lamarck

You really can't discount the study of epigenetics as a modern field, simply because Lamarck and Lysenko were incorrect over a century ago.

Before Darwin, Lamarck argued that acquired characteristics could be passed on to offspring.

It happened to be wrong, but it wasn't because Lamarck was stupid.

And Lamarck could have done the word trick just as well.

This is indeed a form of Lamarckism that has actually been proven to happen, though of course it involves much subtler changes than some of what Lamarck envisioned.

Diamond is more the Jean-Baptiste Lamarck of Anthropology.

So Lamarck wasn't entirely incorrect either.

> The church excommunicated at least one scientist for early work on evolution Because he followed Lamarck and Darwin, a vague deist and an agnostic.

If you're trying to learn evolutionary biology and you read "according to Lamarck...", then you are not learning science, you're reading science history.

Eveyrone who learns biology "learns" that Lamarck was a quack.

While I enjoy calling epigenetics "Lamarck's Revenge", it's not correct, and I'm well aware of that (I'd even call it part of the joke, at least for myself).

That type of association is called "Lamarckian" after Jean-Baptiste Lamarck who posited that animals can "pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring"[1].

For example Lamarck's one, which is long considered false but lately some aspects of it are reintroduced.

Lamarck could fit into it, but he had no clue about DNA, genes and so forth; neither had Darwin.

ETA: especially considering this theory in general has been massively disproven twice (as Lamarck-ism and Lysenko-ism).