Comments on: resurrecting lamarck http://worldofweirdthings.com/2008/11/23/resurrecting-lamarck/ exploring science, technology, the strange and the unknown Fri, 10 Sep 2010 01:18:32 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: gfish http://worldofweirdthings.com/2008/11/23/resurrecting-lamarck/#comment-4553 gfish Sat, 03 Jan 2009 20:49:07 +0000 http://gfish.wordpress.com/?p=1097#comment-4553 Carolina, If I may nitpick here for a bit, it's true that Lamarck's use of inherited traits in his idea was old hat by the time he used it. But when he said that species can change and become something entirely different, he was borrowing heavily from his mentor, Buffon. His original contribution was the idea that animals change specifically to adapt to their environment and their acquired adaptation are then passed on to their offspring. The classic example is the giraffe. Modern evolution holds that through a combination of being able to graze higher, avoid predation and looking more attractive to females, longer necks and limbs would've become the norm for giraffes. Basically, natural selection. Lamarck thought that the giraffe reaching for leaves on higher trees would've elongated his neck and passed on his longer neck to future giraffes. He was clueless about both genetics and natural selection. Carolina,

If I may nitpick here for a bit, it’s true that Lamarck’s use of inherited traits in his idea was old hat by the time he used it. But when he said that species can change and become something entirely different, he was borrowing heavily from his mentor, Buffon.

His original contribution was the idea that animals change specifically to adapt to their environment and their acquired adaptation are then passed on to their offspring. The classic example is the giraffe. Modern evolution holds that through a combination of being able to graze higher, avoid predation and looking more attractive to females, longer necks and limbs would’ve become the norm for giraffes. Basically, natural selection.

Lamarck thought that the giraffe reaching for leaves on higher trees would’ve elongated his neck and passed on his longer neck to future giraffes. He was clueless about both genetics and natural selection.

]]> By: Carolina_guitarman http://worldofweirdthings.com/2008/11/23/resurrecting-lamarck/#comment-4554 Carolina_guitarman Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:41:11 +0000 http://gfish.wordpress.com/?p=1097#comment-4554 Lamarck's main contribution wasn't the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. This was an old idea, and in a mild form generally accepted in his time. Lamarck did something different; he claimed that species were not fixed and could evolve into new species over time. Unfortunately, he also believed in spontaneous generation, with the result that seemingly related organisms could have no biological relation. There was no such thing as universal common ancestry in Lamarck's view. He didn't catch on to natural selection, either. His ideas were ridiculed by his contemporaries because the only mechanism he had didn't seem up tot the task, and his theory was just too vague. It's an historical error though to contrast the inheritance of acquired characteristics with Lamarck with natural selection with Darwin. Darwin also made increasing use of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, as did most naturalists before Mendel's work was rediscovered. In fact, natural selection didn't really become accepted as the main driver of evolution until the 1930's and 40's. Lamarck’s main contribution wasn’t the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. This was an old idea, and in a mild form generally accepted in his time. Lamarck did something different; he claimed that species were not fixed and could evolve into new species over time. Unfortunately, he also believed in spontaneous generation, with the result that seemingly related organisms could have no biological relation. There was no such thing as universal common ancestry in Lamarck’s view. He didn’t catch on to natural selection, either. His ideas were ridiculed by his contemporaries because the only mechanism he had didn’t seem up tot the task, and his theory was just too vague.

It’s an historical error though to contrast the inheritance of acquired characteristics with Lamarck with natural selection with Darwin. Darwin also made increasing use of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, as did most naturalists before Mendel’s work was rediscovered. In fact, natural selection didn’t really become accepted as the main driver of evolution until the 1930′s and 40′s.

]]> By: gfish http://worldofweirdthings.com/2008/11/23/resurrecting-lamarck/#comment-4552 gfish Tue, 25 Nov 2008 06:18:19 +0000 http://gfish.wordpress.com/?p=1097#comment-4552 The problem with attaching a persona to a controversial theory is that people will focus too much on the scientist rather than the science, sometimes to the detriment of the latter. This is what I see happening with evolution. The problem with attaching a persona to a controversial theory is that people will focus too much on the scientist rather than the science, sometimes to the detriment of the latter. This is what I see happening with evolution.

]]> By: kara http://worldofweirdthings.com/2008/11/23/resurrecting-lamarck/#comment-4551 kara Tue, 25 Nov 2008 04:57:49 +0000 http://gfish.wordpress.com/?p=1097#comment-4551 You know, this post reminded me of the fact that I've learned more about Darwin in grad school (Victorian literature) than I ever did in secondary school. What do you think of using Darwin/science/cognitive science to further/complicate literary criticism and/or theory? You know, this post reminded me of the fact that I’ve learned more about Darwin in grad school (Victorian literature) than I ever did in secondary school. What do you think of using Darwin/science/cognitive science to further/complicate literary criticism and/or theory?

]]>