Jump to content

Luiz Henning

Senior Members
  • Posts

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

282 profile views

Luiz Henning's Achievements

Quark

Quark (2/13)

-18

Reputation

  1. As I demonstrated at the beginning of the topic, this text is not intended to bring anything new, just to respond to certain people on Twitter who hammer out in discussions like this. Just show that some of your hypotheses have not been refuted. After all, hypotheses were already well received by the scientific community at the time and that served to support that author's narrative. In other words, they are accepted hypotheses that serve to support a hypothesis not yet verified. Only by thoroughly testing a hypothesis and its premises can we then develop a theory capable of explaining a given problem. In Lamarck's case, the problem is the transformation of species over generations. That's basically it, if you don't find this topic useful, just ignore it. Resultados de tradução
  2. My aim in this topic is to explain why lamarck is not completely wrong. I'm impacted by twitter discussions that HIT the hammer, without references, that such a thing is a proven scientific hypothesis and such a thing is a refuted hypothesis. To say that Lamarckism is a refuted theory is correct and we should not revisit it to explain the evolution of living things. But this is not to say that all the premises assumed by Lamarck have been refuted. In this sense, it is noteworthy that premises are also hypotheses. So without further ado, let's get to the point of this topic: 1) Confusion between causation and correlation Character transmission BY repetitive effort = the Lamarckian theory or Repetitive effort for a given activity would be nothing more than the natural (intrinsic) or relatively constructed expression of the form or genotype, which in turn is transmissible (Darwinian theory) Lamarck placed great emphasis on expression/behavior as a transmissible attribute while Darwin showed that it is the particular or general genetic form/architecture, which is transmissible and/or heterogeneously heritable, and which in turn is one of the main causes for the transmission and manifestation of certain behavior. Lamarck postulated that the phenotype, which is particularly produced by the combination of bio-variables and environmental circumstances, is fundamentally transmitted or transmissible via repetitive effort. Darwin postulated that it is the genotype (or form) that is in fact transmissible. The phenotype expresses the set of emergent or dominant traits within an individual or particular bio-context. The phenotype can skip a generation and manifest itself in the subsequent generation/grandchildren, or even lose its strength and of course all these scenarios will fundamentally depend on structural reproductive circumstances, such as marital sharing of common traits, especially recessive ones, so that they can manifest, possibly, environmental variables, etc. However, the genotype, which brings together all the spectra of particular expressive/phenotypic dominance and recessivity, is the one that will be undeniably transmitted, and of course in complex life forms such as human, this will occur from a trend of diversification, phenotypic and genotypic, if we are like mutants and/or recombinants from our parents and so on in a chain of genetic preservation and modification. Example I start exercising and realize the potential for sculpting muscles. According to Lamarck, I would pass this ''gradual transformation'' or expression to my children. In fact, I can pass on as an intergenerational legacy this DISPOSITION to sculpt muscle, that is, the genotype and not necessarily or directly, the phenotype or sculpted muscles. So, one or more of my hypothetical children could be born with this disposition... It can also happen that one or several of them are born with ''new mutations'' of this characteristic and convey the idea that my repetitive effort was passed on to them as a genetic legacy. Lamarck concluded that the phenotype via repetitive strain is transmissible. Repetitive strain is an expression of the phenotype and it is the genotype that is transmissible. Lamarck wasn't completely wrong... because phenotypes can also be transmitted, as long as intergenerational transmission results in their expression, like father, like son. However, in my opinion, repetitive strain is not the cause but the result of a certain phenotypic or chronically emergent disposition, which is very latent in us, which we cannot control because it is dominant and imperative to do so, in the case of behavioral dispositions. Another similar case happens with epigenetics, epigenetics has a completely different theoretical system than Lamarck proposed, although it restores a similar premise. In summary, the assumption of acquired inheritance has not been refuted. It was only used in a narrative that did NOT explain the intended problem. And the fact that there is confusion between causality and correlation as mentioned above. The law of use and disuse for example, can alternatively be explained by natural selection, with more robust evidence (Darwinian theory). And although the law of inheritance of acquired characters was refuted as a mechanism of evolution, it is being revisited as a hypothesis to explain mechanisms of non-genetic inheritance.
  3. I talked about the hormonal hypothesis, and about food, epigenetics is a subject that I’m still delving into. So I prefer not to give much opinion (But I have some doubts about the epigenetic cause in Homosexuality)
  4. I still don't understand what he meant by "left side", I'm a 36 year old "boomer" (as they say), I have no idea if this is a joke, or he is talking about the political left side.
  5. I realized now, it was a typo on my part, I apologize, I meant in the singular "Gene Gay". There are people who think that a single gene plays a unique role in homosexuality, disregarding that in fact, all genetic characteristics are polygenic (With some caveats, which are exceptions and do not prove the rule). The 1990 study by geneticist Dean Hamer was completely misinterpreted in my country's media. To the point of literally saying "Being Homosexual is inirent to human beings" (Yes, they really made that statement) My criticism in question, was that. I believe that homosexuality is much more linked to environmental, hormonal and psycho-social issues, I recommend this great text below: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6026959/
  6. What would be the left side? And I don't admire John, I just found his objections interesting, I was polite to him, because the same was with me
  7. Lunatic argument, did not show me who refuted this study, what methods were used to refute, and what date they were refuted, just claimed to be old "probably refuted". And he also said that I have agendas at the end. LMAO However, as I said before, recent studies are in the text above, if the child cannot find it without the help of an adult, I can do nothing. I don't even have time for that.
  8. I appeal to the age hahahahahahaha, but I would like then, since this text has been "refuted", to present me who refuted it, what methods were used to refute, and, mainly, on what date were they refuted? (Since most of those wikipedia hyperlinks are as old or as old as these studies mentioned)
  9. This and only one, there is much more where I address exactly that. you gave me the idea to coin a fallacy. "I appeal to age", would be a nice name.Lol
  10. I am really sorry I have already dealt with a large part of them in the text, so come back again.
  11. The parts that are in your "evidence" were dealt with in my topic, I just mentioned which ones were. Now, if you want to see an explanation of why but duly mistaken, due to the nature of your method, go back to the text.
  12. didn't you want the parts? Those are the parts that are in your "evidences" (if we can call evidence wikpedia. LMAO) that are properly treated in my topic, which again speaking, you have not read, you have not read and you hate those who are going to read. I am not your "comrade" and much less a "friend". Anyway, it's good that you understood. Perfect, now I am waiting for the refutations and the evidence raised by me.
  13. From what I've reviewed so far, I can already put bailey, Ganna, Kallman, Kirk, Bearman and Bruckner, kendler and so on. Particularly the debate with Comrade JohnSSM, and his admiration for the selective collection of information. And here is demonstrated once again his inability to argue decently, to laugh is not an argument, not to scoff either. In the meantime, I am waiting for you to actually read my text and explain where and when my evidence is substantially wrong. And obviously, dealing with the evidence and points raised by me.
  14. No, and here you demonstrate once again your deficiency in the incapacity of textual interpretation. What I said was that ignoring my data is irrelevant in this discussion, and if we continue like this, we will have a fruitless debate. I have already reviewed some of your data, and I can safely say that some have already been refuted by recent studies. Why do I speak of them openly on the topic that you probably will not read. Yourself, and it's not an "idiotic and silly" attack, I'm just reporting an axiom. On the contrary, we would both be right or in agreement if you had the cognitive capacity to interpret or at least read, even if it is a mere two lines.
  15. The only one who appears to have a severe functional difficulty to interpret a minimal reading, is you. And the evidence contained in the link below (which you have not read, will not read and will have a deadly hatred for those who read) does not point to any environmental variant. A His intellectual incapacity, mixed with his over-inflated ego, creates a mental and ridiculous atrophy comparable to that of an autistic child. Consider the evidence raised in my topic, and then you refute something. Or simply accept that homosexuality is influenced primarily by the environment rather than the other way around. Otherwise, if you do not have the capacity to accept such a real-life blow to your fantasy and egalitarian boy. You simply do not have the ability to prove otherwise, and by the way, that but it seemed to me to cry than a scientific argument to the study mentioned, but really, from you, I do not expect anything "scientific".
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.