Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design

(Reformed) New Scientist 6: Lamarck is out of the doghouse!

Spread the love

Readers may recall that New Scientist published an article some days ago on 13 ways we need to “rethink the theory of nature.”

Their Number 6 rethink is … neo-Lamarckian adaptation (Adapt first, mutate later):

Most of the article is paywalled but here’s the gist of #6:

Today,there is evidence of Lamarckian evolution – of a sort. Take the Mexican spadefoot toad (Spea multiplicata). It breeds in ponds that appear after summer monsoons and the newly hatched tadpoles typically survive on a diet of algae and bacteria. However, should tadpoles find themselves in a pond where fairy shrimps are available, they adapt to take advantage of the more nutritious fare, developing larger jaws and shorter guts. To Nicholas Levis at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, spadefoot toads provide a perfect example of plasticity-led evolution. “It reorients how we think about the adaptive process,” he says. – Carrie Arnold

Michael Le Page , Colin Barras , Richard Webb , Kate Douglas and Carrie Arnold, “Evolution is evolving: 13 ways we must rethink the theory of nature” at New Scientist (September 23. 2020)

It certainly does reorient how we think about the adaptive process. Just think of the generations of Darwin-only classrooms in which Lamarckism of any kind was forbidden, except for the purposes of ridicule. Well, as they say, everything old is new again.

See also:

(Reformed) New Scientist 5: Species don’t really EXIST? Then what was On the Origin of Species about? Never mind.

(Reformed) New Scientist 4: There is more to inheritance than just genes. At New Scientist: “Subsequent studies in plants and animals suggest that epigenetic inheritance is more common than anyone had expected. Whatʼs more, compared with genetic inheritance, it has some big advantages. Environments can change rapidly and dramatically, but genetic mutations are random, so often require generations to take hold.” Just think, within a few years, genetics might start to make some sense. You’ve got to hand it to the New Scientist gang; when they rethink, they really do.

(Reformed) New Scientist 3: The selfish gene is no longer cool. At New Scientist: “Some researchers think the solution lies in an idea called cultural group selection. Forget shared genes, they argue: selection can favour cooperative groups if the people within them share enough culture. ” Darwin has left the building and returned to his estate.

(Reformed) New Scientist 2: Evolution shows intelligence. At New Scientist: “‘Maybe, evolution is less about out competing others and more to do with co-creating knowledge,’ says Watson.” That really is a radical idea. Radical yes, but it really is a good idea. We find it hard to improve on. The only thing we can think of is, keep the “intelligent” part in your description of nature and add “design.”

(Reformed) New Scientist 1 on the genome: Not destiny. Sure but then what about the famous twin studies that were supposed to prove so much about human nature? No? Then it’s probably best for the New Scientists to just get out of the “gene for that” hell while they can.


At New Scientist: We must rethink the (Darwinian) theory of nature. If by “our greatest theory of nature,” the writers mean textbook Darwinism, well the new concepts they list are destroying it. What becomes of “natural selection acting on random mutation” if a variety of means of evolution are “natural,” mutations are not necessarily random, genes aren’t selfish and don’t come only from parents, and the fittest don’t necessarily survive? Just for a start…

4 Replies to “(Reformed) New Scientist 6: Lamarck is out of the doghouse!

  1. 1
    Bob O'H says:

    I can’t read the whole article, but what’s described isn’t Lamarckian evolution of any kind: it doesn’t describe inheritance of the phenotype. Instead it’s phenotypic plasticity, which is well known to happen, although we don’t fully understand its implications.

    There’s more about the system in this article.

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    They’re still missing part of the point. The article starts with August Weissmann cutting off mouse tails to see if the offspring would be tailless. Unsurprisingly, he failed. The article doesn’t mention Lysenko, whose experiments with wheat succeeded.

    What’s the difference? Weissmann was asking the mice to make a change that didn’t help their own survival. Lysenko was asking the wheat plants to change in a way that helped their own survival in different weather conditions…. and thus also helped farms produce more.

    Nature wants to survive and increase. Nature doesn’t want to cooperate with sadistic psychopathic scientists.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    Lamarck was never in the dog house. Darwin was OK with Lamarckian evolution.

  4. 4
    Truthfreedom says:

    1 Bob O’H

    which is well known to happen, although we don’t fully understand its implications.

    You don’t even fully understand the meaning of “species”. Am I wrong? 🙂

Leave a Reply