Evolution, Darwin, Lamarck

i also have a scar from about 50 years a go. it has worn smooth with time though. tragic bicycle accident, after which i cried for hours. the emotional scars are still there as well.

 

it still brings me to the verge of tears, just thinking about it.

 

maybe so, but to some extent, they do get enough of our dna for all kinds of scarring.

 

Neither Darwin nor Lamarck seem to address random variation that has neutral adaptive action. And there seems to be a lot of that going on. Perhaps adaptive change is simply survival of one of the random changes that turns out to be important.

With regard to scar tissue, proteolytic enzymes can prevent, and even reverse scar tissue. Children have a much better supply than older people, and thus don't scar as badly for the same injury. For more than you ever wanted to know about proteolytic/systemic enzymes, search for "dr wong enzymes". He used to push Vitalzyme, but has his own brand now. Friend of mine says to save some money and just use straight serrapeptidase. My comment is that the impact is slow (like months) and cumulative (take lots).

 

About 15 years ago I was on a tour of the Galapagos. Every day it was pointed out the observations that Darwin made some 150+ years ago.

The researchers at the Charles Darwin Research Station have continued his work, finding many more examples of what came to be know as evolution. An example that sticks with me was a bird species that changes the length of its beak each year. This particular bird (hummingbird, finch?) drinks the nectar of a specific flower. But depending on the weather, the flower changes in size from year to year. A beak designed for last year's flower size frequently is less than optimal for this year's flower size. Apparently birds are born with a range of beak lengths. Those with an optimal length for the current flowers flourish, those too long do poorly, and those too short don't survive. Thus an observable level of evolution occurs over a period of one year.

The majority of the offspring of this particular bird develop beaks the same length as their parents. Which is a disaster for these birds when the weather has changed from the previous year. But I guess you could say that part of the bird's evolutionary adaption is to produce a range of beak lengths, some of which will be appropriate each year. Enough random variation from the norm allows the species to continue even when the central evolutionary direction fails.

 

First, I wish I was old enough to compare 50 year old scars. I'm sure there are some medical treatments to remove ;-) I'm not sure what the scaring has to do with evolution, other than humans have not evolved to the point where our repair facilities can do the job without scaring without some outside the body medical help.

I've got to say, from my fairly modern genetics from 10 years ago, that I am still puzzled by some of the claims.

Both Lamarck and Darwin thought of evolution, versus the church that still was on some kind of thought police on animals and man being this way from when god created them.

From everything I have learned, and I'm sure some people know much more, traits are not acquired over an organisms lifetime. We know the mechanism for descent through modification, it is the genes, mutation, and passing on these genes through both surviving long enough to have viable offspring, and talent in sexual selection so that offspring are had. Part of what we know about genes today, is that a mutation may change the species in a single generation, and that environmental factors can change gene expression. A creature does not change traits based on the environment, unless that other trait was already in its parents genetic code, or it was extremely lucky in being born with a mutation that caused that genetic change just at the right time for the environmental change.

 

The Bio Viva company is developing genetic treatments that alter a person's current genome.

The CEO of Bio Viva, Liz Parish, calls herself "patient zero" in a test of a genetic treatment that triggers additional production of telomerase. As best I understand it, an extra gene is attached to a virus, and the result is administered to a person. The extra telomerase results in telomeres that are longer than they would be without the treatment.

The potential result of full telomere length is the lack of aging, as seen in immortal animals such a lobsters. Lobsters do not age - they get eaten and otherwise killed off, but not by any aging process that has been identified. Liz Parish also received a treatment aimed at reducing sarcopenia, the loss of strength with age.

I look forward to an update on her condition at Raadfest this August.