essential tremor, or, when will it be enough?

February 1, 2010

Hi all:

From the article, which can be found if you google " epigenetics time magazine " :

---

In contrast, Darwin argued that evolution works not through the fire of effort

but through cold, impartial selection. By Darwinist thinking, giraffes got their

long necks over millennia because genes for long necks had, very slowly, gained

advantage. Darwin, who was 84 years younger than Lamarck, was the better

scientist, and he won the day. Lamarckian evolution came to be seen as a

scientific blunder. Yet epigenetics is now forcing scientists to re-evaluate

Lamarck's ideas.

---

Immensely tricky. Lost in the details of the article is the reality: Lamarck

was right. Acquired characteristics are inherited. Lamarck made the correct

prediction. What is particularly disingenuous of the article is to state that

( " the new science of " ) epigenetics is forcing scientists to re-evaluate their

ideas. Yet the evidence *was* sufficient in Lamarke's time. The questions are a)

why is it that we need *more* evidence *now*, and b) why was Lamarck reviled in

his day, despite sufficient evidence. The scam goes on.

, interestingly, predicted and observed the acquisition of

inherited characteristics and has clearly stated that our preheaven essence

could be better or worse depending on the environment, our parents and so on,

and that in its transformation and use, we can mold a new preheaven essence

which we will transmit to our descendants.

Thanks,

Hugo

________________________________

Hugo Ramiro

http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

http://www.middlemedicine.org

February 2, 2010

Hugo, I think you might enjoy this book:

http://www.brucelipton.com/spontaneous-evolution-overview

Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro <subincor

wrote:

>

> Hi all:

>

> From the article, which can be found if you google " epigenetics time

magazine " :

>

> ---

> In contrast, Darwin argued that evolution works not through the fire of effort

but through cold, impartial selection. By Darwinist thinking, giraffes got their

long necks over millennia because genes for long necks had, very slowly, gained

advantage. Darwin, who was 84 years younger than Lamarck, was the better

scientist, and he won the day. Lamarckian evolution came to be seen as a

scientific blunder. Yet epigenetics is now forcing scientists to re-evaluate

Lamarck's ideas.

> ---

>

> Immensely tricky. Lost in the details of the article is the reality: Lamarck

was right. Acquired characteristics are inherited. Lamarck made the correct

prediction. What is particularly disingenuous of the article is to state that

( " the new science of " ) epigenetics is forcing scientists to re-evaluate their

ideas. Yet the evidence *was* sufficient in Lamarke's time. The questions are a)

why is it that we need *more* evidence *now*, and b) why was Lamarck reviled in

his day, despite sufficient evidence. The scam goes on.

>

> , interestingly, predicted and observed the acquisition of

inherited characteristics and has clearly stated that our preheaven essence

could be better or worse depending on the environment, our parents and so on,

and that in its transformation and use, we can mold a new preheaven essence

which we will transmit to our descendants.

>

> Thanks,

> Hugo

>

> ________________________________

> Hugo Ramiro

> http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

> http://www.middlemedicine.org

>

February 2, 2010

Hi Julie, yes, I am slightly aware of his work. There are some things about it