastrophic collapse of Indian civilizations, such as happened in Guatemala, would have given a dark coloration to the personalities of subsequent generations. There may have been no genetic changes from one generation to the next, but the epigenetic control factors that determine how genes are marshaled in the creation of new people would have darkened when large numbers of people died and everything was seen to fall apart.The people I worked with in Costa Rica a few years ago were of Spanish or in a few cases Moorish descent. However, there were small groups of Indians living in small villages in out of the way places. I was told that they kept to themselves and preferred not to interact with the overall population. While I haven't seen the data, I would suspect that the original population of Costa Rica underwent a collapse similar to that of Guatemala.Ed----- Original Message ----- From: <mailto:[email protected]>Keith HudsonTo: <mailto:[email protected]>RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATIONSent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 11:21 AM Subject: [Futurework] Epigenesis -- was Indian prejudice Ed,The puzzling aspect of modern African-Americans is why they haven't done much better in the professions, business and politics since slavery was abolished. James Flynn, among others, has pretty conclusively proved that it's nothing to do with inferior intelligence -- they are as much up to the mark as white Americans. The same could be said for the Dalits of India or the Buraku and Ainu of Japan. Even though in both countries the 'untouchable' castes have had full constitutional rights since the 50s, and although much is made of the few exceptional individuals, they hardly feature at all in any important sphere of life.The same could be said for the castes at the other end of the social scale -- the Brahmins of India or the upper middle-class of the UK (which, via Cambridge and Oxford Universities, still almost completely dominates business, politics, professions and much else that's important ever since this new class rose during the 19th century). (America is still supposed to be an equal-opportunity society but it is becoming obvious that an elite Harvard-Yale class is already growing fast in America, similar to the UK -- and the same in France and Germany.)The new and fast-growing field of epigenetics in biology is now beginning to give us the reasons why social status, high or low, perseverates for generations, and which can't be adequately explained on the basis of genes, or nutrition, or education alone. This is the major discovery that emerged from the Human Genome Project from 2003 onwards. It isn't genes alone (or their potentiation alone) which is inherited, but also the particular ways that genes are "set" in order to work in coalition with others. In fact, without these epigenetic coalitions the genes couldn't do their job at all. The agents that decide on these genetic settings lie in the DNA but outside the genes themselves. In effect these agents act rather like cowboys -- they lasso genes that lie at far distances from one another on the DNA (sometimes on different chromosomes) and bring them together so the coalition-gene can do its stuff efficiently.There are two important points to this: firstly, epigenetic settings are as much involved in propensities of behaviour as much as physiological effects; secondly, the settings can be inherited for many generations, or even thousands of years, before they might re-set themselves -- but feeling their way back to what was the original "standard" setting may take several generations. If we consider that culture can be considered as a social collectivity of behaviour, then epigenesis is beginning to explain several mysteries, not only those of long persistence of social status mentioned above but also why some cultures/nations cannot manage their economies in the same way as the West. For example, Argentina was the fourth most prosperous country in the world at the turn of the 20th century when it was selling vast quantities of grain and meat to Europe, but somehow they couldn't consolidate this in their financial institutions and politics -- it has defaulted on its government loans and issued new currencies several times since its peak.Epigenetics is probably the fastest growing sub-field within biology (because gene-coalition propensities are also involved in many diseases such as type 2 diabetes and many cancers) but what fascinates me is that this may finally explain many puzzling features of social castes but also economic development of this country or that.Keith At 09:15 06/11/2010 -0400, you wrote:Pete, you say "I rather suspect the primary reason for using African slaves was the convenient skin marker that made it impossible for the labour to ever be free of pursuit." That may have been a reason, but not likely the primary one. In building up their plantations, Europeans tried to use native Indian labour, but soon found that the Indians were not immune to European diseases and thus died off in large numbers. People from west Africa were generally immune and were brought in to replace the indigenous slaves. The chart below illustrates what happened in Guatemala.Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: "pete" <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]>To: "RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION" <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]>Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Indian prejudice > On Fri, 5 Nov 2010, Christoph Reuss wrote: > >> Malcolm Blackmore wrote: >> > The MacGregor side of my>> > family were evicted at gunpoint from the Highland croft they rented and >> > forcibly placed on a boat at Aberdeen to be sent as indentured labour to>> > America. >> >> Interesting. Are you saying there was __white slavery__ in America? > > Pretty much. although indentured labour was supposed to be paid, and to > terminate upon completion of the debt obligation, in many cases it was > contrived in such a way that it was a life sentence. The main > distinctions between it and true slavery were that 1) children weren't > the property of the employer, to sell out from their parents, and 2) if > a labourer escaped, and got far enough away, he/she could blend in with > the white population and disappear. In fact, I rather suspect the > primary reason for using african slaves was the convenient skin marker > that made it impossible for the labour to ever be free of pursuit. > > See also the "home children" of Canada, shipped out from England, who > were child slave labour, provided with only room and board, and confined> to work, usually as farm labour, for their "guardians" til they were 18.> Some lucked out and were treated as well as the guardians' own children > might have been, but others suffered horrendous conditions, only to > be turned out on the streets malnourished and destitute upon reaching > adulthood. > >> Methinks the MacGregors would have had the option to return to Europe >> soon. And before being evicted, they would have had the option to get >> rich. ;-} > > I imagine Malcolm can set you straight here, but the answer is generally > no. Getting back to europe was pretty much out of the question, but > making a new life in the new world and having success, was a possibility > if not for the labourers, then at least for their children. That is, > if they survived long enough... > > Another very interesting story along these lines is the saga of the > crofters who were subject of rescue attempts by Lord Selkirk, who tried > to provide them with homesteading land in southern Manitoba, in the very > early years of the 19th century, when there was no overland route from > the east coast, and the ships were to deliver 1000 settlers via > Churchill in Hudson's Bay. The many attempts by fur-trading companies, > principally the Northwest Company, to thwart his rescue plans on two > continents, including fraud, bribery, intimidation, and finally murder > by wholesale massacre with a mercenary militia, make a very eye-opening > story of the brutality of life two centuries ago. > > -Pete > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futureworkKeith Hudson, Saltford, England ---------- _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework---------- _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
