Talk:Pangenesis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xavier.bower.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible merge of Gemmule (pangenesis) and this page

I think merging the contents of the gemmule page into the theory section of this article makes the most sense due to significant overlap and the possibilty of a much more complete and useful depiction of the theory. Any thoughts? Xavier.bower (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Given that there hasn't been much work done on this page in quite a while except for by me and Chiswick Chap, who first suggested the pages might be merged, I am going to go ahead with this soon.Xavier.bower (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Xavier.bower (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

I've removed the 'no sources' template after adding material with citations. I would also point out that the reference in the text to the book by Darwin in which Pangenesis was described constitutes a major primary source. --Memestream 10:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In Descent of Man, Darwin argues (p. 18) that only Pangenesis can explain the complete disappearance of rudimentary organs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.150.167.51 (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

weird OR

This entire section looks like Original Research to me, what with its very speculative ties to Newton (who was most certainly not one of Darwin's influences in thinking about heredity) and its admonitions to the reader to think about this in the context of modern genetics:

In pangenesis one finds a remarkable similarity to the work of Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis and Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, specifically their use of the concept of "chemical affinity". A wider historical view finds us analyzing the tension that Newton's concept, the "force of gravity", created between himself and the contintental materialists. The latter felt that this mysterious, invisible force was akin to an invocation of mysticism. Likewise, the argument for a "vis essentialis" in biology has a similar quasi-scientific sound and might serve to remind us of the rudimentary state, and fertile philosophical ground, of theoretical speculations during that earlier period in time.

It is also a remarkable exercise, for the curious student, to juxtapose the theory of pangenesis with modern concepts in developmental biology and genetics, specifically, the origin, migration, and function of the primordial germ cells and the "chemical affinities" regarded in the study of DNA..

I removed it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hippocrates?

My biology teacher told me Hippocrates came up with this theory. I don't have any online resources, but she gave me a note handout with it.--Frankjohnson123 (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Later Elaboration section just wrong

This section implies that "characteristics could be transmitted which were not at the time of transmission actually being manifest in the parent organism, and that certain traits would manifest themselves at the same point of development (say, old age) in both the parent and child organisms" is not dealt with in Variation but only in Descent. This is just wrong: see e.g. Variation v2 pp432-433.

The whole section is confused, and ought to be incorporated into the main body. Sadly, I haven't got time to do this well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.77.67 (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Theory First line edit in preparation for revamp of the Gemmules page

Hey all, thinking "Darwin's pangenesis theory was complex as he tried to explain the process of sexual reproduction, passing of traits and complex developmental phenomena, such as cellular regeneration." would sound better as "Darwin's pangenesis theory was complex- he tried to explain the process of sexual reproduction, passing of traits and complex developmental phenomena, such as cellular regeneration. Mechanistically, he proposed pangenesis to occur through the transfer of organic particles which he named 'gemmules.'" Then this could be linked to the gemmules page. Two reasons for this proposition- One, gemmules are not introduced as a concept in the Theory section before they appear as part of a large quote, which could be confusing. Two, I plan to start working on better wikifying and substantiating the Gemmules page shortly, so it would be useful to link to it here. If nobody objects, I'll probably switch this out in the next couple of days. Cheers~ Xavier.bower (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Just do it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe Hippocrates also created a theory of pangenesis - though I have no references apart from a lecturer. If anybody does it may be worth adding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.213.45 (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Article needs restructuring after the merge

Well, the merge has solved one problem and of course created several others. Weismann's contribution to the collapse of the theory needs to be described. The post-collapse situation with tricky topics like epigenetics and phenotypic plasticity needs careful and well-cited handling - the current couple of paragraphs are discursive (non-historical) and seem to belong somewhere else. In short, work is needed to make this a coherent article: I've indicated with section headings how that work might proceed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

There's certainly been an improvement. The refs should be moved out of the lead, and the "atomic sized" needs an explicit quote and page reference. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)