Enco, agency, free will and similar notions are not part of Lama. It is as i indicated inheritability of acquired characteristics. In both instances when pondering Lamarck and Darwin change or evolution is dependent on individuals.

I think you misread the giraffe example. There is no disputing that forbears of modern giraffes had shorter necks.…[Read more]

@simonpaynton – cooperative breeding is also evolving 🙂

Jake:

A big difference between Lamarckianism and Darwinianism is that Lamarck’s Theory focuses on agency of individual organisms, whereas Darwinianism focused on developed biological adaptations of whole species.

Another shortcoming of Lamarack is that a giraffe with a longer neck would have to grow added hide and hair, added muscle, added…[Read more]

This seems like a good site for Evolution topics.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
Humans are born as socially bootable apes

This level of infant care would have required a bit of social interaction, since it would have been difficult for new mothers to be the only one caring for and protecting a newborn from large predators and other dangers.

This ties in with what we already know about Homo…[Read more]

Enco,

Aint read about Gregor and his pissy peas for as long as i care to rememmber these. My impression though is of a monk who learned through observation the rules of pea reproduction and their traits. Dominant and recessive. Fixed rules. Determinism. Utilized it to produce artificial selection.

If survival of the fittest is the popular 1…[Read more]

Jake:

The article concerning Lamarck makes sense. Darwin and Lamarck are kissing cousins. I suspect some of the most shocking adaptations are a result of the latter.

If environmental conditions interact with the RNA and DNA to produce adaptations (as was the case with C. elegans worm,) then this is actually Mendelian Genetics, not Lamarckianism.…[Read more]

Cheers Reg!

…and sharks have been around 50 million years longer than trees…….