DOCSLIB.ORG

EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES I) Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characters

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES I) Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characters B.Sc.I Evolutionary Theories Dr. K.A. Gajare EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES I) Theory of inheritance of acquired characters (Lamarckism) Postulates of Lamarckism: 1. Changing Environment: The environment is not constant. It goes on changing. As the environment changes it force the organisms to change accordingly. 2. Internal Force of Life: Though changing environment force the change, the internal urge of the organism is also essential to carry out the change. This force causes increase in size of an organ. 3. Use or Disuse: Various organs became improved by continuous use and reduce to vestigial due to disuse. The organs may become stronger or larger by continuous use or weaker by disuse. This is called acquired characters. 4. Inheritance of acquired characters: Such acquired characters are inherited to the next generation. The individuals of next generation continue further the use or disuse making the organ stronger or weaker accordingly and transmitted to next generation. Thus after many generations a new species with new characters develops. Examples of Lamarckism: 1. Evolution of Giraffe: The ancestor of giraffe was a horse like organism, feeds on grass. Along with the change in environment the grass became scanty. The food available was in the trees. So to get the food the ancestor stretches its neck and legs. This results in somewhat longer neck and legs. These characters are inherited to next generation. The stretching is continuous in next generation increases the length of neck and legs. Thus after many generations an organism with very long neck and legs is developed which is nothing but the modern day Giraffe. 2. Evolution of Snake: Ancestors of snakes were lizard like creatures with elongated body with two pairs of limbs. While escaping from enemy it has to creep through holes and crevices. During these movements limbs become obstacles many of the time. So it stopped using its limbs and lost after many generations. 3. Other examples: a. Whales lost their hind limbs. b. Ducks and other aquatic animals has webbed foot. c. Eyes are reduced in moles d. Dorsally located eyes of flat fish. e. Vestigial organs like wisdom teeth and Appendix in human. Critics or Objections of Lamarckism: 1. Lamarck proposed increase in size of an organ. But it is not true every time. In many cases evolution takes place without increase in size. 2. As per Lamarck new organ resulted from new need, then in similar environmental conditions all organisms should evolve in similar way. 3. Inheritance of acquired characters was not accepted by the scientists. As the acquired characters are somatic. Those cannot be transmitted to next generation. a. E.g. Scars on the body are not transmitted to next generation. b. Muscles of a body builder are not transmitted to next generation. II) Theory of Natural Selection (Darwinism) Charles Robert Darwin In 1859 solved the mystery of mechanism of organic evolution by proposing the theory of natural selection in his book ‘The origin of species’. The evidences that influence Darwin’s thoughts for development of the theory are as follows, 1 B.Sc.I Evolutionary Theories Dr. K.A. Gajare 1. Charles Lyell’s Book, ‘Principles of geology’ : In this book Lyell asserted that, the mountains, valleys, rivers and coastlines were shaped by the action of rains, winds, earth quakes, volcanoes and other natural forces and not by Noah’s flood. This make Darwin to conclude that, characteristics of organisms and earths face can change over a vast span of time. 2. Living and extinct organisms: In the flat plains of Argentine pampas Darwin Dag up many bony remains of extinct mammals from the old river beds. By observing those fossils he came to certain conclusions, a. Study of Thoatherium: Fossil study of Thoatherium proved that a native horse was an ancient inhabitant of the continent and disappeared. This indicated that, species gradually became modified with time, and not all species survived through age. b. Study of Giant Armadillos and Sloths: By this study in South America Darwin came to know that, Living species have ancestors. Also he concluded that, Species change not only with time but also with geographical distance. c. Study on Galapagos Islands: This is a cluster of volcanic Islands in east Pacific near equator. Darwin studied unusual animals on these islands. One of those was land dwelling tortoise named galapago. Those were about 275 kg in weight and 183 cm in length and can attain 200 to 250 years of age. Darwin noticed that the tortoises were clearly different from island to island. Darwin gives the explanation as; in isolation each population develops its own distinctive characters. Still they show basic resemblance with each other and with mainland tortoise. Similarly Darwin also observed the small birds known as Darwin’s finches. They were different on various islands yet were closely related to each other. Darwin concluded that a single ancestral group can give rise to several different species. d. Pangenesis Hyothesis: Darwin’s pangenesis hypothesis assumed that every organism produces its miniature in its body called gemmules or pangenes. They take part in fertilisation and gave rise to next generation. There by the character developed by the organism under the influence of environmental factors are transmitted to next generation. Postulates of Darwin’s theory: 1. The universal occurrence of variation: Every group of organisms show variation in many ways. The variation may be based on geographical regions, time period, food, habitat etc. 2. An excessive ability of reproduction: In absence of environmental check, every species tends to increase in geometrical manner. If a population doubles in one year, it will be quadruple in next year and so on. A common oyster shed 80 million eggs in a season. A salmon fish produce 28000000 eggs in a season. A pair of elephant, the slowest breeder could have 29 million decedents in 800 years. Though each organism has tremendous power of reproduction, the number of individuals in a species remains almost constant due to environmental check. 3. Struggle for existence: More individuals are born than can survive. So it is clear that most of the individuals cannot attend their reproductive age. This is because struggle for natural resources which are limited. The struggle may be intraspecific, interspecific or environmental. a. Intraspecific struggle: i.e. struggle among the members of same species. Since all the members share common food and shelter, there is struggle for them. Apart from them struggle for mate for reproduction is one of the major cause of intraspecific struggle. 2 B.Sc.I Evolutionary Theories Dr. K.A. Gajare b. Interspecific struggle: i.e. struggle among the members of different species. If two or more species are sharing common food or shelter then there is struggle for those natural resources. Apart from that struggle between pray and predator, parasites and hosts etc are also interspecific struggle. c. Environmental struggle: i.e. struggle with environmental conditions like drought, flood, extreme temperatures, infections and diseases, earthquake, land sliding, volcanic eruptions ect. 4. Survival of the fittest: In the struggle for existence, the unfit individuals are eliminated and those which have adapted satisfactorily can survive. The weaker individual cannot sustain the struggle for existence and die before they attain reproductive age. 5. Inheritance of the successful variation: Thus nature selects the fittest individual, which will give rise to next generation. Thus the more fit variation is transmitted to the next generation and less fit variation is eliminated. The successive generations are better adapted for the environment change. As the environment goes on changing, further adaptations take place and subjected to natural selection. Thus after many generations the dependence differs from their ancestor and forms a separate species. The variation which may be fit for one environmental condition may be unfit fir other. So in different regions the organisms adapt in different way. Thus from single ancestor two or more species may evolved. Critics or demerits of Darwin’s theory: 1. Tooth and claws selection: Many of the workers critic Darwin’s ‘survival of fittest’ concept, as it directs only tooth and claws force for the fitness and for selection by nature. Plants are also evolved without any bloody competition. 2. Arrival of fittest is not explained: Darwin explained how the fittest individual is selected by the nature and how that individual is able to produce next generation. But Darwin is unable to explain how the fittest arrive. How the character which make the organism well adapted is not explained by Darwin. 3. Over specialisation cannot be explained: some organisms attained over specialisations, like Irish deer has huge antlers which overweight its skeleton. Evolution of huge dinosaurs or mimicry in Kallima insect or Siberian mammoths with large tusks cannot be explained by Darwin’s theory. 4. New variation can be lost by dilution: new variation when arrive initially, it may be with one or few individuals. Most of the population is without that variation. Though it is a beneficial variation it is very dilute and there are more chances that it may loss after generations. 5. Indirect acceptance of Lamarkism: By proposing pangenesis Darwin accepted indirectly the theory proposed by Lamarck. As he also accept the inheritance of acquired characters. III) Neo- Darwinism: Modern synthetic theory Neo-Darwinism is reinterpretation of Natural selection and mutation theory with modern knowledge of genetics. According to Neo-Darwinism the unit of evolution is population. Therefore in Neo-Darwinism is combined with population genetics with Darwin’s theory. The term Neo-Darwinism was coined by G.J. Romanes (1848-1894). Huxley in 1942 called it as synthetic theory. Neo-Darwinism is also called biological theory of evolution or genetical theory of evolution.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transformations of Lamarckism Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology Gerd B
    Transformations of Lamarckism Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology Gerd B. M ü ller, G ü nter P. Wagner, and Werner Callebaut, editors The Evolution of Cognition , edited by Cecilia Heyes and Ludwig Huber, 2000 Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Development and Evolutionary Biology , edited by Gerd B. M ü ller and Stuart A. Newman, 2003 Environment, Development, and Evolution: Toward a Synthesis , edited by Brian K. Hall, Roy D. Pearson, and Gerd B. M ü ller, 2004 Evolution of Communication Systems: A Comparative Approach , edited by D. Kimbrough Oller and Ulrike Griebel, 2004 Modularity: Understanding the Development and Evolution of Natural Complex Systems , edited by Werner Callebaut and Diego Rasskin-Gutman, 2005 Compositional Evolution: The Impact of Sex, Symbiosis, and Modularity on the Gradualist Framework of Evolution , by Richard A. Watson, 2006 Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment , by Robert G. B. Reid, 2007 Modeling Biology: Structure, Behaviors, Evolution , edited by Manfred D. Laubichler and Gerd B. M ü ller, 2007 Evolution of Communicative Flexibility: Complexity, Creativity, and Adaptability in Human and Animal Communication , edited by Kimbrough D. Oller and Ulrike Griebel, 2008 Functions in Biological and Artifi cial Worlds: Comparative Philosophical Perspectives , edited by Ulrich Krohs and Peter Kroes, 2009 Cognitive Biology: Evolutionary and Developmental Perspectives on Mind, Brain, and Behavior , edited by Luca Tommasi, Mary A. Peterson, and Lynn Nadel, 2009 Innovation in Cultural Systems: Contributions from Evolutionary Anthropology , edited by Michael J. O ’ Brien and Stephen J. Shennan, 2010 The Major Transitions in Evolution Revisited , edited by Brett Calcott and Kim Sterelny, 2011 Transformations of Lamarckism: From Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology , edited by Snait B.
    [Show full text]
  • Myths and Legends of the Baldwin Effect
    Myths and Legends of the Baldwin Effect Peter Turney Institute for Information Technology National Research Council Canada Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6 [email protected] Abstract ary computation when there is an evolving population of learning individuals (Ackley and Littman, 1991; Belew, This position paper argues that the Baldwin effect 1989; Belew et al., 1991; French and Messinger, 1994; is widely misunderstood by the evolutionary Hart, 1994; Hart and Belew, 1996; Hightower et al., 1996; computation community. The misunderstandings Whitley and Gruau, 1993; Whitley et al., 1994). This syn- appear to fall into two general categories. Firstly, ergetic effect is usually called the Baldwin effect. This has it is commonly believed that the Baldwin effect is produced the misleading impression that there is nothing concerned with the synergy that results when more to the Baldwin effect than synergy. A myth or legend there is an evolving population of learning indi- has arisen that the Baldwin effect is simply a special viduals. This is only half of the story. The full instance of synergy. One of the goals of this paper is to story is more complicated and more interesting. dispel this myth. The Baldwin effect is concerned with the costs Roughly speaking (we will be more precise later), the and benefits of lifetime learning by individuals in Baldwin effect has two aspects. First, lifetime learning in an evolving population. Several researchers have individuals can, in some situations, accelerate evolution. focussed exclusively on the benefits, but there is Second, learning is expensive. Therefore, in relatively sta- much to be gained from attention to the costs.
    [Show full text]
  • A Model for the Generation and Transmission of Variations in Evolution
    A model for the generation and transmission of PNAS PLUS variations in evolution Olivier Rivoirea,b,1 and Stanislas Leiblerc,d aLaboratoire Interdisciplinaire de Physique, Université Grenoble Alpes, F-38000 Grenoble, France; bLaboratoire Interdisciplinaire de Physique, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, F-38000 Grenoble, France; cLaboratory of Living Matter, The Rockefeller University, New York, NY 10065; and dThe Simons Center for Systems Biology, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ 08540 Edited by Joshua B. Plotkin, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, and accepted by the Editorial Board March 24, 2014 (received for review January 8, 2014) The inheritance of characteristics induced by the environment has Concurrent views, emphasizing the role of environmentally in- often been opposed to the theory of evolution by natural selection. duced variations in evolution, have had several insightful propo- However, although evolution by natural selection requires new nents (10–13), but were also endorsed by dubious yet influential heritable traits to be produced and transmitted, it does not pre- supporters (14). Examples of inherited acquired characteristics scribe, per se, the mechanisms by which this is operated. The have, however, been long known, from the transmission of culture in mechanisms of inheritance are not, however, unconstrained, be- humans to the uptake of extracellular DNA by bacteria. However, cause they are themselves subject to natural selection. We introduce only recently have we gained a fuller
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Lamarckism: on the Evolution of Human Intelligence
    World Futures The Journal of New Paradigm Research ISSN: 0260-4027 (Print) 1556-1844 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gwof20 Molecular Lamarckism: On the Evolution of Human Intelligence Fredric M. Menger To cite this article: Fredric M. Menger (2017) Molecular Lamarckism: On the Evolution of Human Intelligence, World Futures, 73:2, 89-103, DOI: 10.1080/02604027.2017.1319669 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2017.1319669 © 2017 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC© Fredric M. Menger Published online: 26 May 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3145 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gwof20 World Futures, 73: 89–103, 2017 Copyright © Fredric M. Menger ISSN: 0260-4027 print / 1556-1844 online DOI: 10.1080/02604027.2017.1319669 MOLECULAR LAMARCKISM: ON THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN INTELLIGENCE Fredric M. Menger Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA In modern times, Lamarck’s view of evolution, based on inheritance of acquired traits has been superseded by neo-Darwinism, based on random DNA mutations. This article begins with a series of observations suggesting that Lamarckian inheritance is in fact operative throughout Nature. I then launch into a discussion of human intelligence that is the most important feature of human evolution that cannot be easily explained by mutational
    [Show full text]
  • Darwinism and Lamarckism Before and After Weismann: a Historical, Philosophical, and Methodological Analysis
    DARWINISM AND LAMARCKISM BEFORE AND AFTER WEISMANN: A HISTORICAL, PHILOSOPHICAL, AND METHODOLOGICAL ANALYSIS by Francis J. Cartieri University of Pittsburgh, BPhil, 2009 Submitted to the Faculty of The College of Arts and Sciences in conjunction with the University Honors College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2009 Cartieri 2 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES & THE UNIVERSITY HONORS COLLEGE This thesis was presented by Francis J. Cartieri It was defended on April 21, 2009 and approved by David Denks, Professor, Philosophy Jeffrey Schwartz, Professor, Anthropology Peter Machamer, Professor, History and Philosophy of Science Thesis Director: Sandra Mitchell, Professor and Chair, History and Philosophy of Science Cartieri 3 ABSTRACT Darwinism and Lamarckism before and after Weismann: A Historical, Philosophical, and Methodological analysis. Francis J. Cartieri Chair: Sandra D. Mitchell When exploring the relationship between two reputedly competitive scientific concepts that have persisted, with modification, through time, there are three main features to consider. First, there are historical features of an evolving relationship. Just as a causal story can be reconstructed concerning adaptations in a complex system, an analogous story can be supplied for the historical contingencies that have shaped the organization and development of Lamarckian and Darwinian biological thought, and their interactions, over time. Second, there are philosophical
    [Show full text]
  • Download Article (PDF)
    Rec. zool. Surv. India: 111(Part-l) : 5-9,2011 REMARKS ON LAMARCKIAN CONCEPT OF ANIMAL EVOLUTION AND PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY TRIDIB RANJAN MITRA Zoological Survey of India, M-Block, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053 "Lamarck would be astonished to know that LAMARCK AND EVOLUTION 'Lamarckism' has come to mean the inheritance of Some critics of Lamarck believed that he did not acquired characters. In the first place, he did not believe propose any genuine mechanism of evolutionary that all acquired characters are heritable, and in the changes. On the contrary Simpson (1961) observed, second place in saying that some are, he was only "Lamarck (1744-1829) was, however, the first to maintain repeating that everyone "knew" and had "known" since clearly and consistently that all taxa have arisen by antiquity" (G.G. Simpson, 1961). evolution and are a phylogenetic continuum". Mayr (1976) remarked that Lamarck's master doctrine was that INTRODUCTION all classes of animals form a unique and graduated The publication of the theory of natural selection series from the simple to the most perfect; and Lamarck on the origin of species (or descent of species) brought could be designated as the founder of the theory of intellectual debate on the idea of evolution. Darwinism evolution. It is fact that in several pages of Philosophie (or the theory of natural selection) had to fight with Zoologique ideas on evolution are available, but the supporters of biblical ideas of the origin of living Lamarck's discussion of aquatic animals clearly indicate his ideas on evolution. He wrote : beings in one hand and on the other hand on the methods of origin of living ones especially with the "I do not doubt that mammals originally came from supporters of so-called Lamarck's ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Lamarckian Mechanisms As Developmental Bias and Their Darwinian Base – Descriptive Versus Explanatory Biology (Full Version) Andrzej Gecow [email protected]
    Lamarckian mechanisms as developmental bias… (full v.) A.Gecow [email protected] Sep. 29, 2020 1 Lamarckian mechanisms as developmental bias and their Darwinian base – descriptive versus explanatory biology (full version) Andrzej Gecow [email protected] Abstract The article points out the main obstacles in the discussion of Lamarckian mechanisms, resulting from overly persisted beliefs, habits and understatement. The aim of the article is not to show new biological observation, but to indicate the need to change methodology. ‘Lamarckian mechanisms’ are those that create ‘non-random’ changes (in the aspect of adaptation), and even ‘resulting from instruction’, and these changes become evolutionary. It is part of ‘developmental biases’. To avoid widespread prejudices a permanent stress is needed that such ‘Lamarckian mechanisms’ are an effect of Darwinian mechanisms but this stress is not enough visible. The term ‘Lamarckism’ has two meanings unreasonably connected. The correct meaning is, that adaptive evolutionary changes can be induced by environment and next they are inherited, but typically it is understood as irrational believing that evolutionary changes are adaptive without necessity of help of Darwinian mechanisms. In this case the terms ‘Lamarckian mechanisms’ and ‘Lamarckism’ are not coherent which leads to misunderstanding. Such irrational Lamarckism has small base in Lamarck’s view, it arisen from too shallow interpretation of Lamarck. In the theme ‘inheritance of acquired characters’ a few steps to evolutionary change is indicated, which typically are omitted in the description. Old such descriptions need rebuilding in a new coherent system of notions but to create such system a theory is necessary. The Lamarckian dimension of evolution protrudes beyond the basics of Modern Synthesis however necessity to change the name of the synthesis to Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is discretionary decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Orthogenesis and “Runaway Evolution”
    ». Orthogenesis and “Runaway Evolution” We saw in the last reading that one crucial question for many authors in the early days aer the development of Darwin’s theory was the proper explanation of non-adaptive characters. Some of these, arranged into series that seemed to respond to the needs of the organisms’ environments, oered inspiration to the neo-Lamarckians. Another set of examples, the topic of today’s reading, were the basis for another non-Darwinian theory about how evolution might work. Before we look at the example, though, we should go back to another person we talked about very briey in the last reading: August Weismann (Õ즖ÕÉÕ¦). We mentioned him as having been the rst to advance the hypothesis that germ cells are separate from somatic cells, and that germ cells are the only ones involved in the transmission of characters from parents to o- spring. But Weismann was equally famous for having proposed an even stronger version of natural selection than Darwin had. While Darwin argued, as we have already seen, that natural selection was very important, he believed that use and disuse was occasionally a sig- nicant factor, and also stressed other processes, some of which we will talk about more below. August Weismann, in ÕÉÕ¢ (public domain; Wikimedia Commons) Weismann argued that in fact Darwin had not gone far enough. Every single trait, Weismann claimed, was the result of natural selection, from the biggest to the most apparently inconsequential. In an essay in Õì, he wrote that: Weismann, Life and Death (õ4) e complex world
    [Show full text]
  • Late Nineteenth Century Lamarckism and French Sociology1
    Late Nineteenth Century Lamarckism and French Sociology1 Snait Gissis Tel-Aviv University The transfer of modes of thought, concepts, models, and metaphors from Dar- winian and Lamarckian evolutionary biology played a signiªcant role in the mergence, constitution, and legitimization of sociology as an autonomous dis- cipline in France at the end of the nineteenth century. More speciªcally, the Durkheimian group then came to be recognized as “French sociology.” In the present paper, I analyze a facet of the struggle among various groups for this coveted status and demonstrate that the initial adherence to and subsequent abandonment of “the biological” played an important, but complex, role in the outcome of that struggle. Furthermore, the choice of biological model, whether Darwinian or Lamarckian, had repercussions on one’s position in that cultural ªeld. The outcome of the “battle” between René Worms’ group that supported and contributed to the Revue Internationale de Sociologie (RIS) on the one hand, and Emile Durkheim’s group and those committed to the L’Année Sociologique (AS) on the other—from which the Durkheimians emerged victorious—was due not only to internal scientiªc factors, but also to a particular juxtaposition of developments within sociol- ogy and anthropology and their relation to and interaction with French cul- ture and politics at large. 1. The topic of this paper has been treated with much greater depth and detail in a book I have been writing on transfer between biology and sociology. The present paper is a slight elaboration of a lecture bearing the same name, given in December 1998 at the Eighth Sloan Foundation Workshop on “The Nature and Limitations of Historical Knowl- edge about Scientiªc Objects and their Investigators” (Jerusalem).
    [Show full text]
  • 8. Lamarck on Species and Evolution
    8. Lamarck on species and evolution Marc F Oxenham Introduction For the last decade I have lived three doors down from Colin’s office, in the bowels of the AD Hope building at The Australian National University. However, my first contact with Colin was indirect, in as much as he was an examiner of my Honours thesis (‘Progress and Evolution: A re-evaluation of some ideas, devices and scholars in the study of human evolution to 1950’) back in 1995. Those familiar with the Australian and New Zealand university systems will realise that Honours is where undergraduates start to play with the big kids, and examiner’s reports can be a rude entree to the world of academia. Colin’s positive comments inspired me to think about publishing from my Honours research, and while my PhD quickly got in the way of that, this chapter is in fact a reworked early version of a paper drafted just after my Honours year. While my research interests have developed in very different directions since then, I have maintained a strong ‘armchair’ interest in the history of evolutionary thought and hope this contribution will excite others to revisit the works of the early evolutionary theorists. Much of my discussion concerns the nature of and the role of species in Lamarck’s theory of evolution. Many readers are no doubt aware of Colin’s own particular interest in species (see the discussion by Robert Attenborough, this volume, particularly with respect to the phylogenetic species concept) and while Colin may not necessarily agree with my interpretations of Lamarck on species, I am sure he would see it a most appropriate topic for this volume.
    [Show full text]
  • Lamarck Ascending! a Review of Transformations of Lamarckism: from Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology
    Lamarck Ascending! A Review of Transformations of Lamarckism: From Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology. Edited by Snait B. Gissis and Eva Jablonka, MIT Press, 2011 The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Haig, David Addison. 2011. Lamarck ascending! A review of Transformations of Lamarckism: From Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology, edited by Snait B. Gissis and Eva Jablonka, MIT Press, 2011. Philosophy and Theory in Biology 3:e204. Published Version http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.6959004.0003.004 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:9131556 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Philos Theor Biol (2011) 3:e204 ESSAY REVIEW Lamarck Ascending! A Review of Transformations of Lamarckism: From Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology. Edited by Snait B. Gissis and Eva Jablonka, MIT Press, 2011 David Haig§ Transformations of Lamarckism is an edited volume arising from a workshop to commemorate the bicentenary of the publication of Philosophie Zoologique. The contributed chapters discuss the history of Lamarckism, present new developments in biology that could be considered to vindicate Lamarck, and argue for a revision, if not a revolution, in evolutionary theory. My review argues that twentieth and twenty-first century conceptions of Lamarckism can be considered a reaction to August Weismann’s uncompromising rejection of the inheritance of acquired characters in the late nineteenth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin's Doubt
    Advancing the Scientific Debate In Paperback Now with a New Epilogue Purchase today at www.DarwinsDoubt.com Darwin’s Doubt: A Discussion Guide Introduction This discussion guide is designed to facilitate the use of Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design in small groups, adult education classes, and book discussion clubs. The guide contains brief summaries of each chapter grouped into eight total discussion sessions. Each discussion session also contains discussion questions for the chapters covered by that session. Permission is hereby granted to distribute and reproduce this guide in whole or in part for non- commercial educational use, provided that: (1) the original source is credited; (2) any copies display the web addresses for Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (www.discovery.org/csc), IntelligentDesign.org (www.intelligentdesign.org), and the official Darwin’s Doubt website (www.darwinsdoubt.com); and (3) the copies are distributed free of charge. Contents Session 1 (p. 4) Prologue; Chapter 1: Darwin’s Nemesis; Chapter 2: The Burgess Bestiary Session 2 (p. 7) Chapter 3: Soft Bodies and Hard Facts; Chapter 4: The Not Missing Fossils? Session 3 (p. 10) Chapter 5: The Genes Tell the Story?; Chapter 6: The Animal Tree of Life; Chapter 7: Punk Eek! Session 4 (p. 14) Chapter 8: The Cambrian Information Explosion; Chapter 9: Combinatorial Inflation; Chapter 10: The Origin of Genes and Proteins Session 5 (p. 18) Chapter 11: Assume a Gene; Chapter 12: Complex Adaptations and the Neo- Darwinian Math Session 6 (p.
    [Show full text]