Jump to content

Why was Lamarck wrong? And why wasn't he completely wrong too?


Recommended Posts

My aim in this topic is to explain why lamarck is not completely wrong. I'm impacted by twitter discussions that HIT the hammer, without references, that such a thing is a proven scientific hypothesis and such a thing is a refuted hypothesis. To say that Lamarckism is a refuted theory is correct and we should not revisit it to explain the evolution of living things. But this is not to say that all the premises assumed by Lamarck have been refuted. In this sense, it is noteworthy that premises are also hypotheses. So without further ado, let's get to the point of this topic:

1) Confusion between causation and correlation

Character transmission BY repetitive effort = the Lamarckian theory

or

Repetitive effort for a given activity would be nothing more than the natural (intrinsic) or relatively constructed expression of the form or genotype, which in turn is transmissible (Darwinian theory)

Lamarck placed great emphasis on expression/behavior as a transmissible attribute while Darwin showed that it is the particular or general genetic form/architecture, which is transmissible and/or heterogeneously heritable, and which in turn is one of the main causes for the transmission and manifestation of certain behavior.


Lamarck postulated that the phenotype, which is particularly produced by the combination of bio-variables and environmental circumstances, is fundamentally transmitted or transmissible via repetitive effort.


Darwin postulated that it is the genotype (or form) that is in fact transmissible.


The phenotype expresses the set of emergent or dominant traits within an individual or particular bio-context. The phenotype can skip a generation and manifest itself in the subsequent generation/grandchildren, or even lose its strength and of course all these scenarios will fundamentally depend on structural reproductive circumstances, such as marital sharing of common traits, especially recessive ones, so that they can manifest, possibly, environmental variables, etc. 

However, the genotype, which brings together all the spectra of particular expressive/phenotypic dominance and recessivity, is the one that will be undeniably transmitted, and of course in complex life forms such as human, this will occur from a trend of diversification, phenotypic and genotypic, if we are like mutants and/or recombinants from our parents and so on in a chain of genetic preservation and modification.

Example

I start exercising and realize the potential for sculpting muscles. According to Lamarck, I would pass this ''gradual transformation'' or expression to my children.

In fact, I can pass on as an intergenerational legacy this DISPOSITION to sculpt muscle, that is, the genotype and not necessarily or directly, the phenotype or sculpted muscles. So, one or more of my hypothetical children could be born with this disposition...

It can also happen that one or several of them are born with ''new mutations'' of this characteristic and convey the idea that my repetitive effort was passed on to them as a genetic legacy.

Lamarck concluded that the phenotype via repetitive strain is transmissible.

Repetitive strain is an expression of the phenotype and it is the genotype that is transmissible. Lamarck wasn't completely wrong... because phenotypes can also be transmitted, as long as intergenerational transmission results in their expression, like father, like son.

However, in my opinion, repetitive strain is not the cause but the result of a certain phenotypic or chronically emergent disposition, which is very latent in us, which we cannot control because it is dominant and imperative to do so, in the case of behavioral dispositions. 

Another similar case happens with epigenetics, epigenetics has a completely different theoretical system than Lamarck proposed, although it restores a similar premise.

In summary, the assumption of acquired inheritance has not been refuted. It was only used in a narrative that did NOT explain the intended problem. And the fact that there is confusion between causality and correlation as mentioned above. The law of use and disuse for example, can alternatively be explained by natural selection, with more robust evidence (Darwinian theory). And although the law of inheritance of acquired characters was refuted as a mechanism of evolution, it is being revisited as a hypothesis to explain mechanisms of non-genetic inheritance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Luiz Henning said:

My aim in this topic is to explain why lamarck is not completely wrong. I'm impacted by twitter discussions that HIT the hammer, without references, that such a thing is a proven scientific hypothesis and such a thing is a refuted hypothesis. To say that Lamarckism is a refuted theory is correct and we should not revisit it to explain the evolution of living things. But this is not to say that all the premises assumed by Lamarck have been refuted. In this sense, it is noteworthy that premises are also hypotheses. So without further ado, let's get to the point of this topic:

1) Confusion between causation and correlation

Character transmission BY repetitive effort = the Lamarckian theory

or

Repetitive effort for a given activity would be nothing more than the natural (intrinsic) or relatively constructed expression of the form or genotype, which in turn is transmissible (Darwinian theory)

Lamarck placed great emphasis on expression/behavior as a transmissible attribute while Darwin showed that it is the particular or general genetic form/architecture, which is transmissible and/or heterogeneously heritable, and which in turn is one of the main causes for the transmission and manifestation of certain behavior.


Lamarck postulated that the phenotype, which is particularly produced by the combination of bio-variables and environmental circumstances, is fundamentally transmitted or transmissible via repetitive effort.


Darwin postulated that it is the genotype (or form) that is in fact transmissible.


The phenotype expresses the set of emergent or dominant traits within an individual or particular bio-context. The phenotype can skip a generation and manifest itself in the subsequent generation/grandchildren, or even lose its strength and of course all these scenarios will fundamentally depend on structural reproductive circumstances, such as marital sharing of common traits, especially recessive ones, so that they can manifest, possibly, environmental variables, etc. 

However, the genotype, which brings together all the spectra of particular expressive/phenotypic dominance and recessivity, is the one that will be undeniably transmitted, and of course in complex life forms such as human, this will occur from a trend of diversification, phenotypic and genotypic, if we are like mutants and/or recombinants from our parents and so on in a chain of genetic preservation and modification.

Example

I start exercising and realize the potential for sculpting muscles. According to Lamarck, I would pass this ''gradual transformation'' or expression to my children.

In fact, I can pass on as an intergenerational legacy this DISPOSITION to sculpt muscle, that is, the genotype and not necessarily or directly, the phenotype or sculpted muscles. So, one or more of my hypothetical children could be born with this disposition...

It can also happen that one or several of them are born with ''new mutations'' of this characteristic and convey the idea that my repetitive effort was passed on to them as a genetic legacy.

Lamarck concluded that the phenotype via repetitive strain is transmissible.

Repetitive strain is an expression of the phenotype and it is the genotype that is transmissible. Lamarck wasn't completely wrong... because phenotypes can also be transmitted, as long as intergenerational transmission results in their expression, like father, like son.

However, in my opinion, repetitive strain is not the cause but the result of a certain phenotypic or chronically emergent disposition, which is very latent in us, which we cannot control because it is dominant and imperative to do so, in the case of behavioral dispositions. 

Another similar case happens with epigenetics, epigenetics has a completely different theoretical system than Lamarck proposed, although it restores a similar premise.

In summary, the assumption of acquired inheritance has not been refuted. It was only used in a narrative that did NOT explain the intended problem. And the fact that there is confusion between causality and correlation as mentioned above. The law of use and disuse for example, can alternatively be explained by natural selection, with more robust evidence (Darwinian theory). And although the law of inheritance of acquired characters was refuted as a mechanism of evolution, it is being revisited as a hypothesis to explain mechanisms of non-genetic inheritance. 

Don't we already know that epigenetics partially rehabilitates some of Lamarck's ideas even though in a very limited way)? What is new here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, exchemist said:

Don't we already know that epigenetics partially rehabilitates some of Lamarck's ideas even though in a very limited way)? What is new here?

 
As I demonstrated at the beginning of the topic, this text is not intended to bring anything new, just to respond to certain people on Twitter who hammer out in discussions like this. Just show that some of your hypotheses have not been refuted. After all, hypotheses were already well received by the scientific community at the time and that served to support that author's narrative. In other words, they are accepted hypotheses that serve to support a hypothesis not yet verified. Only by thoroughly testing a hypothesis and its premises can we then develop a theory capable of explaining a given problem. In Lamarck's case, the problem is the transformation of species over generations. That's basically it, if you don't find this topic useful, just ignore it. 

Resultados de tradução

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:
 
As I demonstrated at the beginning of the topic, this text is not intended to bring anything new, just to respond to certain people on Twitter who hammer out in discussions like this. Just show that some of your hypotheses have not been refuted. After all, hypotheses were already well received by the scientific community at the time and that served to support that author's narrative. In other words, they are accepted hypotheses that serve to support a hypothesis not yet verified. Only by thoroughly testing a hypothesis and its premises can we then develop a theory capable of explaining a given problem. In Lamarck's case, the problem is the transformation of species over generations. That's basically it, if you don't find this topic useful, just ignore it. 

Resultados de tradução

 

I see. I'm not sure how bringing it here helps, if your antagonists are on Twitter, but that's your affair I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.