Darwinism Epigenetics Intelligent Design

Was Lamarck the “most unfairly treated” person in science history?

Spread the love

That’s the claim at RealClearScience and, wouldn’t you know, Darwin doubters are supposedly to blame.

We are informed that this claim on Lamarck’s part, “The second law proposes that the changes brought about by organisms’ own efforts (through use–disuse) can be transmitted to succeeding generations, thereby allowing evolutionary progression”—like all the others—turned out to be wrong.

Then, of course, Darwin came along and set everything straight with is theory (nay, Truth) of natural selection acting on random variations. And…

Unfortunately, Lamarck’s reputation has been tarnished by others’ attempts to use his theory of inheriting acquired characteristics to question Darwinian evolution in defiance of scientific evidence. Today, “Lamarckism” is almost a dirty word in biology.

Ross Pomeroy, “The Most Unfairly Treated Person in the History of Science” at RealClearScience

What rubbish*, honestly. Darwinists hate and despise Lamarckism because, in its current form of epigenetics, it is a rival to Darwinism — and worse, there is lots of evidence for it now despite their best efforts. Wrecking the careers of skeptics has only gotten them so far.

  • On the bright side, this sort of thing is a really good argument for home schooling.

See also: Epigenetic change: Lamarck, wake up, you’re wanted in the conference room!

6 Replies to “Was Lamarck the “most unfairly treated” person in science history?

  1. 1
    orthomyxo says:

    Darwinists hate and despise Lamarckism because, in its current form of epigenetics, it is a rival to Darwinism

    A curious comment since Darwin was, more or less, a Lamarckian when it came to inheritence and epigenetics is neither Lamarckian nor a challenge to “Darwinism”.

  2. 2
    Ed George says:

    For Darwin’s theory to work it needed a source of heritable characteristics for selection to work on. At no time did Darwin rule out acquired characteristics (Lamarckian) as a possible source. Epigenetics, HGT and other things touted here as disproving evolution are just further sources of heritable variation that selection can act on.

  3. 3
    News says:

    Darwin did accept Lamarck’s theories, over time, we are told, but his followers seem to have felt threatened by them. Wonder why that might be.

  4. 4
    orthomyxo says:

    I think the “Darwin v Lamark” thing goes back to the 20th century before the rediscovery of mendel when lamarkianism was a viable alternative. Then it became a contrast to use in teaching and, increasingly, a way to over-sell new results.

  5. 5
    BobRyan says:

    Macro-evolution has yet to be witnessed by anyone and the results have never been replicated. Evolution remains a hypothesis until it is witnessed and replicated. That is very much a part of the scientific method.

  6. 6
    Bob O'H says:

    Darwinists hate and despise Lamarckism because, in its current form of epigenetics, it is a rival to Darwinism

    Honestly, we don’t care. A few years ago epigenetics became a bit of a bandwagon rather than a threat.

Leave a Reply