Lamarckism
Lamarckism, also known as Lamarckian inheritance or neo-Lamarckism,
Introductory textbooks contrast Lamarckism with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. However, Darwin's book On the Origin of Species gave credence to the idea of heritable effects of use and disuse, as Lamarck had done, and his own concept of pangenesis similarly implied soft inheritance.[2][3]
Many researchers from the 1860s onwards attempted to find evidence for Lamarckian inheritance, but these have all been explained away,[4][5] either by other mechanisms such as genetic contamination or as fraud. August Weismann's experiment, considered definitive in its time, is now considered to have failed to disprove Lamarckism, as it did not address use and disuse. Later, Mendelian genetics supplanted the notion of inheritance of acquired traits, eventually leading to the development of the modern synthesis, and the general abandonment of Lamarckism in biology. Despite this, interest in Lamarckism has continued.
Since c. 2000 new experimental results in the fields of
Early history
Origins
The inheritance of acquired characteristics was proposed in ancient times and remained a current idea for many centuries. The historian of science Conway Zirkle wrote in 1935 that:[6]
Lamarck was neither the first nor the most distinguished biologist to believe in the inheritance of acquired characters. He merely endorsed a belief which had been generally accepted for at least 2,200 years before his time and used it to explain how evolution could have taken place. The inheritance of acquired characters had been accepted previously by
Jerome Cardan, Levinus Lemnius, John Ray, Michael Adanson, Jo. Fried. Blumenbach and Erasmus Darwin among others.[6]
Zirkle noted that Hippocrates described pangenesis, the theory that what is inherited derives from the whole body of the parent, whereas Aristotle thought it impossible; but that all the same, Aristotle implicitly agreed to the inheritance of acquired characteristics, giving the example of the inheritance of a scar, or of blindness, though noting that children do not always resemble their parents. Zirkle recorded that Pliny the Elder thought much the same. Zirkle pointed out that stories involving the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics appear numerous times in ancient mythology and the Bible, and persisted through to Rudyard Kipling's Just So Stories.[7] The idea is mentioned in 18th century sources such as Diderot's D'Alembert's Dream.[8] Erasmus Darwin's Zoonomia (c. 1795) suggested that warm-blooded animals develop from "one living filament... with the power of acquiring new parts" in response to stimuli, with each round of "improvements" being inherited by successive generations.[9]
Darwin's pangenesis
Darwin's half-cousin, Francis Galton, carried out experiments on rabbits, with Darwin's cooperation, in which he transfused the blood of one variety of rabbit into another variety in the expectation that its offspring would show some characteristics of the first. They did not, and Galton declared that he had disproved Darwin's hypothesis of pangenesis, but Darwin objected, in a letter to the scientific journal Nature, that he had done nothing of the sort, since he had never mentioned blood in his writings. He pointed out that he regarded pangenesis as occurring in protozoa and plants, which have no blood, as well as in animals.[13]
Lamarck's evolutionary framework
Between 1800 and 1830, Lamarck proposed a systematic theoretical framework for understanding evolution. He saw evolution as comprising four laws:[14][15]
- "Life by its own force, tends to increase the volume of all organs which possess the force of life, and the force of life extends the dimensions of those parts up to an extent that those parts bring to themselves;"
- "The production of a new organ in an animal body, results from a new requirement arising. and which continues to make itself felt, and a new movement which that requirement gives birth to, and its upkeep/maintenance;"
- "The development of the organs, and their ability, are constantly a result of the use of those organs."
- "All that has been acquired, traced, or changed, in the physiology of individuals, during their life, is conserved through the genesis, reproduction, and transmitted to new individuals who are related to those who have undergone those changes."
Lamarck's discussion of heredity
In 1830, in an aside from his evolutionary framework, Lamarck briefly mentioned two traditional ideas in his discussion of heredity, in his day considered to be generally true. The first was the idea of use versus disuse; he theorized that individuals lose characteristics they do not require, or use, and develop characteristics that are useful. The second was to argue that the acquired traits were heritable. He gave as an imagined illustration the idea that when giraffes stretch their necks to reach leaves high in trees, they would strengthen and gradually lengthen their necks. These giraffes would then have offspring with slightly longer necks. In the same way, he argued, a blacksmith, through his work, strengthens the muscles in his arms, and thus his sons would have similar muscular development when they mature. Lamarck stated the following two laws:[1]
- Première Loi: Dans tout animal qui n' a point dépassé le terme de ses développemens, l' emploi plus fréquent et soutenu d' un organe quelconque, fortifie peu à peu cet organe, le développe, l' agrandit, et lui donne une puissance proportionnée à la durée de cet emploi; tandis que le défaut constant d' usage de tel organe, l'affoiblit insensiblement, le détériore, diminue progressivement ses facultés, et finit par le faire disparoître.[1]
- Deuxième Loi: Tout ce que la nature a fait acquérir ou perdre aux individus par l' influence des circonstances où leur race se trouve depuis long-temps exposée, et, par conséquent, par l' influence de l' emploi prédominant de tel organe, ou par celle d' un défaut constant d' usage de telle partie; elle le conserve par la génération aux nouveaux individus qui en proviennent, pourvu que les changemens acquis soient communs aux deux sexes, ou à ceux qui ont produit ces nouveaux individus.[1]
English translation:
- First Law [Use and Disuse]: In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears.
- Second Law [Soft Inheritance]: All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young.[16]
In essence, a change in the environment brings about change in "needs" (besoins), resulting in change in behaviour, causing change in organ usage and development, bringing change in form over time—and thus the gradual transmutation of the species. As the evolutionary biologists and historians of science Conway Zirkle, Michael Ghiselin, and Stephen Jay Gould have pointed out, these ideas were not original to Lamarck.[6][2][17]
Weismann's experiment
August Weismann's germ plasm theory held that germline cells in the gonads contain information that passes from one generation to the next, unaffected by experience, and independent of the somatic (body) cells. This implied what came to be known as the Weismann barrier, as it would make Lamarckian inheritance from changes to the body difficult or impossible.[18]
Weismann conducted the experiment of removing the tails of 68 white mice, and those of their offspring over five generations, and reporting that no mice were born in consequence without a tail or even with a shorter tail. In 1889, he stated that "901 young were produced by five generations of artificially mutilated parents, and yet there was not a single example of a rudimentary tail or of any other abnormality in this organ."[19] The experiment, and the theory behind it, were thought at the time to be a refutation of Lamarckism.[18]
The experiment's effectiveness in refuting Lamarck's hypothesis is doubtful, as it did not address the use and disuse of characteristics in response to the environment. The biologist Peter Gauthier noted in 1990 that:[20]
Can Weismann's experiment be considered a case of disuse? Lamarck proposed that when an organ was not used, it slowly, and very gradually atrophied. In time, over the course of many generations, it would gradually disappear as it was inherited in its modified form in each successive generation. Cutting the tails off mice does not seem to meet the qualifications of disuse, but rather falls in a category of accidental misuse... Lamarck's hypothesis has never been proven experimentally and there is no known mechanism to support the idea that somatic change, however acquired, can in some way induce a change in the germplasm. On the other hand it is difficult to disprove Lamarck's idea experimentally, and it seems that Weismann's experiment fails to provide the evidence to deny the Lamarckian hypothesis, since it lacks a key factor, namely the willful exertion of the animal in overcoming environmental obstacles.[20]
Ghiselin also considered the Weismann tail-chopping experiment to have no bearing on the Lamarckian hypothesis, writing in 1994 that:[2]
The acquired characteristics that figured in Lamarck's thinking were changes that resulted from an individual's own drives and actions, not from the actions of external agents. Lamarck was not concerned with wounds, injuries or mutilations, and nothing that Lamarck had set forth was tested or "disproven" by the Weismann tail-chopping experiment.[2]
The historian of science Rasmus Winther stated that Weismann had nuanced views about the role of the environment on the germ plasm. Indeed, like Darwin, he consistently insisted that a variable environment was necessary to cause variation in the hereditary material.[21]
Textbook Lamarckism
The identification of Lamarckism with the inheritance of acquired characteristics is regarded by evolutionary biologists including Ghiselin as a falsified artifact of the subsequent history of evolutionary thought, repeated in textbooks without analysis, and wrongly contrasted with a falsified picture of Darwin's thinking. Ghiselin notes that "Darwin accepted the inheritance of acquired characteristics, just as Lamarck did, and Darwin even thought that there was some experimental evidence to support it."[2] Gould wrote that in the late 19th century, evolutionists "re-read Lamarck, cast aside the guts of it ... and elevated one aspect of the mechanics—inheritance of acquired characters—to a central focus it never had for Lamarck himself."[22] He argued that "the restriction of 'Lamarckism' to this relatively small and non-distinctive corner of Lamarck's thought must be labelled as more than a misnomer, and truly a discredit to the memory of a man and his much more comprehensive system."[3][23]
Neo-Lamarckism
Context
The period of the history of evolutionary thought between Darwin's death in the 1880s, and the foundation of population genetics in the 1920s and the beginnings of the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1930s, is called the eclipse of Darwinism by some historians of science. During that time many scientists and philosophers accepted the reality of evolution but doubted whether natural selection was the main evolutionary mechanism.[24]
Among the most popular alternatives were theories involving the inheritance of characteristics acquired during an organism's lifetime. Scientists who felt that such Lamarckian mechanisms were the key to evolution were called neo-Lamarckians. They included the British botanist George Henslow (1835–1925), who studied the effects of environmental stress on the growth of plants, in the belief that such environmentally-induced variation might explain much of plant evolution, and the American entomologist Alpheus Spring Packard, Jr., who studied blind animals living in caves and wrote a book in 1901 about Lamarck and his work.[25][26] Also included were paleontologists like Edward Drinker Cope and Alpheus Hyatt, who observed that the fossil record showed orderly, almost linear, patterns of development that they felt were better explained by Lamarckian mechanisms than by natural selection. Some people, including Cope and the Darwin critic Samuel Butler, felt that inheritance of acquired characteristics would let organisms shape their own evolution, since organisms that acquired new habits would change the use patterns of their organs, which would kick-start Lamarckian evolution. They considered this philosophically superior to Darwin's mechanism of random variation acted on by selective pressures. Lamarckism also appealed to those, like the philosopher Herbert Spencer and the German anatomist Ernst Haeckel, who saw evolution as an inherently progressive process.[25] The German zoologist Theodor Eimer combined Larmarckism with ideas about orthogenesis, the idea that evolution is directed towards a goal.[27]
With the development of the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution, and a lack of evidence for a mechanism for acquiring and passing on new characteristics, or even their heritability, Lamarckism largely fell from favour. Unlike neo-Darwinism, neo-Lamarckism is a loose grouping of largely heterodox theories and mechanisms that emerged after Lamarck's time, rather than a coherent body of theoretical work.[28]
19th century
Neo-Lamarckian versions of evolution were widespread in the late 19th century. The idea that living things could to some degree choose the characteristics that would be inherited allowed them to be in charge of their own destiny as opposed to the Darwinian view, which placed them at the mercy of the environment. Such ideas were more popular than natural selection in the late 19th century as it made it possible for biological evolution to fit into a framework of a divine or naturally willed plan, thus the neo-Lamarckian view of evolution was often advocated by proponents of orthogenesis.[29] According to the historian of science Peter J. Bowler, writing in 2003:
One of the most emotionally compelling arguments used by the neo-Lamarckians of the late nineteenth century was the claim that Darwinism was a mechanistic theory which reduced living things to puppets driven by heredity. The selection theory made life into a game of Russian roulette, where life or death was predetermined by the genes one inherited. The individual could do nothing to mitigate bad heredity. Lamarckism, in contrast, allowed the individual to choose a new habit when faced with an environmental challenge and shape the whole future course of evolution.[30]
Scientists from the 1860s onwards conducted numerous experiments that purported to show Lamarckian inheritance. Some examples are described in the table.
Scientist | Date | Experiment | Claimed result | Rebuttal |
---|---|---|---|---|
Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard | 1869 to 1891 | Cut sciatic nerve and dorsal spinal cord of guinea pigs, causing abnormal nervous condition resembling epilepsy | Epileptic offspring | Not Lamarckism, as no use and disuse in response to environment; results could not be replicated; cause possibly a transmitted disease.[31][32][33][34][35][36] |
Gaston Bonnier | 1884, 1886 | Transplant plants at different altitudes in Alps, Pyrenees | Acquired adaptations | Not controlled from weeds; likely cause genetic contamination[37] |
Joseph Thomas Cunningham | 1891, 1893, 1895 | Shine light on underside of flatfish | Inherited production of pigment | Disputed cause[38][39][40][41][42][43] |
Max Standfuss | 1892 to 1917 | Raise butterflies at low temperature | Variations in offspring even without low temperature | Richard Goldschmidt agreed; Ernst Mayr "difficult to interpret".[44][45][46][47] |
Early 20th century
A century after Lamarck, scientists and philosophers continued to seek mechanisms and evidence for the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Experiments were sometimes reported as successful, but from the beginning these were either criticised on scientific grounds or shown to be fakes.[48][49][50][4][5] For instance, in 1906, the philosopher Eugenio Rignano argued for a version that he called "centro-epigenesis",[51][52][53][54][55][56] but it was rejected by most scientists.[57] Some of the experimental approaches are described in the table.
Scientist | Date | Experiment | Claimed result | Rebuttal |
---|---|---|---|---|
William Lawrence Tower | 1907 to 1910 | Colorado potato beetles in extreme humidity, temperature | Heritable changes in size, colour | Criticised by William Bateson; Tower claimed all results lost in fire; William E. Castle visited laboratory, found fire suspicious, doubted claim that steam leak had killed all beetles, concluded faked data.[58][59][60][49][50] |
Gustav Tornier | 1907 to 1918 | Goldfish, embryos of frogs, newts | Abnormalities inherited | Disputed; possibly an osmotic effect[61][62][63][64] |
Charles Rupert Stockard | 1910 | Repeated alcohol intoxication of pregnant guinea pigs | Inherited malformations | Raymond Pearl unable to reproduce findings in chickens; Darwinian explanation[65][48] |
Francis Bertody Sumner | 1921 | Reared mice at different temperatures, humidities | Inherited longer bodies, tails, hind feet | Inconsistent results[66][67] |
Michael F. Guyer, Elizabeth A. Smith | 1918 to 1924 | Injected fowl serum antibodies for rabbit lens-protein into pregnant rabbits | Eye defects inherited for 8 generations | Disputed, results not replicated[68][69] |
Paul Kammerer | 1920s | Midwife toad | Black foot-pads inherited | Fraud, ink injected; or, results misinterpreted; case celebrated by Arthur Koestler arguing that opposition was political[4][70] |
William McDougall | 1920s | Rats solving mazes | Offspring learnt mazes quicker (20 vs 165 trials) | Poor |
John William Heslop-Harrison | 1920s | Peppered moths exposed to soot | Inherited mutations caused by soot | Failure to replicate results; implausible mutation rate[77][78] |
Ivan Pavlov | 1926 | Conditioned reflex in mice to food and bell |
Offspring easier to condition | Pavlov retracted claim; results not replicable[79][80] |
Coleman Griffith, John Detlefson | 1920 to 1925 | Reared rats on rotating table for 3 months | Inherited balance disorder | Results not replicable; likely cause ear infection[81][82][83][84][85][86] |
Victor Jollos | 1930s | Heat treatment in Drosophila melanogaster | Directed mutagenesis, a form of orthogenesis |
Results not replicable[87][88] |
Late 20th century
The British anthropologist Frederic Wood Jones and the South African paleontologist Robert Broom supported a neo-Lamarckian view of human evolution. The German anthropologist Hermann Klaatsch relied on a neo-Lamarckian model of evolution to try and explain the origin of bipedalism. Neo-Lamarckism remained influential in biology until the 1940s when the role of natural selection was reasserted in evolution as part of the modern evolutionary synthesis.[89] Herbert Graham Cannon, a British zoologist, defended Lamarckism in his 1959 book Lamarck and Modern Genetics.[90] In the 1960s, "biochemical Lamarckism" was advocated by the embryologist Paul Wintrebert.[91]
Neo-Lamarckism was dominant in French biology for more than a century. French scientists who supported neo-Lamarckism included Edmond Perrier (1844–1921), Alfred Giard (1846–1908), Gaston Bonnier (1853–1922) and Pierre-Paul Grassé (1895–1985). They followed two traditions, one mechanistic, one vitalistic after Henri Bergson's philosophy of evolution.[92]
In 1987, Ryuichi Matsuda coined the term "pan-environmentalism" for his evolutionary theory which he saw as a fusion of Darwinism with neo-Lamarckism. He held that heterochrony is a main mechanism for evolutionary change and that novelty in evolution can be generated by genetic assimilation.[93][94] His views were criticized by Arthur M. Shapiro for providing no solid evidence for his theory. Shapiro noted that "Matsuda himself accepts too much at face value and is prone to wish-fulfilling interpretation."[94]
Ideological neo-Lamarckism
A form of Lamarckism was revived in the Soviet Union of the 1930s when Trofim Lysenko promoted the ideologically driven research programme, Lysenkoism; this suited the ideological opposition of Joseph Stalin to genetics. Lysenkoism influenced Soviet agricultural policy which in turn was later blamed for the numerous massive crop failures experienced within Soviet states.[95]
Critique
George Gaylord Simpson in his book Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944) claimed that experiments in heredity have failed to corroborate any Lamarckian process.[96] Simpson noted that neo-Lamarckism "stresses a factor that Lamarck rejected: inheritance of direct effects of the environment" and neo-Lamarckism is closer to Darwin's pangenesis than Lamarck's views.[97] Simpson wrote, "the inheritance of acquired characters, failed to meet the tests of observation and has been almost universally discarded by biologists."[98]
Zirkle pointed out that Lamarck did not originate the hypothesis that
What Lamarck really did was to accept the hypothesis that acquired characters were heritable, a notion which had been held almost universally for well over two thousand years and which his contemporaries accepted as a matter of course, and to assume that the results of such inheritance were cumulative from generation to generation, thus producing, in time, new species. His individual contribution to biological theory consisted in his application to the problem of the origin of species of the view that acquired characters were inherited and in showing that evolution could be inferred logically from the accepted biological hypotheses. He would doubtless have been greatly astonished to learn that a belief in the inheritance of acquired characters is now labeled "Lamarckian," although he would almost certainly have felt flattered if evolution itself had been so designated.[7]
Peter Medawar wrote regarding Lamarckism, "very few professional biologists believe that anything of the kind occurs—or can occur—but the notion persists for a variety of nonscientific reasons." Medawar stated there is no known mechanism by which an adaptation acquired in an individual's lifetime can be imprinted on the genome and Lamarckian inheritance is not valid unless it excludes the possibility of natural selection, but this has not been demonstrated in any experiment.[99]
Martin Gardner wrote in his book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (1957):
A host of experiments have been designed to test Lamarckianism. All that have been verified have proved negative. On the other hand, tens of thousands of experiments— reported in the journals and carefully checked and rechecked by geneticists throughout the world— have established the correctness of the gene-mutation theory beyond all reasonable doubt... In spite of the rapidly increasing evidence for natural selection, Lamarck has never ceased to have loyal followers.... There is indeed a strong emotional appeal in the thought that every little effort an animal puts forth is somehow transmitted to his progeny.[100]
According to Ernst Mayr, any Lamarckian theory involving the inheritance of acquired characters has been refuted as "DNA does not directly participate in the making of the phenotype and that the phenotype, in turn, does not control the composition of the DNA."[101] Peter J. Bowler has written that although many early scientists took Lamarckism seriously, it was discredited by genetics in the early twentieth century.[102]
Mechanisms resembling Lamarckism
Studies in the field of epigenetics, genetics and somatic hypermutation[103][104] have highlighted the possible inheritance of traits acquired by the previous generation.[105][106][107][108][109] However, the characterization of these findings as Lamarckism has been disputed.[110][111][112][113]
Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance
Joseph Springer and Dennis Holley commented in 2013 that:[127]
Lamarck and his ideas were ridiculed and discredited. In a strange twist of fate, Lamarck may have the last laugh. Epigenetics, an emerging field of genetics, has shown that Lamarck may have been at least partially correct all along. It seems that reversible and heritable changes can occur without a change in DNA sequence (genotype) and that such changes may be induced spontaneously or in response to environmental factors—Lamarck's "acquired traits." Determining which observed phenotypes are genetically inherited and which are environmentally induced remains an important and ongoing part of the study of genetics, developmental biology, and medicine.[127]
The prokaryotic CRISPR system and Piwi-interacting RNA could be classified as Lamarckian, within a Darwinian framework.[128][129] However, the significance of epigenetics in evolution is uncertain. Critics such as the evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne point out that epigenetic inheritance lasts for only a few generations, so it is not a stable basis for evolutionary change.[130][131][132][133]
The evolutionary biologist T. Ryan Gregory contends that epigenetic inheritance should not be considered Lamarckian. According to Gregory, Lamarck did not claim that the environment directly affected living things. Instead, Lamarck "argued that the environment created needs to which organisms responded by using some features more and others less, that this resulted in those features being accentuated or attenuated, and that this difference was then inherited by offspring." Gregory has stated that Lamarckian evolution in epigenetics is more like Darwin's point of view than Lamarck's.[110]
In 2007, David Haig wrote that research into epigenetic processes does allow a Lamarckian element in evolution but the processes do not challenge the main tenets of the modern evolutionary synthesis as modern Lamarckians have claimed. Haig argued for the primacy of DNA and evolution of epigenetic switches by natural selection.[134] Haig has written that there is a "visceral attraction" to Lamarckian evolution from the public and some scientists, as it posits the world with a meaning, in which organisms can shape their own evolutionary destiny.[135]
Thomas Dickens and Qazi Rahman (2012) have argued that epigenetic mechanisms such as DNA methylation and histone modification are genetically inherited under the control of natural selection and do not challenge the modern synthesis. They dispute the claims of Jablonka and Lamb on Lamarckian epigenetic processes.[136]
In 2015, Khursheed Iqbal and colleagues discovered that although "endocrine disruptors exert direct epigenetic effects in the exposed fetal germ cells, these are corrected by reprogramming events in the next generation."[138] Also in 2015, Adam Weiss argued that bringing back Lamarck in the context of epigenetics is misleading, commenting, "We should remember [Lamarck] for the good he contributed to science, not for things that resemble his theory only superficially. Indeed, thinking of CRISPR and other phenomena as Lamarckian only obscures the simple and elegant way evolution really works."[139]
Somatic hypermutation and reverse transcription to germline
In the 1970s, the Australian immunologist
The mechanism was meant to explain why homologous
The historian of biology Peter J. Bowler noted in 1989 that other scientists had been unable to reproduce his results, and described the scientific consensus at the time:[137]
There is no feedback of information from the proteins to the DNA, and hence no route by which characteristics acquired in the body can be passed on through the genes. The work of Ted Steele (1979) provoked a flurry of interest in the possibility that there might, after all, be ways in which this reverse flow of information could take place. ... [His] mechanism did not, in fact, violate the principles of molecular biology, but most biologists were suspicious of Steele's claims, and attempts to reproduce his results have failed.[137]
Bowler commented that "[Steele's] work was bitterly criticized at the time by biologists who doubted his experimental results and rejected his hypothetical mechanism as implausible."[137]
Hologenome theory of evolution
The
Baldwin effect
The Baldwin effect, named after the psychologist James Mark Baldwin by George Gaylord Simpson in 1953, proposes that the ability to learn new behaviours can improve an animal's reproductive success, and hence the course of natural selection on its genetic makeup. Simpson stated that the mechanism was "not inconsistent with the modern synthesis" of evolutionary theory,[145] though he doubted that it occurred very often or could be proven to occur. He noted that the Baldwin effect provided a reconciliation between the neo-Darwinian and neo-Lamarckian approaches, something that the modern synthesis had seemed to render unnecessary. In particular, the effect allows animals to adapt to a new stress in the environment through behavioural changes, followed by genetic change. This somewhat resembles Lamarckism but without requiring animals to inherit characteristics acquired by their parents.[146] The Baldwin effect is broadly accepted by Darwinists.[147]
In sociocultural evolution
Within the field of cultural evolution, Lamarckism has been applied as a mechanism for dual inheritance theory.[148] Gould viewed culture as a Lamarckian process whereby older generations transmitted adaptive information to offspring via the concept of learning. In the history of technology, components of Lamarckism have been used to link cultural development to human evolution by considering technology as extensions of human anatomy.[149]
References
- ^ a b c d Lamarck 1830, p. 235
- ^ a b c d e f g Ghiselin, Michael T. (1994). "The Imaginary Lamarck: A Look at Bogus "History" in Schoolbooks". The Textbook Letter (September–October 1994). Archived from the original on 12 October 2000. Retrieved 17 February 2006.
- ^ a b Gould 2002, pp. 177–178
- ^ a b c Bowler 2003, pp. 245–246
- ^ a b c Medawar 1985, p. 168
- ^ S2CID 84729069.
- ^ JSTOR 1005592.
- OCLC 433436276.
- ^ Darwin 1794–1796, Vol I, section XXXIX
- ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 617: "But Darwin was loath to let go of the notion that a well-used and strengthened organ could be inherited."
- doi:10.1038/003502a0.
- S2CID 207150548.
- S2CID 39953275.
- ^ Larson, Edward J. (2004). A Growing sense of progress. Modern Library. pp. 38–41.
{{cite book}}
:|work=
ignored (help) - ISBN 978-0-09-928583-0.
- ^ Lamarck 1914, p. 113
- ^ Gould 2002, pp. 170–191
- ^ OL 23380098M.
- ^ Weismann 1889, "The Supposed Transmission of Mutilations" (1888), p. 432
- ^ JSTOR 4608123.
- S2CID 23808208.
- ^ Gould 1980, p. 66
- ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (October 4, 1979). "Another Look at Lamarck". New Scientist. Vol. 84, no. 1175. pp. 38–40. Retrieved 2015-11-09.
- ^ Quammen 2006, p. 216
- ^ a b Bowler 2003, pp. 236–244
- ^ Quammen 2006, pp. 218, 220
- ^ Quammen 2006, p. 221
- ISBN 978-0520063860.
- ^ Bowler 1992
- ^ Bowler 2003, p. 367
- ^ Mumford 1921, p. 209
- ^ Mason 1956, p. 343
- ^ Burkhardt 1995, p. 166
- ^ Raitiere 2012, p. 299
- ^ Linville & Kelly 1906, p. 108
- ^ Aminoff 2011, p. 192
- ^ Kohler 2002, p. 167
- ^ Cunningham, Joseph Thomas (1891). "An Experiment concerning the Absence of Color from the lower Sides of Flat-fishes". Zoologischer Anzeiger. 14: 27–32.
- S2CID 84934811.
- S2CID 86159587.
- ^ Moore, Eldon (September 15, 1928). "The New View of Mendelism". The Spectator (Book review). Vol. 141, no. 5229. p. 337. Retrieved 2015-10-24. Review of Modern Biology (1928) by J. T. Cunningham.
- ^ Cock & Forsdyke 2008, pp. 132–133
- ^ Morgan 1903, pp. view=1up, seq=277 257–259
- ^ Goldschmidt 1940, pp. 266–267
- ^ Burkhardt 1998, "Lamarckism in Britain and the United States", p. 348
- ^ Forel 1934, p. 36
- doi:10.1126/science.4.80.52-c. Review of Handbuch der paläarktischen Gross-Schmetterlinge für Forscher und Sammler (1896) by Maximilian Rudolph Standfuss.
- ^ a b Delage & Goldsmith 1912, p. 210
- ^ a b Kohler 2002, pp. 202–204
- ^ a b Mitman 1992, p. 219
- ^ Rignano 1906
- ^ Rignano & Harvey 1911
- JSTOR 2377122.
- ^ Newman 1921, p. 335
- ^ Rignano 1926
- JSTOR 2014451.
- S2CID 3984855.
- S2CID 4146761.
- ^ Bateson 1913, pp. 219–227
- ^ Weinstein 1998, "A Note on W. L. Tower's Lepinotarsa Work," pp. 352–353
- PMID 21259774.
- ^ Cunningham 1928, pp. 84–97
- .
- .
- ^ Blumberg 2010, pp. 69–70
- ^ Young 1922, p. 249
- ^ Child 1945, pp. 146–173
- PMID 16576477.
- ^ Medawar 1985, p. 169
- ^ Moore 2002, p. 330
- .
- S2CID 84312439.
- .
- .
- . Retrieved 2015-10-28.
- .
- R. A. Fisherpointed out that Harrison's hypothesis required a mutation rate far higher than any previously reported."
- ^ Moore & Decker 2008, p. 203
- ^ McDougall 1934, p. 180
- .
- S2CID 84453628.
- PMID 17778266.
- JSTOR 984462.
- .
- doi:10.1037/h0074715.
- ^ Otho S. A. Sprague Memorial Institute 1940, p. 162
- S2CID 34126149.
- ^ Harwood 1993, pp. 121–131
- ^ Wood 2013
- ^ Cannon 1975
- ^ Boesiger 1974, p. 29
- S2CID 3398698.
- doi:10.1007/BF00050806. Book reviews of Animal Evolution in Changing Environments: With Special Reference to Abnormal Metamorphosis (1987) by Ryuichi Matsuda and The Evolution of Individuality (1987) by Leo W. Buss.
- ^ a b Shapiro, Arthur M. (1988). "Book Review: Animal Evolution in Changing Environments with Special Reference to Abnormal Metamorphosis" (PDF). Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society (Book review). 42 (2): 146–147. Retrieved 2015-12-11.
- ^ Baird, Scerri & McIntyre 2006, p. 166
- ^ Simpson 1944, p. 75
- ^ Simpson 1964, pp. 14–60
- ^ Simpson 1965, p. 451
- ^ Medawar 1985, pp. 166–169
- ^ Gardner 1957, pp. 142–143
- ^ Mayr 1997, p. 222: "...the recognition that DNA does not directly participate in the making of the phenotype and that the phenotype, in turn, does not control the composition of the DNA represents the ultimate invalidation of all theories involving the inheritance of acquired characters. This definitive refutation of Lamarck's theory of evolutionary causation clears the air."
- ^ Bowler 2013, p. 21
- ^ PMID 27449479.
- ^ a b Steele, E. J. (1981). Somatic selection and adaptive evolution: on the inheritance of acquired characters (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
- PMID 19150054.
- PMID 19193896.
- PMID 23223451.
- PMID 22445060.
- PMID 25917417.
- ^ a b Gregory, T. Ryan (March 8, 2009). "Lamarck didn't say it, Darwin did". Genomicron (Blog). Archived from the original on 9 February 2015. Retrieved 2015-11-04.
- ^ Wilkins 2009, pp. 295–315
- PMID 23908372.
- PMID 26026157.
- ^ Jablonka & Lamb 1995
- ^ Moore 2015
- S2CID 21961242.
- PMID 19636381.
- S2CID 4308799.
- ^ Gibson, Andrea (June 16, 2013). "Obese male mice father offspring with higher levels of body fat" (Press release). Ohio University. Retrieved 2015-11-02.
- .
- PMID 17576658.
- PMID 20118668.
- ^ Singer, Emily (February 4, 2009). "A Comeback for Lamarckian Evolution?". MIT Technology Review (Biomedicine news). Archived from the original on January 27, 2016. Retrieved November 3, 2015.
- PMID 22119442.
- PMID 25018105.
- PMID 20465829.
- ^ a b Springer & Holley 2013, p. 94
- PMID 19906303.
- PMID 30930513.
- ^ Coyne, Jerry (October 24, 2010). "Epigenetics: the light and the way?". Why Evolution Is True (Blog). Retrieved 2015-11-04.
- ^ Coyne, Jerry (September 23, 2013). "Epigenetics smackdown at the Guardian". Why Evolution is True (Blog). Retrieved 2015-11-04.
- PMID 26442117.
- PMID 25617408.
- S2CID 16322990.
Modern neo-Darwinists do not deny that epigenetic mechanisms play an important role during development nor do they deny that these mechanisms enable a variety of adaptive responses to the environment. Recurrent, predictable changes of epigenetic state provide a useful set of switches that allow genetically-identical cells to acquire differentiated functions and allow facultative responses of a genotype to environmental changes (provided that 'similar' changes have occurred repeatedly in the past). However, most neo-Darwinists would claim that the ability to adaptively switch epigenetic state is a property of the DNA sequence (in the sense that alternative sequences would show different switching behavior) and that any increase of adaptedness in the system has come about by a process of natural selection.
- . "A Review of Transformations of Lamarckism: From Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology, edited by Snait B. Gissis and Eva Jablonka, MIT Press, 2011"
- PMID 22593110.
- ^ ISBN 978-0520063860.
- PMID 25853737.
- PMID 26411613.
- PMID 27449479.
- PMID 2443841.
- ^ Steele, Lindley & Blanden 1998
- ^ PMID 26636661.
- PMID 19573132.
- ISBN 978-0-262-23229-6.
- JSTOR 2405746.
- ISBN 978-0-262-23229-6.
- S2CID 85411375.
- ^ Cullen 2000, pp. 31–60
Bibliography
- Aminoff, Michael J. (2011). Brown-Séquard: An Improbable Genius Who Transformed Medicine. OCLC 680002156.
- Baird, Davis; OCLC 209927684.
- Blumberg, Mark S. (2010). Freaks of Nature: And What They Tell Us about Evolution and Development (Paperback ed.). Oxford University Press. OCLC 352916350.
- Boesiger, Ernest (1974). "Evolutionary theories after Lamarck and Darwin". In OCLC 1265669.
- OCLC 611262030.
- OCLC 49824702.
- Bowler, Peter J. (2013). Darwin Deleted: Imagining a World Without Darwin. OCLC 808010092.
- Burkhardt, Richard W. Jr. (1995) [Originally published 1977]. The Spirit of System: Lamarck and Evolutionary Biology: Now with 'Lamarck in 1995' (First Harvard University Press paperback ed.). OCLC 32396741.
- OCLC 1418716.
- OCLC 11852074. Retrieved 2015-10-27.
- Cock, Alan G.; Forsdyke, Donald R. (2008). Treasure Your Exceptions: The Science and Life of William Bateson. Springer. OCLC 344846261.
- Cullen, Ben Sandford (2000). Steele, James; Cullen, Richard; Chippindale, Christopher (eds.). Contagious Ideas: On Evolution, Culture, Archaeology, and Cultural Virus Theory. OCLC 47122736.
- OCLC 920415.
- OCLC 670735211.
- OCLC 26502431.
- . Retrieved 2015-10-26.
- OCLC 233892.
- OCLC 595767401.
- OCLC 6331415.
- Gould, Stephen Jay (2002). OCLC 47869352.
- Hagen, Joel B. (2002). "Retelling Experiments: H.B.D. Kettlewell's Studies of Industrial Melanism in Peppered Moths". In Giltrow, Janet (ed.). Academic Reading: Reading and Writing Across the Disciplines (2nd ed.). OCLC 46626903.
- Harwood, Jonathan (1993). Styles of Scientific Thought: The German Genetics Community, 1900–1933. Science and its Conceptual Foundations. University of Chicago Press. OCLC 25746714.
- OCLC 30974876.
- Kohler, Robert E. (2002). Landscapes and Labscapes: Exploring the Lab-Field Border in Biology. University Of Chicago Press. OCLC 690162738.
-
- —— (1914). Zoological Philosophy; An Exposition with Regard to the Natural History of Animals. Translated, with an introduction, by Hugh Elliot.
- Linville, Henry R.; Kelly, Henry A. (1906). A Text-Book in General Zoölogy.
- Mason, Stephen Finney (1956). Main Currents of Scientific Thought: A History of the Sciences. The Life of Science Library. Vol. 32 (Reprint ed.). Abelard-Schuman. OCLC 732176237.
- OCLC 247687824.
- Mayr, Ernst; OCLC 503188713.
- McDougall, William (1934). Modern Materialism and Emergent Evolution. Methuen.
- OCLC 11030267.
- Mitman, Gregg (1992). The State of Nature: Ecology, Community, and American Social Thought, 1900–1950. Science and its Conceptual Foundations. University of Chicago Press. OCLC 25130594.
- Moore, David S. (2015). The Developing Genome: An Introduction to Behavioral Epigenetics. Oxford University Press. OCLC 894139943.
- Moore, Randy; Decker, Mark D. (2008). More Than Darwin: An Encyclopedia of the People and Places of the Evolution-creationism Controversy. Greenwood Press. OCLC 177023758.
- Moore, James R., ed. (2002) [Originally published 1989]. History, Humanity and Evolution: Essays for John C. Greene. OCLC 49784849.
- Mumford, Frederick Blackmar (1921) [Originally published 1917]. The Breeding of Animals. The Rural Text-Book Series.
- Newman, Horatio Hackett (1921). Readings in Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics. University of Chicago Press.
- Otho S. A. Sprague Memorial Institute (1940). Studies from the Otho S. A. Sprague Memorial Institute: Collected Reprints. Vol. 25. Otho S. A. Sprague Memorial Institute. OCLC 605547177.
- OCLC 65400177.
- Raitiere, Martin N. (2012). The Complicity of Friends: How George Eliot, G. H. Lewes, and John Hughlings-Jackson Encoded Herbert Spencer's Secret. OCLC 806981125.
- OCLC 5967582.
- ——; Harvey, Basil C. H. (1911). Eugenio Rignano Upon the Inheritance of Acquired Characters: A Hypothesis of Heredity, Development, and Assimilation. Authorized English translation by Basil C. H. Harvey.
- Rignano, Eugenio (1926). Biological Memory. International Library of Psychology, Philosophy, and Scientific Method. Translated with an introduction by OCLC 811731.
- PMID 21012247.
- Simpson, George Gaylord (1964). This View of Life: The World of an Evolutionist (1st ed.). OCLC 230986.
- Simpson, George Gaylord (1965). Life: An Introduction to Biology (2nd ed.). Harcourt, Brace & World. OCLC 165951.
- Springer, Joseph T.; Holley, Dennis (2013). An Introduction to Zoology (1st ed.). OCLC 646112356.
- OCLC 40449772.
- OCLC 488543825. Retrieved 2015-10-30.
- Wilkins, John S. (2009) [Originally published 2001 in Laurent, John; Nightingale, John (eds), Darwinism and Evolutionary Economics, chapter 8, pp. 160–183; Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar]. "The Appearance of Lamarckism in the Evolution of Culture". In OCLC 271774708.
- Wood, Bernard, ed. (2013). Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Human Evolution (First paperback ed.). OCLC 841039552.
- Young, Robert Thompson (1922). Biology in America. R.G. Badger.
Further reading
- Barthélemy-Madaule, Madeleine (1982). Lamarck, the Mythical Precursor: A Study of the Relations Between Science and Ideology. English translation by M. H. Shank. OCLC 8533097. Translation of Lamarck, ou, Le mythe du précurseur (1979)
- OCLC 19322402.
- Burkeman, Oliver (19 March 2010). "Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong". The Guardian.
- Rutherford, Adam (19 March 2010). "Beyond a 'Darwin was wrong' headline". The Guardian.
- Cook, George M. (December 1999). "Neo-Lamarckian Experimentalism in America: Origins and Consequences". S2CID 12954177.
- OCLC 709606191.
- Fecht, Sarah (October 19, 2011). "Longevity Shown for First Time to Be Inherited via a Non-DNA Mechanism". Scientific American. Retrieved 2015-11-05.
- Gissis, Snait B.; Jablonka, Eva., eds. (2011). Transformations of Lamarckism: From Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology. Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology. Illustrations by Anna Zeligowski. MIT Press. OCLC 662152397.
- OCLC 746154950.
- Jablonka, Eva; Lamb, Marion J. (2008). "The Epigenome in Evolution: Beyond The Modern Synthesis" (PDF). Information Bulletin VOGiS. 12 (1/2): 242–254.
- ."
- OCLC 44963330. "Consists of papers given at a workshop on the origins of music held in Fiesole, Italy, May 1997, the first of a series called Florentine Workshops in Biomusicology."
- Peng, Wayne (December 27, 2011). "Lamarckian viral defense in worms". S2CID 32406225.
- PMID 24009370.
- Persell, Stuart (1999). Neo-Lamarckism and the Evolution Controversy in France, 1870-1920. Studies in French Civilization. Vol. 14. OCLC 40193707.
- Seki, Yoshiyuki (April 2013). Groszmann, Roberto J.; Iwakiri, Yasuko; Taddei, Tamar H. (eds.). "Serum-mediated transgenerational effects on sperm: Evidence for lamarckian inheritance?". S2CID 5288601.
- OCLC 1003950. "Essays ... based upon papers read at a conference held at the University of Edinburgh ... 1959."
- OCLC 4115244. "Annual address of the president of the Biological Society of Washington. Delivered January 24, 1891. (From the Proceedings, vol. VI.)" Neo-Darwinism and neo-Lamarckism (1891) at the Internet Archive.
- S2CID 36863159.
- Yongsheng Liu (September 2007). "Like father like son. A fresh review of the inheritance of acquired characteristics". PMID 17767188.