reply to post by Astyanax
This is not the first time such an approach has been made, infact it seems to have become the norm. Maybe this is because of the current research,
showing nature to be more of a connected whole than the gene based theory can account for...a case of, quick check the documents, did Darwin ever
resolutely deny the theory of Lamarckism.
Maybe the mounting pressure on this greedy, subsuming theory of Darwinism, to actually define itself, so an exception to the premisses can be shown,
will be achieved, and the sophistry, in the modern sense of the word, revealed...I hope so.
...a few lines on Darwin and Lamarck,
The Natural Philosopher, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was the first to promote an organic,materialist view of evolution. He postulated a principle called the
`inheritance of acquired characteristics`, change in a characteristic during an animals lifetime due to behaviour, and the passing of these changes to
the offspring via fundamental substances,resulting in variation/speciation.
His major work `Philosophie Zoologique`1809, was praised by Darwin and considered when producing "HIS" theory of `Pangenesis`, that when given to
Huxley for criticism was astonished to find that Buffon had anticipated him by 100 years.
Huxley wrote that he would not take a low view of Darwins contribution but thought that Buffon and Lamarck would run him hard in both genius and
fertility, he continued, in breadth of view and in extent of knowledge these two men were giants, though we are apt to forget their services...these
sentiments could have easily have come from the geologist Charles Lyell, who also saw merit in Lamarcks work.
Darwin on the whole simply collated the historical and current ideas of the time. His lack of obligation and financial security, allowed him to
develop a network of acquaintances from various fields of science, to ask favours of, through correspondence or in person. He acquired an extensive
library, consisting of many French works, and made countless notes after talks with the experienced breeders. True to form Darwin again offered no
thanks or credit to those who in alot of cases unwittingly contributed to his great work, and denied ever knowing about previous conclusions/theories
that had been written, when it suited him or out of sheer arrogance, ignorantly skipping through the works of others, believing that they had nothing
to teach him.
The fragile link between Darwin and Lamarck, was brief ...in the years to come, ad hoc hypothesis abound, the problems where resolved by a collection
of observations made by unnamed others, being added to the work of August Weismann, who produced `his` 1893 theory of the germplasm and the creation
of the `Weismann barrier`...helped by the rediscovery of the work of an Abbot, called Gregor Mendel. The outcome of all this was the refutation and
ridicule of Lamarcks ideas, and the eventual acceptance of the `Modern evolutionary synthesis`.
According to sites on the web the best descriptions of Lamarcks work are those obtained from Darwinists...this is nonsense, if you follow this route
they will have you believe that Lamarck was just a `romanticist` and that `he` the `materialist` through the work of Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire a
`transcendentalist` and Étienne Serres an `embryologist` can be joined to the discredited work of Ernst Haeckel...this is not true, as any
Philosophical texts will show...Ernst Haeckel supported Darwin in Germany, and his Lamarckian influence was not taken from the Lamarckian Theory
directly.
Discoveries such as `Reverse transcription` developed by Ted Steele, showing the `Weismann barrier` can be breached, the recent work in`Epigenetic
Inheritance` by Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb, work involving the apparent inheritance of problem solving, the effects of temperature on the
frequency of mutations and many others that receive very little press, show that there is more to evolution than the `narrow` view being presented
today...all of this opens the very real possibility of a NeoLamarckian inclusion...a revision of the current theory is imperative and appeals by
Neo-Darwinists to the supposed, historical links Darwin had with Lamarckian views, should not be seen as a reason to simply integrate his ideas,
Lamarck deserves to stand in his own right alongside Darwin.
Countless others, deserve credit for setting into motion the real revolution, of which Darwin became the beneficiary.
