Evolution is goal-directed but Lamarkian explanation is unsatisfactory while the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection is plausible and consistent with our current knowledge of genetics.
I like the way Harjeet said it. Have a look at functional genomic applications of RNAi – technical but does blur the line a little. Harjeet may want to add something on that – I am not as up on it as she is.
I do for for both. We are finding really interesting changes in plant genomes in response to stress (drought, salt, disease, temperature) that are imprinted in the DNA. These changes come through in following generations as either positive or negative responses. Plants do respond to their environment and often this response can extend through future generations. These two theories are still relevant.
I definitely support Darwin’s theory, I think there is a lot of evidence to support that. As for Lamark’s theory, I think that as we understand more about the genome, we will able to get a more definitive answer on this.
I don’t know their theories in great detail but I’ve always been taught about evolution from a Darwinian perspective. It all certainly makes sense when you study a family or a genus of plants or animals and can see the small differences between the species which show how species can have a common ancestor but have evolved differently due to their environments.
Evolution is goal-directed but Lamarkian explanation is unsatisfactory while the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection is plausible and consistent with our current knowledge of genetics.
0
I like the way Harjeet said it. Have a look at functional genomic applications of RNAi – technical but does blur the line a little. Harjeet may want to add something on that – I am not as up on it as she is.
0
I do for for both. We are finding really interesting changes in plant genomes in response to stress (drought, salt, disease, temperature) that are imprinted in the DNA. These changes come through in following generations as either positive or negative responses. Plants do respond to their environment and often this response can extend through future generations. These two theories are still relevant.
0
I definitely support Darwin’s theory, I think there is a lot of evidence to support that. As for Lamark’s theory, I think that as we understand more about the genome, we will able to get a more definitive answer on this.
0
I don’t know their theories in great detail but I’ve always been taught about evolution from a Darwinian perspective. It all certainly makes sense when you study a family or a genus of plants or animals and can see the small differences between the species which show how species can have a common ancestor but have evolved differently due to their environments.
0