Replies to this message

Re: To Craig & others: about Lamarck Re: To Craig & others: about Lamarck -- Bahman Top of thread Archive Posted by: Craig C. ® 04/27/2003, 18:08:42 Author Profile Mail author Lamark believed the discredited idea that individual organisms can inherit the acquired traits of their ancestors. | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page 2 questions for now! Re: Re: To Craig & others: about Lamarck -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive Posted by: Bahman ® 04/27/2003, 18:51:18 Author Profile Mail author 1)If the acquired traits are not passed to offsprings at all, does it mean that acquired traits simply disappear? 2) What kind of triats are inherited? | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Re: 2 questions for now! Re: 2 questions for now! -- Bahman Top of thread Archive Posted by: Craig C. ® 04/27/2003, 19:17:35 Author Profile Mail author If the acquired traits are not passed to offsprings at all, does it mean that acquired traits simply disappear? The death of an individual means the disappearance of his acquired traits. It would be Lamarkian for a father to say, "I can make my children more muscial by learning to play the piano". His children may inherit genes from him that predispose them to the piano and/or that give them nimble fingers, but they will have to develop that capability on their own. His piano practicing will not change the nature of the genes that he will pass on to his children. What kind of triats are inherited? Physical appearance, aptitudes, dispositions, even susceptibilities to certain kinds of disease - anything with a genetic component. Modified by Craig C. at Sun, Apr 27, 2003, 19:18:37 | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page One question Re: Re: 2 questions for now! -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive Posted by: Bahman ® 04/27/2003, 19:37:43 Author Profile Mail author "His children may inherit genes from him that predispose them to the piano and/or that give them nimble fingers, but they" Where did "the piano genes" come from? If the father's learned triat of piano playing didn't have any effect on the genes he passed to his son, then where did the son get the "predisposion" to piano-playing from? | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Re: One question Re: One question -- Bahman Top of thread Archive Posted by: Craig C. ® 04/27/2003, 19:59:10 Author Profile Mail author Where did "the piano genes" come from? If the father's learned triat of piano playing didn't have any effect on the genes he passed to his son, then where did the son get the "predisposion" to piano-playing from? The predisposition may come from one or more of his father's genes, one or more of his mother's genes, a combinaiton of one or more of his father's genes with one or more of his mother's genes, or it may be the result of a mutation that has produced a new version of one of his parent's genes. But the fathers decision to play the piano has no effect on the DNA that he will pass on to his offspring. Why do humans have a love of music (some more than others) and finger agility (some more than others) - which together might yield a good piano player? Because at some point these traits conferred a survival advantage on our ancestors. What would be the survival advantage of music? Perhaps as a form of communicaiton or for sexual selection (the ladies like it). The survival advantages of nimble fingers seems more apparent. Craig | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Another Re: Re: One question -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive Posted by: Bahman ® 04/27/2003, 20:04:01 Author Profile Mail author So does it mean that the offsprings of a concert pianist have the same chance of becoming good pianists as much as the rest of society? | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Re: Another Re: Another -- Bahman Top of thread Archive Posted by: Craig C. ® 04/27/2003, 20:14:27 Author Profile Mail author So does it mean that the offsprings of a concert pianist have the same chance of becoming good pianists as much as the rest of society? No, the children have a better chance of becoming good pianists than other people. They also have a better chance of looking like him than do other people. After all they get half their genes from Dad. | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Running out of titles! Re: Re: Another -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive Posted by: Bahman ® 04/27/2003, 22:17:04 Author Profile Mail author OK, so the children have the "piano-gene" that their father had, but not any stronger, right? Because the process is not cumulative and the fact that the father had so much practice didn't translate into stronger piano-genes for the children, right? Now, if that is all true, then the question is, how did the piano-gene started altogether? In other words, if we go back far enough to the time when piano was just invented, how did the piano-gene come into being, if not because of the practice of the early players of piano? | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Re: Running out of titles! Re: Running out of titles! -- Bahman Top of thread Archive Posted by: Craig C. ® 04/27/2003, 22:37:32 Author Profile Mail author OK, so the children have the "piano-gene" that their father had, but not any stronger, right? Because the process is not cumulative and the fact that the father had so much practice didn't translate into stronger piano-genes for the children, It is quite possible that the children could possess more talent than the father. What are the characteristics of the mother? Remember that the offspring inherit half of his genes and half of hers and there is also always the possibility of a mutation. The mother may have exceptionally nimble fingers - even more nimble than the father - so the children could benefit from that. Or she could have an unusual attention span that enables more intense and extended periods of practice. Or a child may have a mutation that confers unusual hearing acuteness, so the child benefits from that. The point is that these kind of traits are extremely complex and actually involve many different genes. So to get the best effect you would need to mix and match, always selecting the best traits for piano playing - like breeding a champion race horse Now, if that is all true, then the question is, how did the piano-gene started altogether? Well, your assumptions are faulty, as I explained above. In other words, if we go back far enough to the time when piano was just invented, how did the piano-gene come into being, if not because of the practice of the early players of piano? The ability to play the piano well requires a complex combination of traits, and genes favoring these traits evolved because they conferred a survival advantage - not because they had anything to do with the piano. Craig Modified by Craig C. at Sun, Apr 27, 2003, 22:39:54 | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Qestion # ? Re: Re: Running out of titles! -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive Posted by: Bahman ® 04/27/2003, 23:58:07 Author Profile Mail author Your first paragraph is concerned with other factors which I am not interested in. Let's assume all other factors are the same for the offspring of a concert pianist and other offsprings. We want to focus only on the father. Now you next say: "The point is that these kind of traits are extremely complex and actually involve many different genes. So to get the best effect you would need to mix and match, always selecting the best traits for piano playing - like breeding a champion race horse" And you are saying that the father practicing and becoming the best pianist, does NOT have any effect in the complex mix you mention above? | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Re: Qestion # ? Re: Qestion # ? -- Bahman Top of thread Archive Posted by: Craig C. ® 04/28/2003, 01:13:55 Author Profile Mail author And you are saying that the father practicing and becoming the best pianist, does NOT have any effect in the complex mix you mention above? Yes, that is correct. His behavior has no effect on the genetic make-up of his children. All that matters is his DNA. | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Re: good Re: Re: Qestion # ? -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive Posted by: JAK ® 04/28/2003, 02:11:01 Author Profile Mail author Craig, I don’t think you intend to exclude environment for the father who plays in the hearing of his children. Your answer is quite correct. I am not confident that Bahman is understanding your precise construction. Maybe.... JAK | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Re: good Re: Re: good -- JAK Top of thread Archive Posted by: Craig C. ® 04/28/2003, 08:32:25 Author Profile Mail author I don’t think you intend to exclude environment for the father who plays in the hearing of his children. Bahman is asking whether the genes of the offspring are affected by the acquired characteristics of the parent. I am trying to make it clear that this is not the case. Of course the father can create an environment that helps the children to learn music, but that is the transmission of culture, not genes, as I am sure you realize. Craig Modified by Craig C. at Mon, Apr 28, 2003, 10:26:22 | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Re: good Re: Re: good -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive Posted by: Bahman ® 04/28/2003, 10:28:17 Author Profile Mail author I'm going to take some time off (maybe a day) and read all the posts carefully and see what questions remain. "See you"! | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Exactly so! Re: Re: good -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive Posted by: JAK ® 04/28/2003, 20:51:06 Author Profile Mail author Yes Craig, you confirm what I thought was your intent. I trust Bahman will understand as well. JAK | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous |   | Current page Piano & Genes Re: Running out of titles! -- Bahman Top of thread Archive Posted by: JAK ® 04/27/2003, 22:51:08 Author Profile Mail author Bahman stated: OK, so the children have the "piano-gene" that their father had, but not any stronger, right? Because the process is not cumulative and the fact that the father had so much practice didn't translate into stronger piano-genes for the children, right? JAK: Musical skills or talents are very much connected with motor skills. Eye-hand coordination is superior as well as ear-hand coordination. The genetic disposition to such talent makes for families like that of Johann Sebastian Bach. The children of J.S. Bach were also talented or had superior eye-hand (and feet) coordination. But J.S. Bach had parents. They did not achieve the status, performance skill, or position which their son Johann did. Therefore it is not appropriate to assume that an offspring is not “stronger” than the parent. The propensity for musical talent may be greater or weaker in the direct descendent of one with extraordinary musical talent. Bahman continues: Now, if that is all true, then the question is, how did the piano-gene started altogether? JAK: As I have stated, your conclusion is not correct. Proceeding to further conclusions based on erroneous conclusions leads only to greater error. Bahman continues: In other words, if we go back far enough to the time when piano was just invented, how did the piano-gene come into being, if not because of the practice of the early players of piano? JAK: The piano is a relatively complex instrument which followed many, many other musical instruments, Bahman. Evolution of the musical instrument the piano was an evolution over time with many experiments, trials & errors. The pianoforte was the earliest piano. It was invented in 1709. Several musical instruments, including the dulcimer, clavichord, and harpsichord were forerunners of the piano. The earlier musical instruments were far more simple than these forerunners which I have mentioned. The evolution of human capacities for music, making music, playing music, singing music, and inventing musical instruments which gave voice to the development of music were long in the making. Moreover, talent or propensity for motor skills involved in music were in the making before formal musical instruments were designed. It is likely that the evolution of what you refer to as “piano-gene” was the evolution of human capacities to make tools which served them. There were musical instruments of more modest dimensions long before the piano and skills/talents (motor skills) for their use. JAK Modified by JAK at Sun, Apr 27, 2003, 22:52:40 | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page In short . . . Re: Piano & Genes -- JAK Top of thread Archive Posted by: Bahman ® 04/27/2003, 23:50:01 Author Profile Mail author . . . you are also (like Craig) of the opinion that traits such as piano playing is not inherited, right? | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Beware over-simplification Re: In short . . . -- Bahman Top of thread Archive Posted by: JAK ® 04/28/2003, 00:51:07 Author Profile Mail author Bahman stated: “. . . you are also (like Craig) of the opinion that traits such as piano playing is not inherited, right?” Craig did not say that nor do I. The genetic disposition producing talent in musical arts is inherited. All genes passed from a mother and father to a child (the entire package) are what one inherits biologically. “Piano playing” is a complex of skills, talents -- genetic propensity for music. There are composers of music who cannot perform very well. Yet they know music and can compose it. Additionally, there are performers, concert artists who can play a two-hour concert without a note of music before their eyes as they play that concert. These genetic dispositions or talents, skills are not the same. From your questions, you appear to simplify the complex to the point that you really don’t comprehend what is at work in real musical genus. Everyone is a product of his environment and heredity. We have no control over our heredity -- the genes we inherit. Propensity to particular disease or propensity to long life are in our genes. Propensity does not mean that an outcome is certain. A person with great genetic longevity may be killed in an accident. A person with genetic propensity to great musicianship, may do something else entirely. It is important to recognize the complexity of gene transfer (inheritance). Craig’s analysis is correct, but your comment here does not reflect that you really understand what he said. Understanding the role of genes and inheritance is quite complex. Highly talented parents in music (mother and father) are more likely to have highly talented children in music than parents who have no genetic disposition for what is required to be a musical talent. There are various musical talents, Bahman. One who is a concert violinist does not have precisely the same musical skills as does a concert organist. Yet they both have musical talent. They both have genes which facilitate musical performance. They have inherited those genes. JAK | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Re: Beware over-simplification Re: Beware over-simplification -- JAK Top of thread Archive Posted by: TLC ® 04/28/2003, 10:13:02 Author Profile Mail author JAK Sir; You really know your stuff. My hero. Inherited genes. My wife, maiden name James, is a direct decendent of Jesse James. This explains the overwhelming propencity of my grandsons' fascinations with guns, trains and money. Explains it all in a new light. Thank you, TLC | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous |   | Current page