Quantitative Biology


Current Return to Lamarck in Agreement with Darwin

Authors: Andrzej Gecow

The terms ‘Darwinism’ and ‘Lamarckism’ mean different things to different people. Nowadays, they are rarely used in a historically correct way – clime Jablonka and Lamb, the scientists that mainly contribute to proving than not only genes can curry hereditary information and new hereditary channels show characteristic of Lamarckian mechanisms. Especially Lamarckism was seen in false and superficial way in lot of aspects. The inheritance of acquired characters was connected to Lamarck. It was rejected too radically. Today it revives but mainly not basing on epigenetic inheritance. Generally Lamarckian mechanisms increase in the complex and diverse ways the chances of accurate adaptive changes, so they no longer look like a random, appear as ‘effects of instructions’ or ‘directed variations’ but these ‘instructions’ have been previously acquired through Darwinian natural selection. The richness of these phenomena causes great difficulty of their brief describtion. Lamarckian dimension of evolution is now known better. This phenomena cannot be explained in the range of Modern Synthesis assumptions. It does not mean, that MS is false and should be rejected. Lamarckian mechanisms are created by Darwinian natural selection, but their explanations need wider assumptions, than are a basis of MS, means Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is necessary. This theme is one of the main in current discussion.

Comments: 12 Pages. in Polish

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2017-04-12 04:55:54
[v2] 2017-04-19 12:54:03

Unique-IP document downloads: 14 times

Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus