lamarckism

>Lamarckism is dead Lamarckism is more alive than ever before, it's just called epigenetics now.

It’s an interesting question, and the whole subject of Lamarckism is far from trivially obsolete.

It's a bit debated whether modern epigenetics vindicates some elements of Lamarckism or not.

Funny because I was thinking about that just a few days ago within the context of Lamarckism and Darwinism.

That's Lamarckism theory, and I wasn't aware there was even a shred of evidence towards it.

Every time we think Lamarckism is finally dead, we get stuff like the article.

This choice isn’t a problem in practice because Lamarckism – unlike neo-Darwinism – doesn’t offer explanatory models which are essential to understand and reason about these processes.

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.

This just smells like Lamarckism with more steps.

I can also explore whether Darwinian evolution (weights are randomized at birth) is better or worst than Lamarckism evolution where weights are passed to offsprings for.

Gene expression in particular is a field we continue to learn a lot about [0] and several studies have suggested Lamarckism might have some merit [1].

The idea that an organism can pass on to its offspring physical characteristics that the parent organism acquired through use or disuse during its lifetime is called Lamarckism which was disproven more than a hundred years ago.

But few people refer to this reasoning when claiming that Lamarckism is “wrong”.

Much more debatable is the assertion further down, "Twentieth-century Darwinian genetics dismissed Lamarckism as laughable, but because of epigenetics, Lamarckism is staging a comeback," which includes a link to a low-quality source.

Except group selectionism has been thoroughly debunked, to the point where he might as well have been spouting Lamarckism - read "The Selfish Gene", by Richard Dawkins.

Many evolutionary biologists also prefer not to call this Lamarckism – not because it would be entirely wrong, but because it is misleading to many lay people, who imagine that this would somehow be in conflict with Darwinian evolutionary theory of evolution by natural selection (it’s a hobby of many creationists to search for press releases mentioning Lamarckism to crow “ha!

Some people are calling epigenetic inheritance Lamarckism, but many (in my experience, most) colleagues reject this label as inaccurate.

Which isn't quite Lamarckism, but does imply some level of passing along experiences to the offspring.

It's more proof that at least some life experiences can produce heritable traits - typically called Lamarckism, and long considered a discredited contender as an evolutionary theory.