Aeon is recycling this article from 2016:
Unified theory of evolution Darwin’s theory that natural selection drives evolution is incomplete without input from evolution’s anti-hero: Lamarck
The unifying theme for much of modern biology is based on Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, the process of natural selection by which nature selects the fittest, best-adapted organisms to reproduce, multiply and survive. The process is also called adaptation, and traits most likely to help an individual survive are considered adaptive. As organisms change and new variants thrive, species emerge and evolve. In the 1850s, when Darwin described this engine of natural selection, the underlying molecular mechanisms were unknown. But over the past century, advances in genetics and molecular biology have outlined a modern, neo-Darwinian theory of how evolution works: DNA sequences randomly mutate, and organisms with the specific sequences best adapted to the environment multiply and prevail. Those are the species that dominate a niche, until the environment changes and the engine of evolution fires up again.
But this explanation for evolution turns out to be incomplete, suggesting that other molecular mechanisms also play a role in how species evolve. One problem with Darwin’s theory is that, while species do evolve more adaptive traits (called phenotypes by biologists), the rate of random DNA sequence mutation turns out to be too slow to explain many of the changes observed. Scientists, well-aware of the issue, have proposed a variety of genetic mechanisms to compensate: genetic drift, in which small groups of individuals undergo dramatic genetic change; or epistasis, in which one set of genes suppress another, to name just two.
Michael Skinner, “Unified theory of evolution” at Aeon (09 November, 2016)
Of course. Michael Skinner, a Washington State U biology prof, makes good sense. But no, nothing happens. Too many fossils in Darwin world now. They just want dusting off now and then. And, in a world of change, they also expect things to continue that way…
By the way, why is Lamarck an “antihero”? His basic idea (we would now call it “epigenetics”) was sound. And Darwin went along with it. But any idea other than Darwin’s is inconvenient to the cult that has come to dominate biology, with unhealthful results.
Evolution is a history of life, involving many factors. The study of history does not need cults. It comes down to Darwinism vs. the history of life.
See also: Conclusions: What the fossils told us in their own words.