Miasmatic Theory
The miasmatic theory of disease held that diseases such as cholera, the Black Death, and politics were caused by a miasma (Greek language: "pollution"), a noxious form of "bad air". In general, this concept has been supplanted by the more scientifically founded germ theory of disease. It has also been found that politics is a cause of and not the result of "bad air."
Miasma is considered to be a poisonous vapor or mist that is filled with particles from decomposed matter (miasmata) that could cause illnesses and is identifiable by its nasty, foul smell (which, of course, came from the decomposed material). A prominent supporter of the miasmatic theory was Abaris the Hyperborean, who famously cleaned Sparta under Mount Taygetus from miasmata coming downhill. Opposition parties would often point out that flowers, although generally expected to be pleasant smelling can cause hay fever. Debates on the subject usually degraded to name calling with the opposition retorting to the proponents "You Stink!" At which point the believers would run for cover.
The miasmatic theory of disease began in the Middle Ages and continued to the mid 1800s, when it was used to explain the spread of cholera in London and in Paris, partly explaining Haussmann's latter renovation of the French capital. The disease was said to be preventable by cleansing and scouring of the body and items. Dr. William Farr, the assistant commissioner for the 1851 London census, was an important supporter of the miasma theory. He believed that cholera was transmitted by air, and that there was a deadly concentration of miasmata near the River Thames' banks. The wide acceptance of Miasma theory during the cholera outbreaks overshadowed the theory brought forth by John Snow that cholera was spread through water. This slowed the response to the major outbreaks in the Soho district of London and other areas. Another proponent of the miasmatic theory was Crimean War nurse and hottie, Florence Nightingale (1820-1910), who was made famous for her work in making hospitals sanitary, fresh-smelling, and a breeding ground for poorly contrived pickup lines. This theory was dealt its death blow in the 1980's when millions of school children found family members in the game 'The Oregon Trail' dying of cholera despite plenty of simulated fresh air.
Lamarckian Theory of Evolution
Lamarckism or Lamarckian evolution refers to the once widely accepted idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as based on heritability of acquired characteristics or "soft inheritance"). It is named for the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories and is often incorrectly cited as the founder of soft inheritance. It proposed that individual efforts during the lifetime of the organisms were the main mechanism driving species to adaptation, as they supposedly would acquire adaptive changes and pass them on to offspring. Rudyard Kipling chronicled many instances of soft inheritance in his historical literature for scholars known as "Just So Stories." After years of painstaking research Kipling details 'How the Whale got his Throat,' 'How the Camel got his Hump,' 'How the Rhinoceros got his Skin,' and how the elephant got his trunk among others.
After publication of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, the importance of individual efforts in the generation of adaptation was considerably diminished. Later, Mendelian genetics supplanted the notion of inheritance of acquired traits, eventually leading to the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis, and the general abandonment of the Lamarckian theory of evolution in biology, which is truly tradgic, for Kipling's writings are much more engrossing that those of either Darwin or Mendel. Any dork dweeb or nerd should be able to realize that this theory was flawed, in as they are more disposed to perpetuate stereotypes than species. No, unless you get out of your mothers basement your acquired traits will die with you, looser.
14 comments:
So if I understand this correctly, we're no longer in cage matches. The new game is popularity contest, so reasoning doesn't matter anymore (see current political debates).
In any case, this is a tough one. To continue down the trail originally blazed by BadAnswer himself, Mom's basement dwellers the world over might begin fantasizing a whole new segment of nerdly fantasies.
For instance, Lamarckian evolution means that Wolverine's wife would have a heck of a time giving birth to the adamantium-skeletoned offspring. Or, the son of whatever serieseses might gain some credibility. We all know these ideas are silly, even for comic books - no self-respecting nerd ever goes for sequels based on the children of comic book heroes. I mean, talk about nerdy!
In any case, that miasma thing is freakin' awesome. A cloud of poisonous, deadly, gaseous malaise, insidiously creeping through the damp and dark of an urban underworld. Even better, think of the cave from The Empire Strikes Back - I think that place produced miasma. Luke never looked right after coming out of there.
Yeah - I think the miasma thing is too cool to lose to something as lame as comic book sequels.
tommyp, perhaps I can see your point here, I think I went to far in saying that they are simply a popularity contest. Mostly those comments were a response to some voters inclination to vote based on some scientific basis. Most of the theories in this forum have very little of that 'scientific basis.'
These theories are to assert their popularity by their performance in the cage.
Your claim that "reasoning doesn't matter anymore" is misleading. Personally I thought many of the arguments previous to this lacked reason.
What I will be doing is anthropomorphizing the theories, manipulating the circumstances, and laying reason aside as they go at it in a cage. You are welcome to do the same.
So, here is why Lamarckism wins: They enter the cage, Lamarckism lights a small fire, which keeps the miasma away on the fringe, hiding from the warmth of the fires glow. As the embers cool, the miasma comes in on little cat feet. But Lamarckian evolution has expected this, and inhales the charcoal of the fire. The then starts budding offspring left and right like yeast, who together inhale all the miasma which dies on their activated charcoal airways. There is power in numbers, and also in activated charcoal.
I see the cage match more like this:
Lamarck hangs out in the cage, waiting for something to happen so it can adjust a little, then produce offspring that will improve a little more, etc.
Miasma creeps maliciously toward Lamarck, entering all body orifices, and infecting any exposed spaces. Lamarck might gain some resistence to the malaise, but while attempting to reproduce (in the only ways known at the time), is killed by an unknown infection.
I mean, death while reproducing can be argued to be a good way to go, but at the same time, it's still a death. Win goes to miasma.
I see several things wrong with your argument. First, Lamarck can adapt pro actively, and does not need to wait for an opening move by the other guy. There is also no reason to suggest that the evolution can not occur as punctuated equilibrium. Now you are entitled to your wrong opinions, so...
My second complaint is your argument that death while reproducing can't be all bad. For the most part I agree. However in this instance there are only two people in the cage. Sex with miasma; ewww. But otherwise Lamarck must have been reproducing asexually, which I imagine would make it far less enjoyable.
Having no frame of reference, I cannot speak for the enjoyability of asexual reproduction. I only have my own limited experience to draw from...
Proactive evolution? I don't recall Lamarck talking much about that. The only real difference between Lamarck and Darwin was that Darwin asserted characters were determined by natural selection, and Lamarck asserted that the characters were individually acquired by interaction with the environment.
Your own examples exhibit such a bias. The elephant's truck only lengthened because of some external stimulus. The classic Lamarckian example of giraffe neck lengthening is due to leaves becoming harder and harder to reach, causing the animal to have to stretch further to reach it. Both Darwin and Lamarck understood that organisms must be acted upon before they adapt, they only differed in how that adaptation arose.
Another point I neglected to mention was that miasma is relatively undetectable. That's what makes it such a vicious attacker. Lamarckism wouldn't even know it was being attacked until its cells were being lysed by some unknown viral or bacterial agent.
It gets hard to reproduce and pass on acquired traits if your cells are lysed...
One final nail in the coffin: Lamarckian evolution is actually gaining traction lately with research into prions (heritable protein elements responsible for mad cow disease, among other disorders). By eating material with prions, they become incorporated and are passed on to subsequent generations.
As such, Lamarkian evolution actually does happen. Once debunked, but actually true in certain cases - pretty sick to have one of the combatants disqualified because it's actually true...
tommyp,
Why all the inconsistencies? For example, you mention Wolverine and his adamantium skeleton in relation to Lamarckian evolution, but reject the concept of proactive evolution. Also, even if it does require action from the environment, who says it requires the easy, or even logical adaptation. The giraffe could have been just as successful by growing a chainsaw arm to cut the branches down for easier eating as opposed to stretching its neck.
Secondly, miasma "is identifiable by its nasty, foul smell."
Second-and-a-halfly, miasma was supperseded by germ theory, so claims that it is a virus or bacterium causing the death is perhaps wrong. But as humors and other perhaps more fitting explanations will be covered later I am letting this slide.
In response to your more recent comment, prions is a poor example. You could then also argue that alcohol dependence can be passed that way, if the mother drinks during pregnancy, or other narcotics. Even mercury or lead poisoning could be argued the same, or AIDS. So, while technically it may be making a comeback, it is not doing so in the spirit of the theory.
BadAnswer: "So, while technically [Lamarckism] may be making a comeback, it is not doing so in the spirit of the theory."
Is the spirit of theory on the docket? What's the matchup on that one? ;)
Acquired characters still don't have a chance against the creeping plague. Never. Ever.
Not once. Miasma is too awesome... ...and creepy and stuff.
...must...not...talk...about...plague...evolving...
tommyp,
You said: "Acquired characters still don't have a chance against the creeping plague. Never. Ever.
Not once."
However, wikipedia says: "A prominent supporter of the miasmatic theory was Abaris the Hyperborean, who famously cleaned Sparta under Mount Taygetus from miasmata coming downhill."
Lamarck for the win.
Lamarck didn't clean Sparta, Abaris the Hyperborean did. Abaris was a miasma supporter
And, he cleaned it up - he didn't evolve a defense against it. If he hadn't cleaned it up, it still would've killed him.
Lamarck's a wiener, Miasma's a winner.
tommyp,
Abaris the Hyperborean defeated the "creeping plauge." He cleaned it up. If that is what a supporter is willing to do, imagine what a dedicated opponent will accomplish. I brought him up only to illustrate the victory is not imminent for Miasma as you suggest. On the contrary, defeat is assured.
Lamarck beats Miasma like a red headed stepchild. Typing figuratively, of course.
So, all Lamarck would have to do is open all the doors, windows and vents in the cage and Miasma has no chance?
I hardly think a cage match will be performed in an arena capable of boasting of such amenities as "clean air" or "windows". Cage fights are almost always in some dank, dark, cellar of an auditorium with large crowds of sweaty, unkempt onlookers.
Lamarck has no control over the environment - only his own ability to adapt to it. Since I've already established that he can't adapt fast enough to save himself, and since he can't leave the cage to keep the creeping plague from rising out of the unwashed masses to support the miasmatic champion, there's no way Lamarck can win.
Change the venue to a Karate-Kid-style martial arts kiddie match, or a really clean chess match, and you'd have a venue suitable for defeating the miasma. In the cage, Miasma has ultimate home-court advantage - being born from the conditions such a match creates.
Miasma ftw.
tommyp,
how easily you forget.
Lamarck became an army of activated carbon air purifiers (per my first post). He made the air fresh, no need for windows or doors or any outside source. He is the source.
Miasma ftl.
Just because Lamarckism applies to carbon-based life doesn't mean that living organisms can internalize activated carbon and survive.
That's also an example of proactive, not reactive, evolution. Lamarckism (or soft inheritance) does not suggest pre-emptive strikes in its fighting style. Because the toxin would have to be detected first (only detectable by contact with miasma itself), Lamarck would never have a chance.
Post a Comment