Head binding now and the past

[Anomalocaris]

care to contradict in a more educated sounding manner?

Nope.

Boru

Didn’t think so.

[arewethereyet]

Nope.

Boru

care to contradict in a more educated sounding manner?

Why would anyone contradict you?  You obviously know everything.

[highdimensionman]

I think you can get a worm or something to grow with 2 head sections but you have to do a lot of damage. It all depends how the dna you pass on is maintained and how sperm and eggs are replenished. If you can break an organisms stabilising regenerative means in such a way that effects the sperm or the egg then there is an effect on the next generation.
Imagine say you have an orchestra. They all roughly know what the other is doing. In order to stop that orchestra from rebuilding after lost personnel and playing there main theme tune you would have to remove quite a lot of personal. you have to do quite a lot of damage before a new orchestra is formed from agents of 2 orchestras in order to continue the damage impact (the cutting the tail issue). However this does not mean the orchestra can't play a slightly different theme after a long process of trying to help the members to play something more tweaked over generations of new orchestra's (the generational head binding issue). The problem is with analysis it's near impossible to prove that external tweaking played a role given the dominance of new orchestra selection on the process. This doesn't mean a cell can't learn new tricks or that self development does not play a role in evolution it's just more complex and subtle to prove.

[Anomalocaris]

care to contradict in a more educated sounding manner?

Why would anyone contradict you?  You obviously know everything.

I will be playing the world’s smallest violin for you.

[Anomalocaris]

I think you can get a worm or something to breed with 2 head sections but you have to do a lot of damage. It all depends how the dna you pass on is maintained and how sperm and eggs are replenished. If you can break an organisms stabilising regenerative means in such a way that effects the sperm or the egg then there is an effect on the next generation.
Imagine say you have an orchestra. they all roughly know what the other is doing. In order to stop that orchestra from rebuilding after lost personnel and playing there main theme tune you would have to remove quite a lot of personal (the cutting the tail issue). However this does not mean the orchestra can't play a slightly different theme after a long process of trying to help the members to play something more tweaked (the generational head binding issue).

head binding does  not directly tweak any DNA.    Using you orchestra analogy, head binding caused nothing that is the equivalent of of even a single orchestra member being lost, nor have the effect of causing any member to play differently then he/she had done before.

[highdimensionman]

I think you can get a worm or something to breed with 2 head sections but you have to do a lot of damage. It all depends how the dna you pass on is maintained and how sperm and eggs are replenished. If you can break an organisms stabilising regenerative means in such a way that effects the sperm or the egg then there is an effect on the next generation.
Imagine say you have an orchestra. they all roughly know what the other is doing. In order to stop that orchestra from rebuilding after lost personnel and playing there main theme tune you would have to remove quite a lot of personal (the cutting the tail issue). However this does not mean the orchestra can't play a slightly different theme after a long process of trying to help the members to play something more tweaked (the generational head binding issue).

head binding does  not directly tweak any DNA.    Using you orchestra analogy, head binding caused nothing that is the equivalent of of even a single orchestra member being lost, nor have the effect of causing any member to play differently then he/she had done before.

Stem cells can be manipulated either by mechanical and chemical means basic genetic science.
What affects drive genetic change relative to mechanical stem cell manipulation over generations is not a well researched topic only some old proof that regeneration through breeding has a degree of immunity to a damaged parent negatively impacting there offspring. We do know if we damage a worm bad enough it grows back the wrong half that's about as far as it goes.
I suggest they try being nice the worm and see what effects can be stimulated by mechanical means.

[Angrboda]

I'm not jerking off a worm no matter how you explain it to me.

[arewethereyet]

Head binding to worm play.

This place sure is interesting at times.

[Anomalocaris]

head binding does  not directly tweak any DNA.    Using you orchestra analogy, head binding caused nothing that is the equivalent of of even a single orchestra member being lost, nor have the effect of causing any member to play differently then he/she had done before.

Stem cells can be manipulated either by mechanical and chemical means basic genetic science.
What affects drive genetic change relative to mechanical stem cell manipulation over generations is not a well researched topic only some old proof that regeneration through breeding has a degree of immunity to a damaged parent negatively impacting there offspring. We do know if we damage a worm bad enough it grows back the wrong half that's about as far as it goes.
I suggest they try being nice the worm and see what effects can be stimulated by mechanical means.

I think some conceptual confusion needs to be cleaned up.

1. The only stem cells in parent organisms that directly affect descendants organisms are the stems cells which develop into gametes.    tempering with any other stem cells in the parent organism may change how these cells develop in the parent organism itself, but not how any stem cell develop in descendant organisms.

2. the only way to temper with stem cells destined to become gametes that will go on to influence how stem cells in descendant organisms will develop into differentiated cells is to edit its DNA.    tempering with the development of stem cells in any way will not cause the effects of the manipulation to also manifest itself in the development of the stem cells in the descendant organisms.

So no, using chemical or physical means to manipulate how worm embryo develop so as to  cause the worm to grow two heads will not cause the worm’s descendants to become more likely to also grow two heads, provided two headed worm is able to reproduce in the first place.

[brewer]

Elephants that happen to be tuskless won't be killed by poachers, and elephants with shorter tusks are less likely to be killed by poachers, and thus have a better chance to survive to mate. Rats aren't going to develop shorter tails just because you chop them off, as brewer points out.

There is another higher order effect.   If you keep cutting off the tail of every mouse, that means whatever survival benefit tails confer is lost to every mouse.   But every mouse still expanded energy prior to the amputation to develop the tail.  

Since this investment now garner much less return,  evolution will subtlety favor those mouse whose genes cause them to invest less energy in growing and maintaining a tail that will be cut off any way.

So, yes, even cutting off the tail of every mouse, regardless of whether the tail is long or short, will still subtlety cause the mouse to grow smaller tails over many generations.

The beauty of evolution is its principles are so simple and straight forward, and it’s actions and affects are infinitely complex and multilayered.

How many mice will this 'entity' pursue to eliminate tails from the breeding pool? In a limited/confined environment it may make a difference, but not across the genome. Not having a tails needs to have a larger-higher ecological/biological/reproductive advantage. If it has an advantage to begin with then there wouldn't be tails. No need for chopping.