Podcasts about lamarck

What the if Lamarck was right? Stanford historian Jessica Riskin, author of "The Power of Life," is our guide into a universe where living things aren't passive passengers waiting for evolution to happen to them, but the active architects of their own bodies, their offspring, and the world around them. The line between creature and environment dissolves. Even the smallest beings turn out to be busy reshaping the planet. Stretch your neck. Reshape your descendants. Welcome to the Lamarckian universe. Want more Jessica? Grab her book at https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/763654/the-power-of-life-by-jessica-riskin/ Find her at Stanford here: https://history.stanford.edu/people/jessica-riskin —————————————————— In the show, I mentioned a wonderful note from longtime listener Steve Scalici about our recent "no gasoline" episode. Here's Steve's full message: —————————————————— From: Steve Scalici Subject: No gasoline, phase 2 "Maybe THE best IFisode I've heard, perhaps because I've been noodling with that inevitable coming world without petroleum…how'd we function, how would society break down, would we be in a Soylent Green-scape? "Seems to me that this too was a corollary of the IF I sent in regarding an aeroplane-less world. My supposition culminated with small self-supporting cities of a certain drivable radius from the city limits. "But overlaying the petro-less factor into the equation, we would devolve berryyyyy quickly to an agrarian localized world perhaps reminiscent of sometime in the 1800s. "The curveball to this is the Industrial Revolution would not, could not be. No power source! This leads me back to my Malthusian philosophy is coming: population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase. "Well then the opposite is true…population would curtail as our means of food harvesting ebbs. And it'd happen rather quickly as our food stocks diminish and famine would occur. "Back to the Middle Ages of castles, moats, bows and arrows, and self-sustained populations. "So my newer IF is 'how and what would a powerless world happen, assuming a stasis occurs in, say, 20 years?' "Shout out to my grandson Matteo here as we drive to a gas station to fill up, he posed a mini-IF: where does the gas come from. Tough to explain to a 5-year-old, but then last week's IF struck and I listened to it multiple times with my wife hearing it replayed and yelled 'WTF!'" —— When she's not studying zombie fungus at Harvard or helping us break the universe every week, our very own Gaby Paniccia writes science fiction. Her short story "The Automatic Grocery Store" is now featured on the popular podcast Escape Pod! Listen here: https://escapepod.org/2026/02/19/escape-pod-1033-the-automatic-grocery-store/ —— Check out our membership rewards! Visit us at Patreon.com/Whattheif —— Got an IF of your own? Want to have us consider your idea for a show topic? Send YOUR IF to us! Visit https://whattheif.com/contact and let us know what's in your imagination. No idea is too small, or too big! Keep On IFFin', Philip, Matt & Gaby

The absurdity of random evolution Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. I’ve been sharing these Gnostic Insights for a few years now, and I’ve discovered that the one topic that flares people up, the most controversial aspect of Gnosticism, doesn’t really have anything to do with the nature of God, or the Archons, or where we go after we die. Believe it or not, Darwinian evolution is the thing that really gets under people’s skins when I say, I don’t believe it, I believe in intelligent design–that we are second order powers sent from the Fullness of God, fully loaded with everything we need to know, because we carry within us the consciousness of the Father. So let me step through this notion once again—try to explain it in a way that will make sense—and if you find yourself just going livid with reaction against what I’m saying, well, that’s what I’m talking about. This is the hot button topic. I remember when I was taught evolutionary theory, and they said it took thousands of generations of minute changes to populate a beneficial mutation to the stage where you could say it had evolved. For instance, in 2012, Michigan State University researchers were very happy to demonstrate the evolution of citrate-eating E. coli bacteria after only 56,000 generations. 56,000 generations! I remember the day in elementary school when I first learned about evolution. There was an illustration in the textbook mocking the concept of Lamarckian evolution. Lamarck had promoted the idea that giraffes who stretched their necks to reach the leaves on higher branches gave birth to calves with longer necks. No, no, Darwinians said, natural selection is the way it happens, as only long-necked giraffes survived the lean years to give birth to more long-necked calves like themselves. And that logic was supposed to have settled the argument concerning Darwinian evolution. Mama giraffe and baby giraffe The reason Darwinian evolutionary theory won out over Lamarck’s theory of epigenetic trait inheritance was that Lamarck’s type of evolution requires learning and volitional repetition, whereas Darwin’s creatures were either born lucky to have long necks or were doomed to be short-necked losers. Even as a child of ten or so, I recall wondering, if long necks were so valuable as to have evolved into our familiar high-nibbling giraffes, then why don’t all large grazing animals have long necks? Then I came up with my own Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything and developed a theory of evolution in keeping with the Simple Explanation. My theory of evolution reinserts learning and choice into the equation and removes the element of dumb luck. Seriously, who would ever look around themselves at the varieties of natural adaptation and believe that dumb luck at the material level accidentally brought it all about? It just doesn’t even make sense. It defies the basic rule of 52 pickup. You’ve heard of that, right? 52 pickup is, if you throw a deck of cards in the air, it never comes down stacked and in order. It never does. In other words, randomness cannot lead to an organism such as we humans that can contemplate and comprehend the universe. It is completely illogical to think that randomness can account for intelligence. Did you ever hear that old expression that given enough time a thousand monkeys sitting at a thousand typewriters could draft a copy of Shakespeare or the Bible? That’s preposterous. It would never happen. Now consider how much more complex our biosphere is at all scales. The interior of a cell is extremely complex in its interconnected functions and parts. Then scale that up to the functions and parts of an organism and scale it up again to the interconnected ecology of forests and again to the interconnected biosphere of the planet. It is simply impossible to achieve without the guidance of an intelligent design. Stop and consider. Please use logic. So here is my Simple Explanation of evolution. First, we accept that the basic matrix of our universe is consciousness. The Simple Explanation's model of evolution is information driven rather than happenstance driven as the conventional model would have it. What I mean is that the Darwinian model we’ve all been taught relies upon the brute force of superior survival mechanisms that allow the superior creature to procreate and thereby pass on their superior genes. And after a tremendous number of such superior generations, the inferior fade into extinction and the superior organism becomes the new normal. In the Simple Explanation, there is an ontological pull upward toward more complex aggregations of consciousness. Darwin’s model is, on the other hand, a case of the blind simply bumbling by happenstance, by lucky accident, by dumb luck to be a superior adaptation from the norm. Where I find it unlikely is that there would be countless such bumblings in the same direction that by dumb luck keeps heading in the upward and onward direction. The Simple Explanation would say the patterns of superiority are few and they are fractal. So the wheel does not need to be reinvented over and over. The golden rule and the hierarchical distribution of increasing complexity and responsibility cover much of it. And due to the transpersonal nature of universal knowledge, basic mechanisms like hands and eyes only need to be invented once and then deployed or copied as needed. There are no such mechanisms in Darwinian evolution. There is no way for one creature to transmit the importance of the development of an eyeball to a different creature in a different part of the world. They don’t believe in transpersonal consciousness. They don’t believe in fractal knowledge or the golden rule. Consciousness is not a byproduct of the human brain or even of a complex system of any sort. Consciousness is the ground state of reality. Think of consciousness as the medium upon which is written the formulae of our universe. The Simple Explanation refers to this ground state as the metaverse. And by the way, the Gnostic gospel (jumping ahead) refers to this consciousness as the Father. You might think of it as God. And it contains every law of the universe as potential expression that manifests when and where appropriate. Smaller derivative units of consciousness are fractals of the originating units of consciousness that express themselves in every single material expression of our universe. consciousness flows in an unending stream from the God Above All Gods In the Gnostic gospel, we call those the second order of powers of which we and all living creatures are a part. The most ambitious units of consciousness, or we would say second order powers, continue to find themselves occupying larger and more complex physical forms. Some of the units of consciousness that started in Earth’s primordial soup have remained in the soup, never attaching themselves to anything more complex than a single-celled organism. The most ambitious little life forms found themselves returning to slightly more sophisticated organisms with each incarnation. Lessons learned are carried forward, always incarnating more and complex structures and occasionally jumping to a more complex hierarchical level, driving the evolution of planetary life via memes accrued through karma. Was my self-unit of consciousness ever a single-celled organism? Probably so, beginning about four and a half billion years ago on this planet. Was my unit of consciousness ever a jellyfish? Good chance it was, since the toroidal-shaped jellyfish is the oldest multi-organ animal on Earth, swimming our seas for the last 700 million years and surviving countless planetary die-offs that killed other organisms. Was my unit of consciousness ever a dinosaur? Well, maybe, but maybe not. I’d imagine the dinosaur memes and karma informed the development of reptiles and birds, not my mammalian lineage. The first mammals are thought to have descended from a different lizard called therapsids. Was my governing unit of consciousness ever a lemur or a chimpanzee or a bonobo or perhaps an australopithecus or a neanderthal? Probably was, since their proto-human memes and karma would have informed human development and the self-unit of consciousness is attracted to familiar patterns. In the Simple Explanations evolutionary model, no war is needed between natural selection and creationism, between science and religion. My Simple Explanation proposes that everything in the cosmos is created through metaversal principles embodied in all units of consciousness and that each governing unit of consciousness evolves according to personal inclination and ability through established patterns of meme acquisition and adaptation and the utterly fair and impartial mechanism of karma. In the Simple Explanation evolutionary schema, I am currently a human and probably have been for a long time. Does that make me more evolved than my dogs? No, not really. The family dogs are at the same level of hierarchical sophistication as the humans. The dog’s aggregate units of consciousness and their Self units of consciousness have all made decisions every step along the way that steered them into this life as these dogs. Every governing unit of consciousness is an integral part of one aggregate or another, hierarchically upline and downline. Every slot needs to be filled. The most you could say of my state of evolution is that ambitious meme collectors evolve into ever more complex instantiations. And my unit of consciousness and those of my aggregate units of consciousness that make up my body are attached to some highly ambitious collections of memes. But whether or not this is anything to brag about is debatable. Now all of that theory that I’ve been sharing with you comes from my book, A Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything, which was published many years ago. And you can still pick that up on Amazon or through the Gnostic Insights website. It’s entirely consistent with the Gnostic view of evolution, as I came to discover many years later. So let’s look now at the Gnostic view of evolution in particular. We are what are called second order of powers. The first order of powers are the Aeons in the Fullness of God. We are the fruit of the Aeons. We are the second order of powers. We’re also known as those of the remembrance. And I suggest that what was sown in the second order of powers that lifted them above the imitation was the remembrance. And for life forms, that remembrance is contained in our double helix DNA. We also have a pure remembrance of the Fullness of God, our aeonic progenitors, contained in our Self with the capital S. But at our cellular level, the DNA is carrying the remembrance forward. As it turned out, the second order of powers became infected with the same lust for dominion that had infected those of the imitation due to the law of mutual combat. And the two orders began a never-ending war over resources in the limited ecology of our early earth. The second order of powers are also known as the likenesses, because we are alike the Aeons. We resemble the original Aeons of the Fullness, but we lost ourselves in the confusion of earth. The Demiurge and its archons are the other entities of the fall that we haven’t talked about yet, since we have only been talking about the physical universe, and archons are immaterial. They are not physical. They are influences. So when we talk about the never-ending war with the living forms, it’s the archons doing battle with the living forms. And those influences of the archons on our material bodies are death, aging, illness. Quoting from the Tripartite Tractate, verses 84 and 85, The powers of the remembrance were adorned with the names of the pre-existence whose likenesses they were. [And that’s the Aeons of the Fullness.] The order of this kind was in harmony with itself and with each other. It fought, however, the order of those of the imitation. And the order of the imitation is the forces of the archons, which include entropy and death. Quoting again, It fought, however, the order of those of the imitation because that order waged war against the likenesses as they were producing various kinds of matter and all sorts of powers mixed with one another and in great number. Now the whole establishment and organization of the images, likenesses, and imitations has come into being for the sake of those who need nourishment, instruction, and form so that their smallness may gradually grow as through the instruction provided by the image of a mirror. That, in fact, is why he created the human last after having prepared and provided for him the things that he created for his sake. So do you hear how that verse from the Tripartite Tractate of the Nag Hammadi says that second order powers develop from the smallest to the largest and that the humans were the last to develop? It goes along with this notion of evolutionary development because we humans couldn’t have just been plopped right into the middle of the primordial soup from the get-go. Look around you. We needed the smaller creatures to come before us to create this environment, this ecology in which we could thrive. And I’m not simply saying it’s all for us humans because every creature that comes along is providing through the Simple Golden Rule all of the needs of all of the other creatures. Let’s talk about the Simple Golden Rule before we end this discussion of evolution. Our job is to reach out to others with love, aid, and information for the betterment of all. The Simple Golden Rule That’s, again, another theory from my Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything. So if you’ve never read that book you might like to go back and read it. This goes for all units of consciousness, all second order powers from the cells and organs up to the organisms and to the ecosystems beyond. Every physical manifestation links up with others of its kind in this universe. Cells link together to make organs. Organs link together to make organisms. Organisms link together to create societies and so on. And these are the building blocks of the next level of hierarchical aggregation. This is re-instantiating the hierarchy of the Fullness in this bounded material universe. And this is what is called the new ecology. It was a way to put the consciousness of the Fullness—the Aeons—into a physical form and manifest them on this earth. And then this will go forward and become the next ecology. The first ecology was the hierarchy of the Fullness. The second ecology is this material universe of ours. And then once this universe is fully redeemed by the Christ it will become the next hierarchical organization—the third ecology. And the way this happens is to reach out to others with love, assistance, and information for the betterment of all. I hope you’ve enjoyed this review of my Simple Explanation Theory of Evolution and how it is logically superior to Darwinian evolution and how it all fits into Gnosticism and the Gnostic Evolutionary Theory, as presented by the Tripartite Tractate. Until next week, God bless us all and Onward and Upward! Please pick up your copy of A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel and leave a review!

The absurdity of random evolution Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. I’ve been sharing these Gnostic Insights for a few years now, and I’ve discovered that the one topic that flares people up, the most controversial aspect of Gnosticism, doesn’t really have anything to do with the nature of God, or the Archons, or where we go after we die. Believe it or not, Darwinian evolution is the thing that really gets under people’s skins when I say, I don’t believe it, I believe in intelligent design–that we are second order powers sent from the Fullness of God, fully loaded with everything we need to know, because we carry within us the consciousness of the Father. So let me step through this notion once again—try to explain it in a way that will make sense—and if you find yourself just going livid with reaction against what I’m saying, well, that’s what I’m talking about. This is the hot button topic. I remember when I was taught evolutionary theory, and they said it took thousands of generations of minute changes to populate a beneficial mutation to the stage where you could say it had evolved. For instance, in 2012, Michigan State University researchers were very happy to demonstrate the evolution of citrate-eating E. coli bacteria after only 56,000 generations. 56,000 generations! I remember the day in elementary school when I first learned about evolution. There was an illustration in the textbook mocking the concept of Lamarckian evolution. Lamarck had promoted the idea that giraffes who stretched their necks to reach the leaves on higher branches gave birth to calves with longer necks. No, no, Darwinians said, natural selection is the way it happens, as only long-necked giraffes survived the lean years to give birth to more long-necked calves like themselves. And that logic was supposed to have settled the argument concerning Darwinian evolution. Mama giraffe and baby giraffe The reason Darwinian evolutionary theory won out over Lamarck’s theory of epigenetic trait inheritance was that Lamarck’s type of evolution requires learning and volitional repetition, whereas Darwin’s creatures were either born lucky to have long necks or were doomed to be short-necked losers. Even as a child of ten or so, I recall wondering, if long necks were so valuable as to have evolved into our familiar high-nibbling giraffes, then why don’t all large grazing animals have long necks? Then I came up with my own Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything and developed a theory of evolution in keeping with the Simple Explanation. My theory of evolution reinserts learning and choice into the equation and removes the element of dumb luck. Seriously, who would ever look around themselves at the varieties of natural adaptation and believe that dumb luck at the material level accidentally brought it all about? It just doesn’t even make sense. It defies the basic rule of 52 pickup. You’ve heard of that, right? 52 pickup is, if you throw a deck of cards in the air, it never comes down stacked and in order. It never does. In other words, randomness cannot lead to an organism such as we humans that can contemplate and comprehend the universe. It is completely illogical to think that randomness can account for intelligence. Did you ever hear that old expression that given enough time a thousand monkeys sitting at a thousand typewriters could draft a copy of Shakespeare or the Bible? That’s preposterous. It would never happen. Now consider how much more complex our biosphere is at all scales. The interior of a cell is extremely complex in its interconnected functions and parts. Then scale that up to the functions and parts of an organism and scale it up again to the interconnected ecology of forests and again to the interconnected biosphere of the planet. It is simply impossible to achieve without the guidance of an intelligent design. Stop and consider. Please use logic. So here is my Simple Explanation of evolution. First, we accept that the basic matrix of our universe is consciousness. The Simple Explanation's model of evolution is information driven rather than happenstance driven as the conventional model would have it. What I mean is that the Darwinian model we’ve all been taught relies upon the brute force of superior survival mechanisms that allow the superior creature to procreate and thereby pass on their superior genes. And after a tremendous number of such superior generations, the inferior fade into extinction and the superior organism becomes the new normal. In the Simple Explanation, there is an ontological pull upward toward more complex aggregations of consciousness. Darwin’s model is, on the other hand, a case of the blind simply bumbling by happenstance, by lucky accident, by dumb luck to be a superior adaptation from the norm. Where I find it unlikely is that there would be countless such bumblings in the same direction that by dumb luck keeps heading in the upward and onward direction. The Simple Explanation would say the patterns of superiority are few and they are fractal. So the wheel does not need to be reinvented over and over. The golden rule and the hierarchical distribution of increasing complexity and responsibility cover much of it. And due to the transpersonal nature of universal knowledge, basic mechanisms like hands and eyes only need to be invented once and then deployed or copied as needed. There are no such mechanisms in Darwinian evolution. There is no way for one creature to transmit the importance of the development of an eyeball to a different creature in a different part of the world. They don’t believe in transpersonal consciousness. They don’t believe in fractal knowledge or the golden rule. Consciousness is not a byproduct of the human brain or even of a complex system of any sort. Consciousness is the ground state of reality. Think of consciousness as the medium upon which is written the formulae of our universe. The Simple Explanation refers to this ground state as the metaverse. And by the way, the Gnostic gospel (jumping ahead) refers to this consciousness as the Father. You might think of it as God. And it contains every law of the universe as potential expression that manifests when and where appropriate. Smaller derivative units of consciousness are fractals of the originating units of consciousness that express themselves in every single material expression of our universe. consciousness flows in an unending stream from the God Above All Gods In the Gnostic gospel, we call those the second order of powers of which we and all living creatures are a part. The most ambitious units of consciousness, or we would say second order powers, continue to find themselves occupying larger and more complex physical forms. Some of the units of consciousness that started in Earth’s primordial soup have remained in the soup, never attaching themselves to anything more complex than a single-celled organism. The most ambitious little life forms found themselves returning to slightly more sophisticated organisms with each incarnation. Lessons learned are carried forward, always incarnating more and complex structures and occasionally jumping to a more complex hierarchical level, driving the evolution of planetary life via memes accrued through karma. Was my self-unit of consciousness ever a single-celled organism? Probably so, beginning about four and a half billion years ago on this planet. Was my unit of consciousness ever a jellyfish? Good chance it was, since the toroidal-shaped jellyfish is the oldest multi-organ animal on Earth, swimming our seas for the last 700 million years and surviving countless planetary die-offs that killed other organisms. Was my unit of consciousness ever a dinosaur? Well, maybe, but maybe not. I’d imagine the dinosaur memes and karma informed the development of reptiles and birds, not my mammalian lineage. The first mammals are thought to have descended from a different lizard called therapsids. Was my governing unit of consciousness ever a lemur or a chimpanzee or a bonobo or perhaps an australopithecus or a neanderthal? Probably was, since their proto-human memes and karma would have informed human development and the self-unit of consciousness is attracted to familiar patterns. In the Simple Explanations evolutionary model, no war is needed between natural selection and creationism, between science and religion. My Simple Explanation proposes that everything in the cosmos is created through metaversal principles embodied in all units of consciousness and that each governing unit of consciousness evolves according to personal inclination and ability through established patterns of meme acquisition and adaptation and the utterly fair and impartial mechanism of karma. In the Simple Explanation evolutionary schema, I am currently a human and probably have been for a long time. Does that make me more evolved than my dogs? No, not really. The family dogs are at the same level of hierarchical sophistication as the humans. The dog’s aggregate units of consciousness and their Self units of consciousness have all made decisions every step along the way that steered them into this life as these dogs. Every governing unit of consciousness is an integral part of one aggregate or another, hierarchically upline and downline. Every slot needs to be filled. The most you could say of my state of evolution is that ambitious meme collectors evolve into ever more complex instantiations. And my unit of consciousness and those of my aggregate units of consciousness that make up my body are attached to some highly ambitious collections of memes. But whether or not this is anything to brag about is debatable. Now all of that theory that I’ve been sharing with you comes from my book, A Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything, which was published many years ago. And you can still pick that up on Amazon or through the Gnostic Insights website. It’s entirely consistent with the Gnostic view of evolution, as I came to discover many years later. So let’s look now at the Gnostic view of evolution in particular. We are what are called second order of powers. The first order of powers are the Aeons in the Fullness of God. We are the fruit of the Aeons. We are the second order of powers. We’re also known as those of the remembrance. And I suggest that what was sown in the second order of powers that lifted them above the imitation was the remembrance. And for life forms, that remembrance is contained in our double helix DNA. We also have a pure remembrance of the Fullness of God, our aeonic progenitors, contained in our Self with the capital S. But at our cellular level, the DNA is carrying the remembrance forward. As it turned out, the second order of powers became infected with the same lust for dominion that had infected those of the imitation due to the law of mutual combat. And the two orders began a never-ending war over resources in the limited ecology of our early earth. The second order of powers are also known as the likenesses, because we are alike the Aeons. We resemble the original Aeons of the Fullness, but we lost ourselves in the confusion of earth. The Demiurge and its archons are the other entities of the fall that we haven’t talked about yet, since we have only been talking about the physical universe, and archons are immaterial. They are not physical. They are influences. So when we talk about the never-ending war with the living forms, it’s the archons doing battle with the living forms. And those influences of the archons on our material bodies are death, aging, illness. Quoting from the Tripartite Tractate, verses 84 and 85, The powers of the remembrance were adorned with the names of the pre-existence whose likenesses they were. [And that’s the Aeons of the Fullness.] The order of this kind was in harmony with itself and with each other. It fought, however, the order of those of the imitation. And the order of the imitation is the forces of the archons, which include entropy and death. Quoting again, It fought, however, the order of those of the imitation because that order waged war against the likenesses as they were producing various kinds of matter and all sorts of powers mixed with one another and in great number. Now the whole establishment and organization of the images, likenesses, and imitations has come into being for the sake of those who need nourishment, instruction, and form so that their smallness may gradually grow as through the instruction provided by the image of a mirror. That, in fact, is why he created the human last after having prepared and provided for him the things that he created for his sake. So do you hear how that verse from the Tripartite Tractate of the Nag Hammadi says that second order powers develop from the smallest to the largest and that the humans were the last to develop? It goes along with this notion of evolutionary development because we humans couldn’t have just been plopped right into the middle of the primordial soup from the get-go. Look around you. We needed the smaller creatures to come before us to create this environment, this ecology in which we could thrive. And I’m not simply saying it’s all for us humans because every creature that comes along is providing through the Simple Golden Rule all of the needs of all of the other creatures. Let’s talk about the Simple Golden Rule before we end this discussion of evolution. Our job is to reach out to others with love, aid, and information for the betterment of all. The Simple Golden Rule That’s, again, another theory from my Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything. So if you’ve never read that book you might like to go back and read it. This goes for all units of consciousness, all second order powers from the cells and organs up to the organisms and to the ecosystems beyond. Every physical manifestation links up with others of its kind in this universe. Cells link together to make organs. Organs link together to make organisms. Organisms link together to create societies and so on. And these are the building blocks of the next level of hierarchical aggregation. This is re-instantiating the hierarchy of the Fullness in this bounded material universe. And this is what is called the new ecology. It was a way to put the consciousness of the Fullness—the Aeons—into a physical form and manifest them on this earth. And then this will go forward and become the next ecology. The first ecology was the hierarchy of the Fullness. The second ecology is this material universe of ours. And then once this universe is fully redeemed by the Christ it will become the next hierarchical organization—the third ecology. And the way this happens is to reach out to others with love, assistance, and information for the betterment of all. I hope you’ve enjoyed this review of my Simple Explanation Theory of Evolution and how it is logically superior to Darwinian evolution and how it all fits into Gnosticism and the Gnostic Evolutionary Theory, as presented by the Tripartite Tractate. Until next week, God bless us all and Onward and Upward! Please pick up your copy of A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel and leave a review!

Rarely does a historian of science have the opportunity, in the midst of changing trends in a science, to point backwards in time and explain how dismissive reactions to the ideas of a scientific pioneer might have harmed the accuracy of that science for centuries. Jessica Riskin has seized such an opportunity in her new book about the French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829), who proposed the first evolutionary theory of life and, with it, a new science: biology. For centuries evolutionary theorists have discredited Lamarck due to his theory of self-transforming organisms, since they rejected (and mocked) the idea that animals could play an active role in shaping their own evolution. But new findings suggest that Lamarck's basic claim was, in many ways, correct. Riskin also argues that that denial of the agency of living beings led to two centuries of eugenic policies and environmental destruction, encouraging people to regard the living world as so much raw material to be shaped and exploited for economic, industrial, and imperial gain. Riskin's melding of biography, history, politics, and science sets out to correct this record. She tells the story of Lamarck's life and work as an intense struggle between rival forces attempting to answer questions that remain foundational to our modern worldview: What is a living being, and what is science? Join us as Riskin shines a much-needed light on an underappreciated biologist whose evolutionary theory offered a more inclusive, collaborative, and enlightened approach to science. A Humanities Member-led Forum program. Forums at the Club are organized and run by volunteer programmers who are members of The Commonwealth Club, and they cover a diverse range of topics. Learn more about our Forums. Organizer: George Hammond Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There is a quiet myth in startup culture: that building something big requires sacrificing your body, your relationships, and your inner life. But what if the most durable companies are built by people who know how to take care of themselves before the pressure hits? Host Yusuf sits down with Mike LeBlanc, a decorated Marine Corps officer, Harvard Business School graduate, co-founder of Cobalt Robotics and Foundation Future Industries, and author of the upcoming book What If Anger is the Answer? Mike brings a grounded, honest perspective on what it really takes to build under pressure, why rigidity breaks companies, and why the first system any company runs on is the founder's own health and mindset. About the Guest: Mike LeBlanc is a former Marine Corps major who completed three tours to the Middle East, served as an economic and technology advisor to the Pentagon, and earned an MBA from Harvard Business School. He co-founded Cobalt Robotics, a Silicon Valley startup backed by Sequoia, Founders Fund, and Coatue, which raised over $120 million and was acquired in 2024. He is now co-founder of Foundation Future Industries, building humanoid robots for the U.S. Department of Defense. His book What If Anger is the Answer? is available for pre-order on Amazon, Target, and Barnes and Noble. Key Takeaways: Internal grit is the skill no one can give you. Being turned down by over a thousand investors while still raising more than $100 million requires an inner resilience that goes far deeper than strategy. The founders who survive rejection have already decided they know what they have. Stop stretching your neck. Mike's Lamarck vs Darwin analogy is clear: most people exhaust themselves adapting to whatever environment they're in. The smarter move is to find the environment where you are already the best fit. There are no bad genres, only bad stories. Stress, uncertainty, and hard pivots are not signs something went wrong. They are features of the startup genre. Reframing difficulty as part of the experience, not a detour from it, is what keeps founders going. Founder burnout is often hidden resentment. When founders become controlling under pressure, what is usually underneath is not fear. It is a feeling that no one else cares the way they do. Naming that honestly is the first step to leading better. Food, sleep, and exercise are the three easiest levers. Emotional and hierarchy pressures are hard to control. Your workout, your sleep, and what you eat are fully in your hands. When everything else feels uncertain, protect these. The builder is the first system. Your nervous system, your sleep debt, your body all flow directly into your decisions, your culture, and your company. Taking care of yourself is not a detour from building. It is building. Connect With Mike LeBlanc: Book (pre-order): What If Anger is the Answer? by Mike LeBlanc Available at: Amazon, Target, Barnes and Noble LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/mike-leblanc-20783b114 Episode Chapters: [00:00] Opening: What If the Healthiest Founders Build the Strongest Companies? [03:00] Welcome: Who Is Mike LeBlanc? (approx.) [04:00] The One Internal Skill Every Founder Must Build: Grit After a Thousand Rejections [07:00] Lamarck vs Darwin: Stop Stretching Your Neck and Find Your Environment [08:00] The Misconception About Building: Embrace the Genre, Not Just the Goal [10:00] Flow, Eudaimonia, and Why Flourishing Beats Happiness as a North Star [12:00] What Is Really Behind Founder Control and Reactivity Under Pressure [17:00] The Practical Shift: Food, Sleep, and Exercise Are the Easy Levers [20:00] Lead Yourself First: The Builder Is the First System the Company Runs On Want to be a guest on Healthy Mind, Healthy Life? DM on PM - Send me a message on PodMatch DM Me Here: https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/avik Disclaimer: This episode is produced for educational and informational purposes only. All views expressed by the guest are their personal opinions alone and do not represent the views of the host or Healthy Mind by Avik™. The Network does not verify, endorse, or assume responsibility for any guest statements. Nothing in this episode constitutes medical, legal, financial, or professional advice, please consult a qualified professional before making any decisions. Listeners are encouraged to engage critically and independently with all content do not consume blindly. Use this content as a starting point for your own reflection and research, not as a substitute for professional guidance. Third-party content is referenced under fair use for informational purposes only. Guest speakers are solely responsible for their own statements. If you have concerns about any content, please contact us here By listening, you acknowledge and accept this disclaimer in full. Read detailed disclaimer here. Healthy Mind By Avik™️ is a global platform redefining mental health as a necessity, not a luxury. Born during the pandemic, it's become a sanctuary for healing, growth, and mindful living. Hosted by Avik Chakraborty, storyteller, survivor, and wellness advocate. With over 6500+ episodes and 200K+ global listeners, we unite voices, break stigma, and build a world where every story matters.

"Lamarkism" is a term often attached to a seemingly discredited idea in evolutionary biology: that one organism could acquire characteristics (e.g., becoming stronger through exercise) that would then be inherited by its descendants. This is a different story than the one ultimately told by the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology, according to which inheritance passes through our genome (which doesn't know that we've been working out). In her book The Power of Life: The Invention of Biology and the Revolutionary Science of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, historian of science Jessica Riskin argues that this picture is too simple, and that Lamarck made contributions we should still pay attention to: most significantly, the idea that organisms have a creative agency of their own, in addition to the influences of the outside world. Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code MINDSCAPE at this link and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/mindscape #sponsored   Blog post with transcript: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2026/03/23/348-jessica-riskin-on-jean-baptiste-lamarck-and-life-as-creative-agency/ Support Mindscape on Patreon. Jessica Riskin received her Ph.D. in history from the University of California, Berkeley. She is currently the Frances and Charles Field Professor of History at Stanford University. Among her awards are the Patrick Suppes Prize in the History of Science and the J. Russell Major Award for French history. Her books include The Restless Clock and Genesis Redux, and she is a frequent contributor to the New York Review of Books. Web page New York Review of Books contributor page Amazon author page Wikipedia

Pablo Vargas es un biólogo, botánico, investigador del CSIC, amante de la naturaleza y como él mismo se  define, un “Naturalista del siglo XXI”, porque ha ido incorporando las herramientas que  la ciencia aporta, principalmente la Genética, para profundizar en el  estudio de los seres vivos, sin dejar de lado su labor de campo. Desarrolla su labora científica en el Real Jardín Botánico de Madrid. Ha escrito tambien varios libros excelentes de divulgación científica tales como “La evolución de los seres vivos”  de la colección ¿Qué sabemos de? del CSIC, El árbol de la vida: evolución y sistemática de los seres vivos, y En Busqueda de las especias. Las plantas de la expedición Magallanes-Elcano. 1:00 Influencias tempranas:  Felix Rodriguez de la Fuente. Padre pescador de truchas5:00: Biología en la Univ. Complutense. El Jardín Botánico de Madrid. 8:00 Formación en Genética en Berkeley, California. Inglaterra. Alemania12:00 Evolución de las especies. Charles Darwin. Lamarck. 24:00 El antepasado común: LUCA31:00 Evolucion humana: la revolución neolítica51:00  El futuro de nuestra especie57:00 Vida extraterrestre.58:00 Mis momentos EUREKA1:04.00 Canarias.1:06:00 Investigación en España.1:09:00 Libros: El origen de las especies (Darwin)1:14:00 Aficiones. Ciclismo1:15:00 Viajes: Australia. Galápagos. Namibia. Himalaya. California. Sudáfrica

durée : 00:37:53 - La Terre au carré - par : Mathieu Vidard - En l'espace de quelques décennies, les œuvres fondatrices de Lamarck, Schwann, Darwin, Claude Bernard et Mendel vont dessiner le cadre général d'une nouvelle science, la biologie. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les autres épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France.

Tom Lum joins the show to reveal what rats are ACTUALLY saying to each other. Plus, Rachel talks about the color of the Universe, and Lauren explains one evolutionary exception. The Weirdest Thing I Learned This Week is a podcast by Popular Science. Share your weirdest facts and stories with us in our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook group⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠tweet at us⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Click here to learn more about all of our stories! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Links to Rachel's TikTok, Newsletter, Merch Store and More: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://linktr.ee/RachelFeltman⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Rachel now has a Patreon, too! Follow her for exclusive bonus content: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/RachelFeltman⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Link to Jess' Twitch: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.twitch.tv/jesscapricorn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Link to all of Jess' content: ⁠https://www.jesscapricorn.com/⁠ -- Follow our team on Twitter Rachel Feltman: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.twitter.com/RachelFeltman⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Produced by Jess Boddy: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.twitter.com/JessicaBoddy⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Popular Science: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.twitter.com/PopSci⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Theme music by Billy Cadden: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/artist/6LqT4DCuAXlBzX8XlNy4Wq?si=5VF2r2XiQoGepRsMTBsDAQ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Find your fall staples at Quince. Go to https://Quince.com/weirdest Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Entre todas las teorías científicas, ninguna ha transformado tanto nuestra visión del mundo como la teoría de la evolución. No solo explica cómo funcionan los seres vivos, sino también nuestro propio origen. Desde las primeras intuiciones de naturalistas como Buffon o Lamarck hasta la obra revolucionaria de Darwin con El origen de las especies, la evolución ha estado en constante debate y renovación. El rechazo inicial a la selección natural dio paso, en el siglo XX, a la teoría sintética que unió genética, paleontología y biología, y más tarde a nuevas propuestas como los equilibrios puntuados de Eldredge y Gould. Hoy, la biología molecular, la genética y la teoría de sistemas complejos siguen ampliando sus horizontes. El paleontólogo Jordi Agustí recorre esta apasionante historia en su libro “Las edades de la evolución”. Descubre sus claves y reflexiones en Hablando con Científicos.

Entre todas las teorías científicas, ninguna ha transformado tanto nuestra visión del mundo como la teoría de la evolución. No solo explica cómo funcionan los seres vivos, sino también nuestro propio origen. Desde las primeras intuiciones de naturalistas como Buffon o Lamarck hasta la obra revolucionaria de Darwin con El origen de las especies, la evolución ha estado en constante debate y renovación. El rechazo inicial a la selección natural dio paso, en el siglo XX, a la teoría sintética que unió genética, paleontología y biología, y más tarde a nuevas propuestas como los equilibrios puntuados de Eldredge y Gould. Hoy, la biología molecular, la genética y la teoría de sistemas complejos siguen ampliando sus horizontes. El paleontólogo Jordi Agustí recorre esta apasionante historia en su libro “Las edades de la evolución”. Descubre sus claves y reflexiones en Hablando con Científicos.

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for August 14, 2025 is: immutable • ih-MYOO-tuh-bul • adjective Immutable is a formal adjective used to describe something that is unable to be changed. // It is hardly an immutable fact that cats and dogs are sworn enemies; over the years our golden retriever has grown both fond and protective of her tabby housemate. See the entry > Examples: “... by the 1800s, naturalists like Lamarck were questioning the assumption that species were immutable; they suggested that over time organisms actually grew more complex, with the human species as the pinnacle of the process. Darwin brought these speculations into public consciousness in 1859 with On the Origin of Species, and while he emphasized that evolution branches in many directions without any predetermined goal in mind, most people came to think of evolution as a linear progression.” — Ted Chiang, LitHub.com, 6 Mar. 2025 Did you know? Immutable may describe something that is incapable of change, but the word itself—like all words—is mutable, both capable of and prone to alteration. To put a finer point on it, if language were fixed, we wouldn't have immutable itself, which required a variety of mutations of the Latin verb mutare (“to change”) to reach our tongues (or pens, keyboards, or touchscreens—oh the many permutations of communication!). Other English words that can be traced back to mutare include mutate, transmute, and commute. Which reminds us—the mutability of language makes great food for thought during one's commute.

Professor GePhardT investigates how Lamarck's once-rejected theory of inherited traits is turbo-charging modern AI and robotics. Listeners explore instant skill hand-offs between robot generations, a Victoria sponge thought experiment, real research from Amsterdam and Oslo, plus practical tips to spot Lamarckian leaps in everyday life—all wrapped in tongue-in-cheek banter and a dash of ethical suspense.Tune in to get my thoughts, don't forget to subscribe to our Newsletter (https://argoberlin.com/newsletter/)!Want to get in contact? Write me an email: podcast@argo.berlinThis podcast is generated with the help of ChatGPT, Mistral, and Claude 3. Human eyes do the fact-checking, but tiny hallucinations may still roam free. The voice you hear is an AI read-through.Music credit: “Modern Situations” by Unicorn Heads Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Por que a girafa tem o pescoço comprido? Será que é de tanto esticar? Separe trinta minutinhos do seu dia e descubra, com Mila Massuda, quem foi Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck, o naturalista que tentou explicar o pescoço da girafa e a transformação das espécies antes mesmo de Charles Darwin aparecer na história..Apresentação: Mila Massuda (@milamassuda)Roteiro: Mila Massuda (@milamassuda) e Emilio Garcia (@emilioblablalogia)Revisão de Roteiro: Vee Almeida e Caio de Santis (@caiodesantis)Técnica de Gravação: Julianna Harsche (@juvisharsche)Editora: Lilian Correa (@_lilianleme)Mixagem e Masterização: Bruno Midões (@bruno_midoes)Produção: Prof. Vítor Soares (@profvitorsoares), Matheus Herédia (@Matheus_Heredia), BláBláLogia (@blablalogia), Caio de Santis (@caiodesantis) e Biologia em Meia Hora (@biologiaemmeiahora)Gravado e editado nos estúdios TocaCast, do grupo Tocalivros (@tocalivros)REFERÊNCIASLAMARCK, J. B. Zoological philosophy: an exposition with regard to the natural history of animals. Translated, with an introduction, by Hugh Elliot. New York; London: Hafner Publishing Company, 1963.

******Support the channel******Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenterPayPal: paypal.me/thedissenterPayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuyPayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9lPayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpzPayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9mPayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ******Follow me on******Website: https://www.thedissenter.net/The Dissenter Goodreads list: https://shorturl.at/7BMoBFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/Twitter: https://x.com/TheDissenterYT This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Kostas Kampourakis is author and editor of several books about science. He works at the Teacher Training Institute and the Section of Biology at the University of Geneva. At the Section of Biology, he teaches the courses “Biologie et Société” and “Comprendre l'évolution”. He is the author and editor of several books, including Darwin Mythology: Debunking Myths, Correcting Falsehoods. In this episode, we focus on Darwin Mythology. We start by talking about the problem with hero-worshipping in science, and what is a myth. We then go through several myths and falsehoods associated with Darwin, including whether his ideas were original to him; the Galápagos Islands and the finches; whether Darwin was an armchair theoretician; his reaction to Lamarck's ideas; Alfred Russell Wallace; whether Darwin's opponents had good arguments; the origins of the phrase “survival of the fittest”; essentialism; African human origins; whether Darwin's theory was revolutionary; and whether it makes sense to question Darwin. Finally, we talk about what we can learn about how science works by debunking such myths.--A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, JERRY MULLER, BERNARDO SEIXAS, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, PHIL KAVANAGH, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, FERGAL CUSSEN, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, ROMAIN ROCH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, PAUL-GEORGE ARNAUD, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ALEX CHAU, AMAURI MARTÍNEZ, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, MICHAEL BAILEY, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, BARNABAS RADICS, MARK CAMPBELL, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, JESSICA NOWICKI, LINDA BRANDIN, GEORGE CHORIATIS, VALENTIN STEINMANN, ALEXANDER HUBBARD, BR, JONAS HERTNER, URSULA GOODENOUGH, DAVID PINSOF, SEAN NELSON, MIKE LAVIGNE, JOS KNECHT, LUCY, MANVIR SINGH, PETRA WEIMANN, CAROLA FEEST, MAURO JÚNIOR, 航 豊川, TONY BARRETT, NIKOLAI VISHNEVSKY, STEVEN GANGESTAD, TED FARRIS, AND ROBINROSWELL!A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, NICK GOLDEN, CHRISTINE GLASS, IGOR NIKIFOROVSKI, PER KRAULIS, AND BENJAMIN GELBART!AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, ROSEY, AND GREGORY HASTINGS!

A l'occasion de la Journée mondiale de Darwin, le 12 février, BSG rediffuse une série consacrée au père de la théorie de l'Évolution.Dans L'origine des espèces, Darwin innove par sa logique, enchaînant des faits et des déductions logiques. Alors que le transformisme de Lamarck n'était qu'une hypothèse ouverte, Darwin pose la réalité de la transformation des espèces, dont il explique le mécanisme. La variation des animaux et des plantes est un fait prouvé par la sélection artificielle pratiquée par les jardiniers et les éleveurs. Par ailleurs, Darwin souligne la contradiction apparente entre la tendance à un accroissement exponentiel des populations et le fait que dans la réalité, les populations sont en équilibre avec leur milieu. Un facteur de régulation éliminatoire doit donc exister.Darwin se saisit alors du modèle de Thomas Malthus, qui prédit une lutte pour l'existence (la fameuse expression struggle for life). Les "vainqueurs" de cette lutte sont les individus les mieux adaptés (survival of the fittest, la survie du mieux adapté). Conclusion : chaque espèce se transforme au hasard, dans toutes les directions. Les variants les mieux adaptés sont favorisés et donc retenus par l'évolution. Le Darwinisme n'a jamais été refuté, même s'il a été affiné depuis. Il a été le point de départ d'autres théories, lesquelles ont eu une validité et un destin divers…Dessin ©Jonathan Munoz chez Glénat_______ 

Heen en weer stappen in de erfelijkheidsleerAls het over erfelijkheidsleer of genetica gaat hoor je al gauw trefwoorden als chromosomen, mutaties, genen en DNA. Lang voor die vindingen werden gedaan dachten mensen na over hoe erfelijke eigenschappen worden doorgegeven. Maar dat gebeurde zonder de mechanismen te kennen en dat gold van de oudheid tot aan Darwin aan toe. Al heel lang probeerden mensen door selecteren en kruisen van gewassen een betere oogst te krijgen en profitabelere dieren te fokken. En ook van hun eigen afstamming ging altijd een grote fascinatie uit. Tot voor 150 jaar had men geen goed idee van hoe die eigenschappen werden doorgegeven, en eigenlijk ook niet van wat er tijdens de voortplanting gebeurde,Eén van de eerste ideeën over erfelijkheid die we kennen kwam van de Griekse filosoof Hippocrates. Hij dacht dat onze eigenschappen, de erfelijkheid van alles (pangenese), aangeboren of tijdens het leven verkregen, in kleine deeltjes zaten die door ons lichaam zwerven. Dat idee had nog heel lang aanhangers, tot aan Darwin toe. Hij gaf de deeltjes een mooie naam (gemmules) die in alle cellen zouden zitten en hij ging ook mee met de overerving van verworven eigenschappen. Darwin werd beinvloed door Lamarck, een iets vroegere denker over evolutie. Lamarck propageerde kort gezegd de gedachte dat de giraffe die veel bladeren van hoge bomen eet en daardoor een lange nek krijgt die eigenschap doorgeeft aan de kinderen. Dit “Lamarckianisme” speelt in de moderne genetica die uitgaat van DNA als drager van het erfelijk materiaal geen rol. Alhoewel, inmiddels weten we nu wel dat gebeurtenissen in het leven uitwerking hebben op micro-RNA dat de aflezing en omzetting van DNA aanstuurt (epigenetica), en daarmee is door de achterdeur een vorm van Lamarckianisme weer terug.Aristoteles was het niet eens met het pangenetisch denken van Hippocrates, want hij dacht dat al onze eigenschappen in zaadvloeistof (semen) zat dat door ons lichaam stroomt. Door menging van vrouwelijke en mannelijke semen kregen kinderen de eigenschappen van beiden. Ook dat idee bleek uiteindelijk zo gek nog niet zoals we zullen zien. Tweeduizend jaar later ontdekte van Leeuwenhoek onder zijn microscoop zaadcellen (met staart) in het sperma. De eeuwen daarna meenden velen kleine mensjes in lichaamscellen te zien onder de microscoop, en een brandende vraag was of dat mensje nu in de zaadcel of in de eicel zat. Een tijdgenoot van Darwin, de monnik Mendel ontdekte dat er wetmatigheden in de overerving van eigenschappen zaten door kruisingsproven met erwten. Geheel los daarvan kwam men aan het eind van de 19e eeuw tot de conclusie dat in de celkernen erfelijk materiaal moest zitten. Bij celdeling zag men dat samengebald materiaal uit de celkern in de vorm van chromosoom-paren zich verdubbelt en over de twee genetische identieke dochtercellen verdeeld wordt. Dit proces dat mitose genoemd wordt onderscheidt zich van de geslachtelijke vermeerdering. Daarbij worden eerst vrouwelijke (eicellen) en mannelijke geslachtscellen (sperma) gevormd. In de gameten zoals de geslachtscellen heten, ontstaan in een proces dat meiose heet zit alleen de helft van de chromosomenparen. Bij de bevruchting komen dan nieuw samengestelde chromosomen afkomstig van man en vrouw samen en ontstaat een nieuw individu. A la Aristoteles, maar dan een beetje anders.Er kwamen nog veel meer processen die onze genen beïnvloeden aan het licht, zoals mutatie en recombinatie. Veel kennis, onder andere over de rangschikking van genen kwam van kruisingsproeven met bananenvliegen. Tezamen met de genetische inzichten van Mendel en de evolutie door natuurlijke selectie van Darwin ontstond een nieuw genetisch onderbouwd evolutie model dat we nog steeds kennen als de nieuwe synthese. Wat nog ontbrak was de feitelijke biochemische drager van erfelijke eigenschappen in de chromosomen. Lang dacht men aan eiwitten , maar in 1944 werd duidelijk dat het wel eens desoxy-ribo-nucleinezuren zouden kunnen zijn, oftewel DNA. In 1953 ontstond het beroemde model van DNA, de dubbele helix, bestaand uit suiker- en fosfaatgroepen en vier gepaarde stikstofbasen met de afkortingen A, T, G en C. A ligt altijd tegenover T en G tegenover C, en tezamen vormen ze de genetische code. Het model verklaart simpel hoe DNA zich kan verdubbelen, kan afgelezen worden in een sjabloon (RNA, dit noemt men transcriptie). RNA wordt op zijn beurt in de cel gekoppeld aan een totaal van 20 aminozuren (de translatie), die de basis vormen van al onze eiwitten. Inmiddels kennen we veel meer bijzonderheden van de genetica en zijn de complete gen-sequenties van heel veel organismen, waaronder de mens, beschreven. Toch is het zoals gebruikelijk en leidt al die kennis tot steeds meer vragen. We weten bijvoorbeeld van veel van ons DNA nog niet wat de functie in ons lichaam is. Get full access to Menno en Erwin about Nature and Science at www.mennoenerwin.nl/subscribe

Peter Godfrey-Smith, a Professor of the Philosophy of Science at the University of Sydney, explores with us the differences between creativity in science and philosophy. While philosophers speculate unconstrainedly, scientists must balance creative thinking with the need for empirical testing and within our fields' paradigms – if you mention the “Lamarck” word at a bar full of geneticists, don't be surprised if the piano suddenly stops and everybody looks at you in disbelief. We also talk about Thomas Kuhn's tension between normal and revolutionary science, the risks and rewards of disruptive ideas, and the importance of "middle-class science"—independent labs driving innovation. Peter ends by drawing a parallel between the night science / day science transition and Händel's aria "As Steals the Morn," which describes the transition from dream state to wakefulness.This episode was supported by Research Theory (researchtheory.org). For more information about Night Science, visit https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/night-science .

When it comes to evolution many focus on what Jean-Baptiste Lamarck got wrong with his model of inheritance.  Darren looks at what he got right and considers his discoveries in light of the scientific understanding of the world of his time.  Adam, based on first hand anecdotal evidence of many cats and dogs, wonders what pets see when they looking at various types of TVs and computer monitors.

Volvemos con Mariajo Noain en los Viaje de Aspasia. En la primera entrega hablamos de los precursores de la teorización, Darwin y Lamarck, y comenzamos a desentrañar las ramas de la evolución. Retomamos la charla con el homo habilis y su capacidad de crear herramientas, repasamos los movimientos de especies como el georgicus o el erectus, y hablaremos de las características del controvertido neanderthalensis; para terminar, por supuesto, con los sapiens. Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Olá, bio-ouvintes! Nesse episódio fazendo jus ao nosso nome, falamos de Biologia da forma mais raiz possível!  Se você está se preparando para um vestibular ou é só curioso por que gosta é do caos mesmo, vamos falar da grande treta Darwin x Lamarck. Um inglês e um francês que agitaram o mundo das ciências e que tem seus defensores até hoje.  Se você é uma girafa, estique bem seu pescoço, agora se você é um tentilhão, segure seu bico para acompanhar esse episódio.   CONTATOS cartinhas@biologiainsitu.com.br Instagram, Facebook e LinkedIn: @biologiainsitu Twitter e TikTok: @bioinsitu   APOIO Apoio recorrente na Orelo ou no Apoia.se Pix: cartinhas@biologiainsitu.com.br Também no PicPay!   CRÉDITOS Coordenação: Bruna Canellas, Cristianne Santos, Heloá Caramuru, Ricardo Gomes e Vitor Lopes. Pesquisa de pauta: Juliana Barbosa. Revisão Científica: Isabela Mayara. Roteirização: Ana Victória. Revisão Textual: Lívia Sugahara e Sueli Rodrigues. Locução: Cristianne Santos e Heloá Caramuru. Edição e mixagem de áudio: Ricardo Gomes. Arte de capa: Larissa Castro.   CITAÇÃO DO EPISÓDIO (ABNT) Biologia In Situ 159 - Dipirona é melhor que opioide. Coordenação: Bruna Garcia da Cruz Canellas, Cristianne Santana Santos, Heloá Caramuru Carlos, Ricardo da Silva Gomes e Vitor Estanislau de Almeida Souza Lopes. Pesquisa de pauta: Juliana Cristina de Almeida Barbosa. Revisão Científica: Isabela Mayara dos Santos. Roteirização: Ana Victória de Sousa Bezerra. Revisão Textual: Lívia Ramos Sugahara e Sueli Aparecida Rodrigues. Locução: Cristianne Santana Santos e Heloá Caramuru Carlos. Edição e mixagem de áudio: Ricardo da Silva Gomes. Arte de capa: Larissa Araguaia Monteiro de Castro. [S. l.] Canal Biologia In Situ, 01 de agosto de 2024. Podcast. Disponível em: https://biologiainsitu.com.br/159-darwin-e-lamarck-os-dois-a-80-por-hora/.

Apocalypse now ?  Écroulement des États, extinction massive des espèces, épuisement des ressources naturelles, anéantissement de l'économie, disparition de la civilisation, l'enfer sur Terre est pour bientôt. Dans cet épisode, Gaël et Geoffroy tentent de comprendre pourquoi les théoriciens de l'effondrement estiment que l'humanité est proche de son autodestruction. Une plongée vertigineuse dans la plus cauchemardesque des dystopies. Musique : Thibaud R.  Habillage sonore / mixage : Alexandre Lechaux Facebook Instagram Twitter www.toutsavoir.fr Contact : tousparano@gmail.com

Where does the hatred towards Epigenetics, Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck, The Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics and finally Lysenko come from, where and how did it begin? Today we will launch an assault of historical revelations against a mystified truism of genetics and heredity which unless you were born before 1950 have always already been the dominant mode of thinking. We will investigate the earliest Sci-fi and the experimental science of the 1920s as we go looking for the Neo-Darwinists who in their blind appropriation discarded the materialist core of Charlie's teaching and replaced it with a metaphysical alchemical preformationism. We will go through NKVD files on the mountaineers case, read Evola and his alpine meditations, frighten ourselves with body-less living dog heads, crypts in princely villas of the bourgeoisie quarters of Moscow were people are said to be frozen alive. We will finally learn how the Rockefellers and its Fruit Fly Mafia made its way in to the USSR and who became their recruited intellectuals, linking up of course with the very heart and centre of underground anti-soviet activity. This and a lot more awaits you on this coming three hour journey. Enjoy!

This week, we had Kehlan Morgan on to talk about the philosophy of science. Science has lost touch with philosophy, and in turn, it has lost touch with reasoning, the metaphysical, true empiricism, and reasoning. Kehlan gives an amazing take on health as a sort of cohesion.We delve into the psyche, touching on Jung's work, which leads us into a conversation about Lamarck, evolution, and morphic resonance.This quickly turns into a discussion on the scientific method. We touch on the need for presumptions and rationalism in the seemingly empirical scientific method. We also discuss ideas of falsification, true scientific reasoning, and problems with the scientific method. Interestingly, we touch on scientific constants and why mathematical constants might not be the true constants of nature. We talk about ideas from Goethe, Whitehead, British empiricism, and many other phenomenal philosophers.We finish by talking about the structure of science as problematic (Scientistry) and the need for true science (Scientody). We also discuss the need for the reintegration of the individual in nature and of the sciences in general.This was a mind-blowing episode that will leave you thirsty for knowledge.Get your notes ready and enjoy.Transcripthttps://paragraph.xyz/@beyondterrain/kehlan-morganLearn from mehttps://www.instagram.com/beyond.terrain/https://linktr.ee/beyondterrainSupport the visionhttps://www.buymeacoffee.com/beyondterrainETH: beyondterrain.ethBTC: bc1qqwc470ktgj3l4myqxr5hq67rnlqys0qm98u6f0Learn from and Support Kehlanhttps://www.youtube.com/@Formscapeshttps://www.formscapes.org/

durée : 00:58:50 - Le Cours de l'histoire - par : Xavier Mauduit - Héritier d'Adanson, Tournefort et Lamarck, le botaniste Marc Jeanson revient sur trois-cent-cinquante ans d'une course folle, celle de l'inventaire du vivant. - invités : Marc Jeanson Botaniste, responsable de l'Herbier national au Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle

18. yüzyılın doğa bilimcilerinden Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon'u konuşuyoruz. Doğa tarihi, biyoloji, jeoloji ve diğer bilim dallarına dair Histoire Naturelle kitabındaki fikirleri, Lamarck'ı da ve Darwin'i de etkilemişti. 

En este episodio vamos a hablar de las jirafas y muchas de las singularidades que les ha dado la evolución, que tienen que ver casi todas con regular su temperatura en climas calurosos.  Por ejemplo, platicaremos sobre sus cuellos y las ideas que ha habido en la historia sobre el por qué son tan largos. Aquí hace una aparición estelar Lamarck.  Pero las jirafas no sólo tienen cuellotes entre sus coqueterías. También tienen cuerpos alargados, manchas, narizotas, cuernitos, y una anatomía interna muy especial, todo lo cual les permite no morirse de calor.  Además les vamos a platicar de la compleja vida social de las jirafas, que es algo que se sabe desde hace poco, pues antes se creía que eran solitarias pero resulta que más bien nadie se había puesto a verlas con suficiente atención y curiosidad. Sus vidas sociales son tan complejas como las de elefantes y chimpancés, y puede que incluso tengan menopausia y esto esté relacionado con esa vida social.  También hablaremos un poco del bienestar animal en cautiverio, y por qué está súper mal que haya jirafas en entornos no adecuados para ellas, y la ciencia que respalda esto.  En el pilón para Patreons vamos a platicar de los corazones de las jirafas y de cómo es que estos cuentan con todo lo necesario para poder mandar sangre a todo el cuerpo de estos animalitos, lo que las haces los mamíferos con presión más alta, pero no les pasan todas las cosas malas que nos pasan a nosotros. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

En direct du Palais Brongniart et en public, accueillis par Finance Innovation, Léa Lejeune vous a donné rendez-vous pour ce nouvel épisode de Billet vert. Au menu, on va se demander si on a le droit de rêver, oui rêver, d'une blockchain “for good”. Parce qu'on entend parler de cette technologie révolutionnaire depuis des années, on nous promet de nouveaux usages ouverts au grand public…Mais on attend que ça vienne, on remarque même des reculs récents…bref on ne sait plus s'il faut encore y croire. Et surtout, est-ce que tout le monde a bien compris les enjeux sociaux et environnementaux?Pour devenir incollable sur la “blockchain for good”, Léa Lejeune reçoit deux invités: Grégory Raymond, journaliste et cofondateur du média spécialisé sur les cryptos The Big Whale, la référence sérieuse et indépendante, Thomas Boidot, directeur R&D du cabinet de conseil Lamarck, en charge de la filiale Blockchain. On y entend aussi le témoignage d'une artiste numérique française Albertine Meunier qui a gagné l'équivalent de 25 000€ en vendant ses œuvres numériques l'an dernier sur les blockchains Tezos et Ethereum. En fin d'émission, comme toujours, la chronique Point de bascule qui revient sur un fait historique marquant du monde de la finance. Philippe Zaouati, directeur général de Mirova revient, pour cette occasion, sur le drame du Rana Plaza.Une émission soutenue par Mirova. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

durée : 00:58:43 - Le Cours de l'histoire - par : Xavier Mauduit - Héritier d'Adanson, Tournefort et Lamarck, le botaniste Marc Jeanson revient sur trois-cent-cinquante ans d'une course folle, celle de l'inventaire du vivant. - invités : Marc Jeanson Botaniste, responsable de l'Herbier national au Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle

Peter Boghossian has been inspired by the work of preeminent evolutionary biologist, author, and atheist Richard Dawkins for years. In this conversation, they discuss various impingements of delusional thinking on rationality.  Richard is unsettled by the substitution hypothesis—the proposal that as one religion fades, another will take its place. Yet, he recognizes the transfer of religious structures into Woke dogma, including the replacements of white privilege for Biblical original sin and trans ideology for Catholic transubstantiation. Richard says he's wasted his life if humans are destined to embrace a default level of delusional thinking from one source or another.   Peter and Richard consider whether some delusions are more benign than others and if the lesser of the evils should be accepted. Richard proposes that scientific thinking and evidence-based belief could replace irrationality, saying the wonders of science provide a “nearly spiritual experience.”  Also discussed: Fermi's paradox, natural selection, extraterrestrial genetics, skeletal gender, Lamarck vs Darwin, the ideological capture of science journals, tribal belief, and two mysteries unanswered by science.  Richard Dawkins is a bestselling author and award-winning evolutionary biologist. He is an advocate for scientific literacy and an outspoken critic of creationism. His most notable books are The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene, both selling millions of copies internationally. Richard's latest book is Flights of Fancy: Defying Gravity by Design and Evolution. Richard hosts The Poetry of Reality podcast and is on the board of the Center for Inquiry.   Website: https://richarddawkins.com/linksWatch this episode on YouTube.

Its a science episode! Join us for a handful of questions across various fields of science for our penultimate episode of Season 4.As always, if you have any questions, comments, errata, or trivia you'd like to hear on the show, we can be reached at 2ddtpodcast@gmail.com.

Give to help Truce! Donate here. In the 1600s, an Irish Archbishop named James Ussher did a bunch of math. The Bible is full of numbers and genealogies. He sat down and calculated that, in his opinion, the Bible dated creation at 4004 BC. According to Ussher, that is when God created man. That number has really stuck around! I gathered my small group together to explore the Adams Synchronological Chart. It is a 23-foot-long timeline of human history, beginning in 4004 BC and ending in 1900. There it was! The 4004 BC number! Which brings up an interesting question, right? What did Christians really believe about evolution just before it became a linchpin battle for fundamentalists? I turned to Edward Larson for answers. He's a professor at Pepperdine University and the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book "Summer for the Gods". The book chronicles the Scopes "Monkey" trial that we'll be covering in the next two episodes. But it also gives us a great introductory look at what Christians believed about evolution in the build-up to the trial. It turns out that evangelical Christians and even fundamentalists were all over the place when it came to ideas of evolution. Many Christians, like William Jennings Bryan, believed in an old earth and even some forms of evolution. But they thought that it was God who caused that evolution. Charles Darwin, though, said that evolution was a matter of chance adaptations, thus cutting God out of the equation. Fundamentalists like Bryan were determined to stop the spread of Darwinian evolution for that very reason. They believed that if young people were taught that they were the result of grand mistakes then what reason did they have to treat each other with respect? To be good citizens? Helpful Sources "Summer for the Gods" by Edward Larson "A Godly Hero" by Michael Kazin "The Birth of a Nation" on YouTube Article about James Ussher and his burial in Westminster Abbey Helpful article about Lamarck "The Evangelicals" by Francis Fitzgerald More about Henry Ford's Anti-Semitism An interesting article about "The Birth of a Nation" Discussion Questions: How did Cuvier and Lamarck differ in their ideas about evolution? Do you believe in a young or old earth? Do you believe in some evolution, macro-evolution, or no evolution at all? What is the best way to oppose an idea? When should we propose laws to combat ideas we don't like and when should we allow others to believe what they like? Do you think the fundamentalists were right to combat teaching evolution in schools? Now that you know about Bryan's failure to call out the KKK, what do you think of him? "Birth of a Nation" shaped American views about black people. Are there more modern films and series that have shaped society in similar ways? Or changed public opinion in other ways? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In today's episode, I discuss transmutation, which is a now debunked scientific theory about how life evolves. Transmutation held to the idea that life does change, but the explanations for how and why were not based in reality. The most famous proponent of transmutation was Jean-Baptism Lamarck. Lamarck was the most famous "evolutionist" before Darwin. While Lamarckism is false, new discoveries about epigenetics are now causing a resurgence of Lamarckian ideas. Sort of.

Charles Isbell and Lexman discuss the dissection of animals and the theory of Lamarckian evolution. They also talk about travel and how different languages affect the way people think and speak.

Nous attaquons l'analyse du septième épisode de House of the Dragon !!!

durée : 00:58:29 - Le Cours de l'histoire - par : Xavier Mauduit - Héritier d'Adanson, Tournefort et Lamarck, le botaniste Marc Jeanson revient sur trois-cent-cinquante ans d'une course folle, celle de l'inventaire du vivant. - invités : Marc Jeanson Botaniste, responsable de l'Herbier national au Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle

Avant la grande rentrée littéraire de septembre - plus de 600 livres sont publiés en France à ce moment-là ! - Sur le fil a été à la rencontre de passionnés de lectures pour qu'ils nous parlent de ce que nous lisons l'été: des romans de plage aux sagas mises en avant par des éditeurs malins.   Pour retrouver les recommandations de Ninon et Fred, les libraires de l'Éternel retour, rue Lamarck dans le XVIIIème arrondissement de Paris, vous pouvez aller sur leur site.   Hugues Honoré, le journaliste de l'Agence France-Presse qui couvre les livres et la littérature nous a dit qu'il n'aime pas faire des recommandations (“les listes peuvent être cruelles pour certains, et c'est toujours subjectif”) mais il nous a dit qu'il avait beaucoup aimé:    “Un été à Long Island - Quand Saint-Exupéry écrivait Le Petit Prince”, un livre d'Alain Vircondelet, aux Editions de l'Observatoire. Ca se passe à l'été 1942 et c'est l'histoire derrière le roman iconique du Petit prince, Saint-Exupéry est très déprimé, il vit une crise morale doublée d'une crise couple    Quant la réalisatrice de ce podcast, Chloé Rouveyrolles, elle va relire un classique de la littérature moyen-orientale, “L'immeuble Yacoubian”, d'Alaa Al Aswany, chez Actes Sud. "C'est une histoire chorale des habitants d'un vieil immeuble du Caire, c'est drôle et dépaysant, que demander d'autre”, nous a-t-elle dit.    Réalisation: Chloé Rouveyrolles et Timothée David.  Sur le Fil est le podcast quotidien de l'AFP. Envoyez-nous vos commentaires : podcast@afp.com ou sur notre compte Instagram. Pour découvrir les coulisses de l'AFP et les récits de nos reporters et photographes sur leurs expériences sur le terrain, écoutez notre playlist  “Les Coulisses du Fil”.  Si vous aimez, abonnez-vous, parlez de nous autour de vous et laissez-nous plein d'étoiles sur votre plateforme de podcasts préférée pour mieux faire connaître notre programme !   

Dans L'origine des espèces, Darwin innove par sa logique, enchaînant des faits et des déductions logiques. Alors que le transformisme de Lamarck n'était qu'une hypothèse ouverte, Darwin pose la réalité de la transformation des espèces, dont il explique le mécanisme.   La variation des animaux et des plantes est un fait prouvé par la sélection artificielle pratiquée par les jardiniers et les éleveurs.   Par ailleurs, Darwin souligne la contradiction apparente entre la tendance à un accroissement exponentiel des populations et le fait que dans la réalité, les populations sont en équilibre avec leur milieu. Un facteur de régulation éliminatoire doit donc exister. Darwin se saisit alors du modèle de Thomas Malthus, qui prédit une lutte pour l'existence (la fameuse expression struggle for life). Les «vainqueurs» de cette lutte sont les individus les mieux adaptés (survival of the fittest, la survie du mieux adapté).   Conclusion : chaque espèce se transforme au hasard, dans toutes les directions. Les variants les mieux adaptés sont favorisés et donc retenus par l'évolution.   Le Darwinisme n'a jamais été refuté, même s'il a été affiné depuis. Il a été le point de départ d'autres théories, lesquelles ont eu une validité et un destin divers… Dessin ©Jonathan Munoz chez Glénat _______  

Get early access to our latest psychology lectures: http://bit.ly/new-talks5 The concept of society as an organism stretches back to antiquity and was a mainstay of 19th and early 20th century social science. Likewise, 19th century evolutionary thinkers such as Spencer and Lamarck envisioned evolution as in part a conscious process and even Darwin shared these views to a degree. Both of these concepts–society as an organism and conscious evolution– became marginalized and even taboo within evolutionary biology during the middle of the 20th century. Group selection seemed to be authoritatively rejected and all adaptations were explained as for the good of individuals and their selfish genes. And evolution was said to have no purpose whatsoever: Variation is random and only the immediate environment does the selecting. Today, these seemingly authoritative positions themselves appear outdated. The individualistic focus can be seen as part of a broader intellectual trend of individualism, which also pervaded economics and the social sciences during the same period. And the denial of any conscious component to evolution was overly influenced by mendelian genetics, as opposed to other evolutionary processes such as human cultural evolution. In my talk, I will show that the concepts of society as an organism and conscious evolution can be fully validated by modern evolutionary science, providing a practical framework for consciously evolving a planetary superorganism. -- David Sloan Wilson is one of the world's foremost evolutionary thinkers and a gifted communicator about evolution to the general public. He is SUNY Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Biology and Anthropology at Binghamton University. In addition to his teaching and research, David is President of Prosocial World – an organisation which aims to catalyze positive cultural change to consciously evolve who we are, how we connect with each other, and how we interact with the planet. David is passionate about making evolution more accessible to a wider audience, and was invited to speak with the Dalai Lama about his work in 2019. He is the author of several books on evolutionary theory, including: “Atlas Hugged” (his first novel), “This View of Life”, “Evolution for Everyone”, “Darwin's Cathedral”, “Does Altruism Exist?”, and the co-author of “Prosocial”, along with Paul Atkins and Steven Hayes. You can learn more about David's work at https://www.thisviewoflife.com and https://www.prosocial.world -- This episode is sponsored by our upcoming Day on Conscious Relationships Online Conference, taking place on 24th April, 2022. This event will explore how to leverage insights from attachment theory, neurobiology, and behavioural science to become aware of (and break) the unconscious relationship patterns from your past, so you can start thriving in this area of your life. You'll learn: — Why secure relating is a skill that can be learned, and how to heal the attachment wounds from your past to create deep and lasting relationships in the present - Alan Robarge — Relational Mindfulness: From Trauma to Connection - Terry Real — How to Not Die Alone: Overcoming Your Dating Blindspots - Logan Ury By attending live, you can interact with the speakers in the Q&A sessions, connect with like-minded participants during the conference, and get CPD certification and lifetime access to the recordings from the sessions. As a listener of this podcast, you can get a discount on your ticket, if you go to https://bit.ly/cr-twu, and use the discount code: POD when registering. -- - Get our latest psychology lectures emailed to your inbox: http://bit.ly/new-talks5 - Check out our next event: http://theweekenduniversity.com/events/ - Professor Wilson's website: https://thisviewoflife.com/ - Professor Wilson's books: https://amzn.to/3B7ErEi

I took a small vacation from the platform. But, during this time I was just observing the world. You would think 2 years of freedom and health interrupted would bring Grace & Gratitude. But, sadly the chasm between order and disorder is getting wider. It's not Darwin vs. Lamarck....it is artificial and natural selection. Stay out the mud. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Today, Crystal & Grey discuss Supernatural Episode 01.06 - Skin. We talk about: therapists in Destiel fanfiction, Lamarck vs. Darwin, and EVERY CULTURE! Content Warnings: Discussions of violence against women and mentions of sexual assault for the entire episode. Discussion of transmisogyny (5:56-7:33), discussion of misogynoir (37:34-37:46) Episode Transcript: https://bustyasianbeautiespod.carrd.co/#transcripts Follow us! Twitter: https://twitter.com/beautiespodcast Tumblr: https://bustyasianbeautiespod.tumblr.com/ Email us! Email Address: bustyasianbeautiespod@gmail.com Podcast art is made by cyvvang! Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cyvvang/ Redbubble: https://www.redbubble.com/people/cyvvang/shop --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/bustyasianbeautiespod/message

My dear friend Bridget, from back in our Bellevue Washington days, joins me on this one.  She and I have been Marco Polo friends since we moved to Atlanta and it has helped the time difference not feel so vast.   This time we use FaceTime as a way to get together and dive into God's word.  Being able to do this 3000 miles away has been a feat of technical science!   I love it when Science and Religion are friends. It's kind of like when that priest came up with the Big Bang Theory.  Or when that monk discovered genetics.  Or when LaMarck prefigured the theory of evolution.  Or when Descartes was instrumental in the field of analytical geometry.   We Lectio Divina Luke 3:10-18.  Where John the Baptist gives specific commands to the crowds on how to follow Him.  So put your listeners on.

Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck est un homme d'exception, dont les travaux ont été tordus au fil du temps par ses adversaires...mais aussi par ses partisans, peu à peu tombé dans l'oubli... Pourtant, cet homme est un pionnier de la paléontologie et de la météorologie, un botaniste et zoologiste de grand talent, et surtout un chercheur acharné, qui a, le premier, proposé une hypothèse sur l'évolution des espèces, plus de 50 ans avant Darwin. Lamarck est un savant qui pense comme un homme du XVIIIe siècle, avec de géniales intuitions, mais qui ne démontre pas par des expériences ! Son inspiration avec la découverte de l'évolution des espèces a ouvert la voie à des progrès scientifiques énormes. Son idée phare est que le changement de milieu créé des besoins, qui eux-mêmes entraînent une évolution des organes et des formes corporelles. Les besoins créent donc les fonctions. Si des détails de sa théorie sont à discuter, il établit tout de même 50 ans avant Darwin qu'il y a des évolutions génétiques chez les êtres vivants, ce qui est tout simplement révolutionnaire à son époque !

Pour s'abonner, c'est très simple, il suffit de cliquer sur ce lien : https://m.audiomeans.fr/s/S-tavkjvmo Timeline 5.000 ans d'Histoire est un podcast d'Histoire qui existe depuis 2012 ! Depuis les débuts, ce sont près de 300 émissions qui sont en ligne, d'une durée moyenne de 45 minutes, conçues par des historiens, avec le plus d'objectivité possible. L'historien est un scientifique, un enquêteur. A ce titre, il n'a pas à prendre parti pour ou contre tel sujet, c'est pourquoi nous ne nous interdisons aucun domaine, même les plus touchy, quitte à égratigner le politiquement correct, ou même, ça m'est arrivé, à changer complètement de point de vue suite aux nouvelles recherches. Car en effet, l'Histoire est une science, et en cela, les vérité d'un jour ne sont pas forcément celles du lendemain. Et c'est ce qui la rend si exaltante. Ainsi donc, dans ces émissions, vous pourrez entendre des dossiers (c'est à dire plusieurs émissions d'une heure) sur, par exemple, certains rois, sur l'esclavage, ou l'Affaire Dreyfus, vous pourrez également entendre l'histoire de la découverte du temps, l'histoire du cinéma français, et même l'histoire de la bière - une des émissions préférées l'été … Nous faisons aussi grand cas des immenses personnages, hommes ou femmes, connus ou moins connus, qui méritent le panthéon virtuel de l'Histoire du monde, comme Victor Hugo, Marie Curie, Camille Claudel, Madam CJ Walker, Helena Rubinstein, Nelly Bly, Lamarck, Emilie du Châtelet, Aldo Manuzio … Parfois, vous serez surpris ou amusés, car nous aimons déboulonner les statues pour les remonter au plus près des dernières recherches, ce qui peut dérouter et changer notre vision des événements ou des personnages. Mais toujours, nous essayons, avec l'équipe, de vous rendre ces contenus accessibles, sympa à écouter, en tous, cas, nous on les trouve sympa à enregistrer. Il y a évidemment des sujets moins lourds comme les vampires dans l'Histoire, les dragons, ou même des mises au point en lien avec des séries ou films historiques. Nous avons aussi la chance d'avoir des historiens à interviewer, des auteurs, ou même des comdiens, comme Francis Huster, sur Molière par exemple, bref, nous souhaitons être ecclectiques. Enfin, à partir de septembre 2021, nous allons vous permettre d'en avoir encore plus ! Au lieu de 2 émissions par mois traditionnellement, ce sera 5, dont une en direct avec possibilité de poser vos questions en temps réel à notre invité Vous avez été nombreux à nous le demander, l'accès aux textes des émissions Des news concernant les dernières actus Histoire, Préhistoire et Patrimoine Des interviews d'auteurs Histoire Des interviews d'auteurs et dessinateurs de BD historiques Des interviews d'opérateurs culturels (musées, châteaux, sites touristiques …) Des jeux historiques Et plein d'autres surprises tout au long de l'année Bref, Timeline, 5.000 ans d'Histoire va devenir - c'est notre souhait - votre référence incontournable en matière d'Histoire et de Patrimoine. Et tout cela pour le prix d'un café par mois, 2€. A partir de Septembre 2021 donc, vous devrez vous abonner, pour accéder à toutes ces nouveautés. Ce sera très simple, le lien sera dans la description des émissions, ou sur notre nouveau site, timelinepodcast.fr Alors, on se retrouve très vite Historiquement vôtre Richard Fremder

Rue Lamarck meets DISH! in this very special crossover episode featuring Masterchef's Melissa Leong. We might not be able to travel right now... but our tastebuds can. Bon Appétit! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection has served as a basis to this day for the reasoning behind evolution. It has assisted us to answer our largest questions concerning how and why species look the way they do. In this episode, we explore Darwin's voyage on the HMS Beagle, the five major points on his theory of natural selection, and Lamarck's views on evolution and why they are incorrect.

The theory of evolution has been around for some time now. And it is a theory. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is noted for being the first person to come up with a fully formed theory of evolution. And Charles Darwin expanded on it in his book “On the Origins of the Species.” But both of them missed something. One premise of both of their opinions was that, as soon as we found the “missing link,” that link between animal and man, that the theory of evolution would then become a fact. But there wouldn't be a missing link. I mean, there wouldn't be just one missing link, there would be tens or hundreds of evolutions. Think of this: We supposedly came out of some mysterious primordial goo into the oceans of the earth. Then we mysteriously developed lungs (who knows why we would do that when 2/3 of the earth is water and there was plenty of food down there for us. Add on to that we didn't need clothes or houses or cars or any of the other “necessities” we have today. So, from the beginning, there was no reason to come out of the oceans. But I digress. According to Lamarck and Darwin, we did come out of the ocean and became ape-like creatures. Then we evolved into man. And this is where I think they got it wrong. An ape-like creature didn't suddenly give birth to Homo Sapiens, modern day man. There would have to have been a gradual progression from one to the other. And that means that there would not be one missing link; there would be hundreds of thousands of them. But we have never found even one? --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/simplechristians/support

How does the brain change itself, and can those changes be passed on to the next generation? ‘Yes’ and ‘yes’ according to Dr. Bryan Kolb, a neuroscientist at the University of Lethbridge, author of a classic neuropsychology textbook and a recipient of Canada’s highest civilian honor. Listen in to learn about brain plasticity as well as epigenetics, the science of how genes flip on and off and can be inherited in their new state. TRANSCRIPT: Intro: 0:01 Inventors and their inventions. Welcome to Radio Cade the podcast from the Cade Museum for Creativity and Invention in Gainesville, Florida. The museum is named after James Robert Cade, who invented Gatorade in 1965. My name is Richard Miles. We’ll introduce you to inventors and the things that motivate them, we’ll learn about their personal stories, how their inventions work and how their ideas get from the laboratory to the marketplace. Richard Miles: 0:38 Brain plasticity, and epigenetics. What do those terms mean? And why do they matter? I’m your host Richard Miles, and I’m very pleased to welcome a very distinguished guest, Dr. Bryan Kolb neuroscientist at the University of Lethbridge in Canada, the author of numerous books and articles on neuropsychology and the recipient of the order of Canada, Canada’s highest, Civilian honor. Welcome to Radio Cade Bryan. Bryan Kolb: 0:59 Thank you. Richard Miles: 1:01 Bryan. I read somewhere that your groundbreaking textbook Fundamentals of Neuropsychology, is the most stolen book in England. What is up with that? Bryan Kolb: 1:08 Well, apparently it’s true. It’s stolen form libraries that obviously doesn’t happen in Canada or the U.S. People buy the book. We had a heck of a time getting it published in the late 1970s, because nobody believed there was such a field and it turns out there is and the book did very well. Richard Miles: 1:24 For an author obviously an author would like to get paid on the sales, but to have your book stolen probably better than your book being dropped off at used bookstores. But let’s talk about that. The book itself was very important because it was pathbreaking breaking . It’s published in , I think in 1980. And you talked about brain plasticity, not just that, but that was one of the fundamental things. And basically your definition, I believe is the ability of the brain to reorganize its structure, function and connections in response to experiences. So why don’t you sort of walk our listeners through, what does that mean? How can we think about brain plasticity in a useful way? Bryan Kolb: 2:01 If you imagine being born into the world, the brain has no idea what world its going to be, could be in Alaska? It could be at the equator. You could be in Africa. And so the brain biologically needs to be able to change itself, to adapt to the environment that it’s in. That’s sort of the background as to why evolution would have done this. It’s not just true of us. It’s true in worms. So all animals have this capacity to change their brain response to the environment that they find themselves in. And of course, if your listeners would learn anything from this discussion today, we have to change their brains. Somehow distorted material, the brain has to change. It’s just not magic. Richard Miles: 2:39 So If I understand this correctly and we’re not stuck with the brain were born with right? Basically from the minute we’re born, the brain is constantly reshaping itself. Give me a magnitude of the degree to what we’re talking about. Is it just a little bit that the brain sort of prunes a few neurons here and there and adds , or how dramatic is it? Say we take a , a new born and we look at them when they’re one year old or five years old or 12 years old, what kind of changes have occurred in the interim in terms of the brain changing itself? Bryan Kolb: 3:11 So they, the changes are not small there quite dramatic. So when we’re born, we have twice as many neurons as we’re going to need. Twice as many as we have now, which seems a little odd. And then over the next couple of years, we make connections at an enormous rate. And we ended up with far more connections than we need. And so around age two, we start getting rid of them. And depending on which part of the brain we’re looking at, it’s going to begin around to other regions. The higher levels of cognition is later. Let’s say, we’re starting to lose the frontal connections and neurons around age five. We will lose half of them and at the beginning of adolescents or puberty the rate we lose them at is remarkable. It’s about a hundred thousand connections per second. It’s a hundred thousand, a hundred thousand, a hundred thousand, a hundred thousand. So if you think about 13 year old girls, they are not the easiest group to deal with because their brain is changing so fast. The kids of course are inventing themselves at that age. They’re becoming who they’re going to be. And what that means is they’re creating the brain of the environment that they’re headed into. So if you look at a one year old, the one year old still doesn’t really know what the environment’s going to be certainly is growing connections. The neurons aren’t being born or not many, any longer. And then as the child begins to adapt to the environment that it’s in, whatever that happens to be, then it starts to change. So if you think about language, if you imagine a child who’s born in a house, or a home that speaks Japanese or Korean, they’re not going to hear the sounds L or R. But they can discriminate those sounds when they’re six months old, but as time goes on, they start losing the ability to make those sound discriminations . And so as an adult, they have this difficulty discriminating, L and R. Similarly, if we’re born in a house that speaks English, there are sounds that other languages that we simply cannot discriminate once we’re adults, because we lose that ability. So the brain is getting rid of things it’s not going to use, getting rid of connections that are not necessary. Now, one question you could ask is what happens if you don’t get rid of these connections? What happens if you keep them all? And the answer is cognitive disabilities. So children who do not lose a lot of these connections, cognitively are impaired. So we historically would have called them retarded. We don’t any longer, but that’s basically what it is. Richard Miles: 5:34 I remember watching one of your talks. And you talked about language and it was somewhat similar to when you buy like a new Apple product that’s sold all over the world and you see it installing the files. It installs with all sorts of Russian and Japanese and Portuguese, I guess, to make your keyboard compatible or something like that. Is that sort of what we’re talking about, that a newborn has basically all of this software loaded to do lots of different things, but based on the environment, they’re not going to need all that. And what I found was fascinating is that it’s counterintuitive that that loaded up brain, I guess, is somewhat of a disadvantage and that you want to sort of prune or make it more efficient. Is that more or less accurate? Bryan Kolb: 6:14 That’s a wonderful analogy. Yeah, that’s exactly right. I’m going to use that in the future. Yeah. That’s, it’s fully loaded, ready to go, but it’s not efficient. And so if we can make things more efficient, then we’re going to have a greater cognitive capacity. Richard Miles: 6:29 Well, good. I’m glad I got the analogy, right . I’ve had guests where I rolled out an analogy and they, and they said , no, that’s completely wrong. Okay. Well, I clearly didn’t understand the concept. So we’ve described plasticity the ability of the brain to change itself. And you’ve also done a lot on something called epigenetics. So before we go into the implications, all this, certainly from an educational perspective, why don’t you also define what epigenetics is? So that way we can talk it both in the same conversation. Bryan Kolb: 6:57 Sure. So if you look at any cell in the body, it has the same DNA. So cells that make your skin and your bones, your eyes, your brain all have the same DNA, yet the cells are different. And so the question is, why are they different? Well, they’re different because different genes are turned on and different genes are turned off. So the idea of epigenetics is that gene expression, the turning on or turning off of genes is regulated by experience, by things that are going on around us. And those things could be inside us or those things could be outside of us. So the idea is that if you’re going to change the brain, if you’re going to have plastic changes, the changes are going to result from changes in the activity of genes. This activity of genes is affected by experience. And so the idea of epigenetics is that we have a certain experience that might be a stressful event. It might be a wonderful event, might be a drug who knows what it is, but those things will change the expression of genes, which changes creation of proteins, manufacturer proteins and so on in the body or in grand (inaudible). Richard Miles: 7:59 So this is really a revolutionary insight because I think prior to this, you’ve had this debate for centuries about nature versus nurture, right? What you’re born with, what you inherit as part of your genes and then your environment and all of your experiences, whether that’s the way you were raised or the way you’re educated or whatever happens to you that shapes you. But this seems to imply that it’s not just a mix of those two, they’re actually together in the form that your experiences can make you well, why don’t you explain it particularly with the role of the father, which that’s really, really fascinating that these changes occur even before somebody essentially is conceived. Bryan Kolb: 8:38 That’s right in fact, it’s paradoxical. It seems at first that the father could have a bigger influence on the gene expression of the offspring than the mom. But it’s related to the fact that the changes in gene expression can be transmitted by the sperm. So the idea here is that if you take the father, who’s had some sort of stressful event, maybe was a soldier in Iraq or something, just a horrible experience. That’s going to change the gene expression in the sperm of the dad, which as a result is going to change the way in which the developing brain or his offspring is going to progress. It’s true that the mom has also evolved but her eggs don’t change. So the eggs that she is born with that will eventually be used to create babies. They don’t change. They’re not changed by experiences, but the sperm is, cause the sperm dies every 40 days or so when you create new sperm. And so that new sperm is being affected by the experiences that the dad has had. That means that the same dad could have a different kind of gene expression transmitted to different children, depending on the experiences that they’ve had in the previous two or three months or maybe longer. So that’s the idea there, and these changes can cross generations or can be shown in the grandchildren. Maybe the great grandchildren who knows defect gets much smaller over time. So if you have your daughter or your son and they have experiences too, and so it’s going to affect change expression. And so the influence of that event, that the father had pre conceptually to you, is going to start decreasing, but nonetheless, there is a footprint of it there. If you go back to this idea that epigenetics, if you remember, there was a scientist called Lamarck. Lamarck believed there was, that genes could learn essentially that learning, could it be transmitted from generation to generation. And people thought decided this was crazy. It’s not like that. Well, it turns out he was correct. He didn’t know the mechanism, but in fact it looks like that’s, what’s actually happening. So you’re right. Nature and nurture are working together, back and forth, back and forth. Richard Miles: 10:38 So just so I understand this correctly, Bryan, I can’t change my own DNA. I’m stuck with my DNA and not all genes can switch on or off. Right. You’re only talking about a certain subset of genes or do all, all genes, have the ability to essentially be turned on or turned off. Bryan Kolb: 10:55 I don’t know the answer to that, but my guess is that most of the ability to be turned on or turned off. But I imagine some can’t. Good question. Richard Miles: 11:03 You talked about the example of PTSD from someone in Iraq or war zone. I assume that also goes the other direction. For instance, if I inherited the DNA of being a very good baseball player, for instance, and then I became a great baseball player, I hit the major leagues, the likelihood, then that say my kids would inherit , that ability are now much greater, right? Because I’ve done that gene for pitching or catching or whatever I’ll ask you. Does that explain why you often see sports stars? You know, fathers and sons who are in the major leagues, whether it’s baseball or hockey or football at a rate that would be implausible, unless there’s some sort of genetic connection, right? Bryan Kolb: 11:42 Correct. We should make it clear that there’s not a gene we’re talking about multiple genes. Nothing is, it’s usually aging, the odd diseases for the most part. That’s not the case, but yeah, that would be why you get somebody like Gordie Howe and his three sons, all playing pro hockey at the same time. Richard Miles: 11:58 I always felt a little bit, sorry for maybe the one kid that didn’t get it. Right? Like there’s no Peyton Manning and Eli Manning. And I think their father was a famous quarterback as well. Right. But there’s one son that doesn’t have it. So I’ve always wondered what his Thanksgiving dinner is like at those households. Okay. So Bryan, I think I’ve got it. And I hope our listeners have got it that basically brain plasticity brain can and does change itself a lot, but there are certain windows, right? So it’s not like a continuous process that every year your brain either grows a certain number of neurons or loses them. There are windows in which that’s sort of concentrated and that your research and other people’s have found has a tremendous influence on particular education. And then everything that sort of flows from good or bad education, a lot of life outcomes are going to stem from whether you were well-educated or did well in school or , or not. So why don’t you talk a little bit about what research has shown is the correlation between those windows of brain development and future outcomes? Bryan Kolb: 13:00 Well, the earliest window obviously is the prenatal window, but the first one to three years is a window of a lot of change. Then a period it’s not quite as soon, but it’s not changing as much until the onset of puberty. And then we have this period in adolescence of huge change. Now we used to think that the brain was pretty much finished developing by about age 18, but it’s not. And so it continues on into the third decade. And so we’re looking at changes going up to say 30, 32, depending on whether you’re a man or a woman. If you ask people who are say over 40 or 50, when they became who they are, most people would say somewhere around 30, clearly there are changes that when we look back on. We can see what are going on for a long time. Then we have a reduction in plasticity, but mercifully it doesn’t stop. So that even at my age, I’m 72, I can still learn things. I don’t learn them as quickly as my grandchildren unfortunately, but I can still learn things. The brain is still plastic . However, there are disorders which the plasticity really does decline like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s and other demanding diseases where we now see that the brain really isn’t changing very easily. But for most people the changes can continue on into senescence, but at a very much, much slower rate, for sure. So we have these two windows one shortly after birth and the other one in early adolescence in particular. The second one’s really important because we’re worrying about kids experimenting with drugs when they’re 13, 14, when the brain is really changing. One of the things that Terry Robinson and I discovered about 20 years ago was that every psychoactive drug that you take actually produces permanent changes in the structure of neurons. And those changes that occur with kids who are experiencing with drugs have different consequences than they do with you, or me, particularly cannabis is a worry investigating the effects of cannabis at age 13, 14, 15, the effects can actually be dramatic in the twenties with respect to mental health and so on. So that’s a big worry about plasticity. There’s something that’s pathological. I just want to throw one other thing in here. That is, if you have an idea and you can remember the idea, it means that you changed your own brain, but that idea has changed the brain, which is you think about it quite remarkable, but that’s the only way you can remember it. Richard Miles: 15:20 One of the things we talk about at the Cade Museum, particularly with regards to education is the value of interactive experience that a lot of inventors, a lot of entrepreneurs often don’t do well, or haven’t done well on a classic school system. They have sort of different experiences and what I found fascinating, about one of the things that I saw you talk about was the language development skills in the first 18 months of life. And that it’s not enough to be simply exposed, to say a large vocabulary passively. You really have to get in the rhythm of being able to have a conversation in a given take away. And that has profound differences or profound outcomes on how somebody does later in life. So can you explain how exactly that works and what the research shows about those differences? Bryan Kolb: 16:08 You know , one of the metaphors we use here is serve and return. So the idea is that if you are passively listening to the language, whether it’s on TV or the radio or whatever artist in the background, you’re not actually actively engaged socially with the center of that information, but you need to be. So if I say something to you and your child, and then you respond, that’s the serve and return idea. There’s a really nice experiment, trying to teach kids. I believe it was Japanese, but it was not English, English, speaking kids. And they either saw this woman trying to teach them on TV. Or she was in the TV, the old kind of TVs , where there was a big Catholic retreat . So she’s actually there see woman , but she can actually serve and return with the kids in the one case and in the other she can’t. And I guess which kids learn Japanese, the ones who actually have the personal interaction. So the social support, the social interaction is really critical to the plastic changes in the brain. Richard Miles: 17:05 So I guess one question really is we’re recording this and then, you know, the middle of 2020 in the midst of the 19 sort of lockdown , what that means for education and schooling. Is there anything to suggest that a serve and return as you call it style online is just as effective or less effective than face to face? Because obviously there’s a whole bunch of other types of communication that go on between people face to face the visual cues and facial cues does a lot of that get lost during an online experience or the fact that you can actually talk to and be taught from somebody online. Is that good enough? Bryan Kolb: 17:41 It’s a really good question. And I’m sure there are people studying that as a professor who is going to have to be online. These students their not going to be on my screen. I won’t be able to see them. That’s impossible on Zoom to do that. And so are they going to get the same education? I doubt that, but if it’s two people as you and I are an hour on screen, I suspect that we’re going to get a lot of the serve and return affects whether children can be engaged in the same way as empirical question that I’m sure that many developmental psychologists are studying right now. It’s , it’s a really, really good question. Richard Miles: 18:15 One of the things I really want to ask you about is it seems like the most important window. If I understand your research correctly is that sort of first 18 months were certainly the absence of direct communication with an infant is really disastrous. And I think it’s from those remaining or some studies and other studies have just shown. It’s just terrible, but there are these other windows later on where you’ve got a window of learning, I guess, let me give you three scenarios and give me your reaction to these three scenarios in terms of what does the research say? If anything, about practical decisions as people trying to sort out scenario number one would be you have a 12 year old and you’re trying to decide, do I have them study music or do sports number two you’re 18 years old. And do you study chemistry or you study history and then number three late in life, you’re , let’s say 56. And should you learn French on Duolingo or just drink Bordeaux all day. Very specific nature. The third scenario it’s asking for a friend, what can you tell us about brain plasticity at those other stages, adolescence early adulthood, and then middle age ? Bryan Kolb: 19:22 Well, one of the most important things that children can do using your, I think it was age 12, piano lessons versus sports is music has a profound influence on how we age. So basically it’s like learning a foreign language. So we know that people who have musical training prior to say age 20 age, better incidence of dementia is much lower. And so on later in life music engages the entire grid. It’s a difficult decision will be, not be in sports because you need the exercise, exercise increases the blood flow into the brain. So you’d want to do both in a sense, but it’s not impossible chemistry versus history. The person in the 20th, the brain is more likely to change in positive ways. If you’re doing things that are interesting, if you’re not engaged, if I’m taking chemistry and I hate it, which was true, but let’s imagine it was, I’m not going to learn it and they’re not going to remember it. So you may be that I was fascinated with European history and I got really engaged in that. So I think it the amount of engagement that’s going to make a difference to how plastic the brain will be. In terms of the 56 year old. I’ve been playing the guitar for over 50 years. When I bought a banjo in 1988 , I never learned to play it. And so I decided this year to learn to play it. And my wife got a new piano. And so she’s taking out the piano. She took piano lessons as a child for 8 or 10 years. And then once she went to vet school and she never play it again, we’ve carted this bloody piano from place to place. So I keeps saying nobody plays it. So now she has luckily a new piano, a little baby grant . She’s taking piano lessons again, she’s close to my age. So we’re both learning to play these instruments. And now we’re playing duets together. It’s really not the Banjo, or the piano, the guitar. It’s really a lot of fun, but the brain clearly can change in the older person. I have to say, the Bordeaux helps make it fun. Richard Miles: 21:13 Well, I have another banjo story, not quite as successful. My wife gave me a banjo about 15 years ago, hoping that I would learn how to play it. I did try to learn, but it turns out we had a friend who really was quite good. And we decided just to give the banjo to him because the, some benefit for humanity would be much better fee on the banjo and not me, but he actually answered the question. I was about to ask how much research has been done, particularly on people in their later years, let’s say 50 or 60 above those who choose to do something new or resurrect something that they used to know how to do well, versus those who don’t. Are there different outcomes in terms of health or cognitive disability? Or what do we know about that stage? Bryan Kolb: 21:52 Yes, there seems to be. And music is one of the ones that looks like really beneficial later in life. You can buy all these games and so on that are supposed to improve your cognition and later life there’s absolutely zero evidence that, that really generalizes to anything music is one thing that does, probably the only other thing that has as big an effect would be learning a new language, which is like learning music and exercise and the exercise again, because of the increased blood flow in the brain and elsewhere in the body. But those three would probably be the most beneficial ones. Richard Miles: 22:22 One of the insights is it . If you do choose to do something later in life, it sounds like it should be something new, right? Rather than doubling down on a skill that you already have and you decide, well, I’m already a good musician. I’m going to be a better musician or I’m a really good whatever I ski well, or I’m going to do better at it. Does that not challenge the brain as much as if you take up something, even an elementary level that you really don’t know how to do, let’s say learn Chinese or learn to play an instrument that you’ve never picked up before. Is that better exercise or better stimulation for the brain at that age? Bryan Kolb: 22:55 I would think so. As long as you’re engaged with it and not frustrated by it, you will do to some extent obviously, but one of my colleagues was saying, well, he’s been playing the guitar for so long and he plays the same music over and over again. I said, you really need to play new music, brother . It’s a different style of music or different materials playing the same songs over and over again, really , isn’t engaging the brain very much. It’s just a motor skill. It’s , it’s a program that comes out and it’s not really changing anything. Richard Miles: 23:21 Bryan, I always like to ask guests about their background, sort of what influences them. And since we are talking about brain plasticity and education and new experiences, can you tell us a little bit about your growing up, your father worked in the oil industry, right. And your mother was a dancer for a while professional dancer. What was it like growing up? What do you remember your early influences and when do you feel your brain changing? Let’s go with that. Bryan Kolb: 23:47 I’m not sure I felt it changing, but I grew up in Calgary and yeah, my dad was in oil business. He liked to say that he went to the University of Turner Valley and people would , oh yeah I’ve heard of that. Well, Turner Valley was the first big oil field in Canada and he was a rough neck prior to the war. And so he never actually went to university because there was no money. He did extremely well in school. He still had his high school marks and he liked to compare those mine . And I didn’t shine compared to his, my mom was a dancer and she would spend a lot of time sort of dancing around the house. I remember, but she was a house flyer . The thing that I kept hearing was you’re going to be the first person in a family to go to university, which I was. And when I went, I didn’t know what the university really was just more school. And I thought, well, maybe I’ll be a lawyer not realizing what lawyers do, well it sounded okay. As I was finishing my first degree, one of my professors asked me what I was going to do. And I said , I had no idea. And he says , well, why don’t you go to graduate school? I didn’t , you know what that was? So he explained it and he says, come with me. He was the Associate Dean of graduate service. He said, fill this form out. And so I did, and I was accepted at the University of Calgary to do master’s work. And I did it in what, at that time, basically it was in animal behavior that I was studying since I’m pretty dumb in 2020, but the learning ability of squirrels and chipmunks and rats and so on comparing them. My mother was convinced this wasn’t my father, particularly this wasn’t going to be a career. So I had become interested in the fact that these animals were so different. Behaviorally had to be related to their brain . So decided to sort of look doing neuroscience, what we now call neuroscience . It didn’t really exist. Then handed off to Penn State and worked with somebody who was one of the leaders in the field, particularly with respect to the frontal lobe , did my PhD with him. Then I went to University of Western Ontario to do a neurophysiology for two years. And then I went to the Montreal Neurological Institute to study humans with brain injuries, surgically induced brain injuries, which was going back to my PhD kind of stuff. And that’s when I discovered neuropsychology and went, you know, there must be a book on this and I would talk to the graduate students and other postdocs and everybody agreed there wasn’t a book. And there was no such course. So I decided to design a course. And when I moved back to Alberta people in the Mcgill that I was nuts to leave Mcgill and go to this little, very new University (inaudible), but it was not far from where I’d grown up. And I just thought, I want to go home to the mountains. I decided, you know, we really need to write a book. Now I was 28 and you know , 28 year olds don’t start fields. They don’t start writing books in the field, but I didn’t know that. And so I convinced my new colleague in which I had to do it with me. So we wrote this book and the rest was history. We were just finishing the eighth edition, which I think will be the last one, 40 years later. So that’s sort of the nutshell of the educational history. Richard Miles: 26:40 So you were 28 when you wrote the book, meaning your brain wasn’t quite done being developed. So that’s probably right . We wrote the book, right? Bryan is, cause you didn’t know any better, but as you said, one final question, you’ve been a pioneer in this field of neuropsychology . What is sort of the next chapter, which does the field look like now? What are your grad students or your young postdoc fellows? What are they working on? Can you give us a sort of sneak peek of what sort of research we might see coming or being published in the next decade or two? Bryan Kolb: 27:08 Sure. So the biggest change in behavioral neuroscience has been the advances in noninvasive imaging. So MRI functional MRI and all the various variations of this. So historically in order to understand how the human brain work, we studied lab animals and we induced and we still do induce injuries in these animals and then see what happens. We measured electrophysiology and so on, but we couldn’t really do to any noninvasive way. I remember when I was at the MNI in 1975, the first CT scan in Canada was installed and the radiologists were going crazy over this cause they could actually see through the skull. In hindsight, it was pretty crappy because it was new, but now it’s fabulous. The MRI can really make a difference to how we study the brain and functional magnetic resonance energy means that we can see the brain in action online. We can see the blood flow moving one place to another as we’re doing things. And so this has really made a difference. So that’s one big difference going to where I think students are going. One of the things we’re doing is we’re trying to do grand rounds presentation to the pediatric neurologist at the University of Calgary children’s hospital. It was mostly on animal work and they wanted me to come and see the kids in intensive care. And I said, well, what’s the standard of care? What do you do with these kids? And basically they said, well, we cool them down for 24 or 48 hours to reduce the inflammation. And then we hand them to the parents and say, good luck. We can do a lot better than that. We can make a program up is based on our animal studies, trying to work with these kids. So tactile stimulation is huge. So tactile stimulation or animal studies, we’ve shown that tactile stimulation produces profound changes in brain. We can really reverse or reduce the effects of early brain injury , the effects of drugs, all kinds of stuff with tactile circulation. So we have a program that just kinda got messed up a bit with COVID, but we’ll resume doing that. We have another program that students are really interested in applications to indigenous communities, where the early experiences are often not very good. The information about brain plasticity is absent for the moms and the dads. They don’t realize that this serve and return is so crucial to language development and cognitive development. So I think there’ll be more and more of this kind of activity. And I think the use of animals is going to go down in large ways. We can use far fewer animals by using imaging techniques in the animals as well. So these are the changes that we’re going to see. And of course this is flows in humans with noninvasive imaging but one of the things we have to remember is that when you’re looking at the noninvasive imaging, the whole brain seems to be involved in everything, but when you damage the brain, it doesn’t look that way. So we still have to keep studying patients to try and get some sense of what the crucial regions are for particular kinds of coordinating activities. Richard Miles: 30:06 Bryan, that is tremendous research that you’ve done and what you’ve sketched out of what’s coming. And the implications I think are really just enormous across, not just the field of education, but a whole bunch of different fields and will impact a lot of the research that’s going on and the application I want to thank you very much for joining me on the show today and stay safe up there in Calgary and hope we can have you back on the show at some point. Bryan Kolb: 30:27 Thank you it’s been fun. Outro: 30:30 Radio Cade is produced by the Cade Museum for Creativity and Invention located in Gainesville, Florida. Richard Miles is the podcast host and Ellie Thom coordinates inventor interviews, podcasts are recorded at Heartwood Soundstage and edited and mixed by Bob McPeak. The Radio Cade theme song was produced and performed by Tracy Collins and features violinists , Jacob Lawson.

With today's guest Nicola Pirastu we learn the difference between several common genetic terms, how your diet choices may or may not be good for your personal health and how your diet can impact your genes and their expressions. Genetics Vs Genomics The terms genetics and genomics sound alike, and they are often used interchangeably. But there are some important distinctions and similarities between genetics and genomics and how they affect our dietary patterns. But firstly, what do they mean? Genetics is the study of heredity, or how the characteristics of living organisms are transmitted from one generation to the next via DNA, and it comprises genes, the basic unit of heredity. Genetics dates back to Darwin and scientist Lamarck, whose studies of pea plants in the mid-1800s established many of the rules of heredity. Genetics involves the study of specific and limited numbers of genes, or parts of genes, that have a known function. In biomedical research, scientists try to understand how genes guide the body's development, cause disease or affect our eating or dietary patterns. Genomics, in contrast, is the study of the entirety of an organism's genes – called the genome. Genomics is the branch of molecular biology concerned with the structure, function, evolution, and mapping of genomes. Genomics is a much newer field than genetics and became possible only in the last couple of decades due to technical advances in DNA sequencing and computational biology. (It is notable that the term genomics was first coined in 1986 by a Jackson Laboratory scientist, Tom Roderick, Ph.D.) Genomics play huge roles in our dietary patterns as they help us know why our body relates to different foods and why our food preferences may or may not affect our overall health. For example two men of the same age were placed on a diet and eat fruits and vegetables high in sodium and saturated fat. One develops hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and eventually atherosclerosis, while the other lives a long life without such chronic disease. In another case, two postmenopausal women consume similar diets low in choline. One develops liver dysfunction due to the choline deficiency, but the other does not. Why individuals experience different health outcomes even though they eat similar diets and practice comparable lifestyles is an important question that's been on the minds of nutrition and other healthcare experts in the medical community for decades. While it's long been suspected that genetics plays a critical role in determining how a person responds to dietary intake, only recently has research in the field of nutrigenetics demonstrated this. Learn the difference between nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics? Nutrigenetics: This is the study of the relationship among genes, diet, and health. Nutrigenomics: This involves the study of the interaction between nutrients and genes at the molecular level. Nutrition scientists have looked at whether genetic testing ends up improving eating behaviors. The evidence is mixed. A recent large randomized controlled study found there was little apparent benefit. The two weeks study comprised of 200 people. Three groups of participants were given personalized dietary advice, with variations based on their regular diet, including blood biomarkers such as cholesterol; and genetic variants. A control group was given conventional dietary advice. At the end of the study, the three groups that received personalized nutrition advice had all improved their eating habits, compared with the control group. But the improvements in each of the three groups were about the same. “It didn't seem to matter whether they were personalized based on current diet. Nutrigenetics and Personalized Nutrition The field of nutrigenetics is relatively new. In 2003, the Human Genome Project, which identified all the genes in human DNA and determined the sequence of the 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA, was completed. Knowing the sequences of the human genome opened the doors to examine the relationship among an individual's genetic makeup, dietary intake, and health outcomes. The excitement surrounding nutrigenetics stems from the notion that it's the foundation of personalized nutrition. Clearly, population-based dietary recommendations are helpful, but they aren't adequate for all individuals since people respond differently to diets. Personalized nutrition bases dietary recommendations on genetic predisposition to disease. The idea is that once personalized nutrition is integrated into routine care, patients can be genotyped for specific genetic variations, made aware of their nutrient deficiencies, and given strategies to dramatically reduce their risk. Effects of Genomic Research Genome-based research is already enabling medical researchers to develop improved diagnostics, more effective therapeutic strategies, evidence-based approaches for demonstrating clinical efficacy, and better decision-making tools for patients and providers. Ultimately, it appears inevitable that treatments will be tailored to a patient's particular genomic makeup. Thus, the role of genetics in health care is starting to change profoundly and the first examples of the era of genomic medicine are upon us. You can have a healthy diet not because it's good but because it's healthy. Join the LIVE Webinar Ability to losing weight, insulin resistance, how to assess your own genomic information for what diet will work best for you. When: December 8th @ 7:30PM  Free Consultation Call With Dr. Dan Stickler Mention this podcast episode in your contact form before your free consultation!