Friday, July 3, 2015

It’s Official: Lamarckism has Now Joined the Narrative

Our Menu Items Have Changed

It is often said that all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Yesterday with the publishing of a new paper out of Israel, and two centuries later, Lamarck’s pre Darwinian theory of evolution, sometimes referred to as the inheritance of acquired characteristics, completed the cycle.

Darwin joined in the early nineteenth century ridicule of Lamarck but Darwin also quietly admired the Frenchman’s genius and at one point made considerable use of Lamarckian ideas, particularly toward the end of his first and into his second Transmutation Notebook where Darwin found Lamarck’s ideas on habits fruitful in dealing with William Kirby’s challenge on instincts. (For a good treatment of the Darwin-Lamarck relationship see George James Grinnell’s 1985 paper, The Rise and Fall of Darwin’s Second Theory).

It is often the case that Darwin’s personal journey presages evolutionary thought in general, and Darwin’s relationship with Lamarck, in many ways, is no exception. Darwin’s ridicule at times turned into harsh opposition. In an 1844 letter to friend J. D. Hooker, Darwin castigated Lamarckism as absurd and “veritable rubbish.” In later years Darwin deplored comments, even by supporters of his theory, that linked his new theory of evolution with Lamarckism in any way.

And yet, in the end, Darwin had no idea how biological variation occurred, and how it could provide the necessary material for natural selection. For such thorny problems the Sage of Kent could refer to Lamarck’s ideas as a rear guard. Ultimately, Lamarck was needed by Darwin, as he is today, a century and a half later, by evolutionists.

But in making that journey, evolutionists first went through the ridicule and violent opposition stages that Darwin had traversed. Darwin would have been delighted to see the early twentieth century’s merger of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian evolution, bringing with it the death knell for Lamarckism. This new form of Darwinism (neoDarwinism) or Modern Synthesis, required that Lamarck’s inheritance of acquired characteristics be false. Evolutionists spent that century in unbridled opposition to Lamarck (see here, here and here for just a few examples).

Vestiges of that hatred remain quite evident today even though the science has overwhelmingly proved them wrong (by the way, all the other major tenets of neoDarwinism have also turned out to be false). Inheritance of acquired characteristics has been observed for most of a century and in recent years progressive evolutionists changed direction and began acknowledging those Lamarckian ideas.

This brings us to yesterday’s new paper entitled “The Lamarckian chicken and the Darwinian egg” which now suggests the inheritance of acquired characteristics as a legitimate mechanism of evolution. First, the authors explained what went wrong:

Evolution according to Lamarck, as described 50 years before the publication of Darwin’s work, is driven by the inheritance of acquired characteristics. According to Lamarck, organisms adapt by developing new variations in response to changing environments, and these new adaptive traits become heritable. Because of the apparent teleological nature of his theory, since it appears to clash with Mendelian genetics, and because no mechanism that enables inheritance of acquired traits was known, Lamarck’s theory was considered, for 200 years, to be completely wrong.

And not just considered completely wrong, but vilified as well. But now evolutionists begin to consider Lamarck’s ideas as legitimate:

We suggest that the original “Chicken or Egg” dilemma (how did chicken come to be?) is not a paradox, it is explained by evolution, and that each evolutionary change could map to either a pure Darwinian world (or “Weissmanian” really), in which the metaphorical “Egg” must have preceded the “Chicken,” or to a “Lamarckian” world in which the metaphorical chicken “comes first.”

Soon Lamarckian mechanisms will be self-evident. Evolutionists have already begun to prepare the way for this tectonic shift in their thinking. First, their venerable prophet must be rescued and protected from the fallout. The founders of neoDarwinism will have to take the hit—Darwin must be protected at all costs. Here is how Denis Noble laid out the strategy two years ago:

I will use the term ‘Modern Synthesis’ rather than ‘Neo-Darwinism’. Darwin was far from being a Neo-Darwinist (Dover, 2000; Midgley, 2010), so I think it would be better to drop his name for that idea. As Mayr (1964) points out, there are as many as 12 references to the inheritance of acquired characteristics in The Origin of Species (Darwin, 1859) and in the first edition he explicitly states ‘I am convinced that natural selection has been the main, but not the exclusive means of modification’, a statement he reiterated with increased force in the 1872, 6th edition.

This is, of course, a classic example of whig history. Darwin’s statement about natural selection comes at the end of his introduction to Origins and has nothing to do with Lamarckism. Darwin was softly promoting his theory to a skeptical reader and leaving himself wiggle room, not referring to the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For instance, Darwin would refer to sexual selection, as an addendum to natural selection. Darwin would have liked nothing more than rid his theory of anything linking it to Lamarck. He expressed that many times in no uncertain terms. Darwin’s rare employment of Lamarck’s ideas was strictly a rear guard action.

And for good reason. As with today, Darwin employed Lamarck only because he had to. Darwin needed at least some idea for how the plethora of biological variation would come about. Otherwise Lamarck was not welcome for, as yesterday’s paper explains above, Lamarckism smacked too much of teleology. Biological change arising in response to the needs of the organism? That was biology’s answer to Aristotelian, not Newtonian physics.

What Darwin needed, and what he posthumously got in neo Darwinism, was blind change. As Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod put it in 1971:

chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition—or the hope—that on this score our position is likely ever to be revised.

To suggest that Darwin would have been opposed to this neo Darwinism is, like the Warfare Thesis, more photoshopping of history. The problem, then and now, is that the inheritance of acquired characteristics demolishes evolutionary thinking. That is why evolutionists have resisted and opposed Lamarckism so strenuously. But like it or not, that is the scientific evidence. So evolutionary theory will become even more ridiculous, if that were possible, as evolutionists spin tall tales of how the inheritance of acquired characteristics is, after all, simply another wonder of evolution. The abuse of science will continue. Rather than dealing with the evidence evolutionists will engage in yet more fairy tales.

25 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Who needs random mutations + natural selection if the inheritance of acquired characteristics is sufficient to optimize for fitness and ensure survival?

    What a shameful and cowardly bunch?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually, Schopenhauer apparently never said what you claimed, although it is a popular quote with creationists. He did say something vaguely similar, however: "Der Wahrheit ist allerzeit nur ein kurzes Siegesfest beschieden, zwischen
    den beiden langen Zeiträumen, wo sie als Paradox verdammt und als Trivial gering geschätzt wird."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh yes, BrainyQuote and WikiQuote are so creationist.

      Delete
    2. This amounts to saying, "Oh look, a creationist. Therefore Darwinian evolution is correct."

      This is pathetic. Are you stupid or something?

      Delete
    3. I figured that Cornelius Hunter would not admit the quote was fake, nor would he correct his fake quote.

      Of course he can easily prove me wrong by producing the original. Care to try, or are you just as dishonest about quotes as you are about evolution?

      Delete
    4. Jeffrey:

      are you just as dishonest about quotes as you are about evolution?

      How am I dishonest about evolution?

      Delete
    5. Nearly everything you say is false, as I've pointed out before. The quote issue is just something where it is easiest to demonstrate.

      You still haven't changed it, or acknowledged it is bogus, or produced the original citation. Still waiting. I'm sure I'll wait a long time.

      Delete
    6. Jeffrey:

      Nearly everything you say is false

      Well then it should be rather straightforward for you to provide a few important examples.

      You still haven't changed it, or acknowledged it is bogus, or produced the original citation. Still waiting. I'm sure I'll wait a long time.

      Actually it is fixed, and I appreciate your comment, but I'd like to find out about all the other mistakes, particularly the ones that are relevant to the thesis. If what you say is true, then the OP will have to be drastically modified, or more likely deleted altogether. So I'm quite interested and keen to learn how and why nearly everything is false. Thanks and I'm looking forward to hearing about some of the false statements.

      Delete
    7. Jeffrey:

      You are probably correct that, though widely attributed to Schopenhauer, this quote is better attributed to Karl Ernst von Baer from a paper in 1866 [citation below]. I might note that the two are not so very far apart. You didn't translate and since I haven't been to Germany in over 15 years I'll use someone else's:

      "To truth only a brief celebration of victory is allowed between the two long periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or disparaged as trivial."

      Seems to me that the two are saying much the same thing...

      I've read many disparaging remarks like yours calling a theological opponent dishonest but when pressed for examples you present technicalities like this. How is this representative of blatant dishonesty? When pressed for better examples you persisted in your logic by claiming
      "Nearly everything you (Dr. Hunter) say is false..."
      without a single example to validate the comment.

      Forgive me, but isn't that what passes for logic on YouTube?

      I don't expect anyone can be infallible in their writing, but I'm having trouble seeing the deception you claim exists.


      K. von Baer. Ub¨ er Prof. Nic. Wagner’s Entdeckung von Larven, die sich fortpflanzen,
      Herrn Ganin’s verwandte und erg¨anzende Beobachtungen und ub¨ er die Paedogenesis
      ub¨ erhaupt. Bulletin de L’Acad´emie Imp´eriale des Sciences de St.-Petersbourg 9 (1866),
      64–137.

      Delete
    8. I am very glad to see that Cornelius is honest enough to correct his use of the quote. It gives me a bit of hope about humanity.

      Delete
  4. George James Grinnell's 1985 paper available here:

    http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Darwin/Rise%20and%20Fall%20of%20Darwin's%20Second%20Theory.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah it is
    evolutionist spin tall tales of how the inheritance of acquired characteristics is, after all, simply another wonder of evolution.

    Do you guys realize that Lamarck would have been anti-ID ? Since he was not believing in miraculous intervention of a creator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you guys realize that Lamarck would have been anti-ID ? Since he was not believing in miraculous intervention of a creator.

      You completely missed the point.

      Delete
  6. Calamity: Do you guys realize that Lamarck would have been anti-ID ? Since he was not believing in miraculous intervention of a creator.

    Do you realize your two sentences compose a non-sequitur? Lamarck would have been, according to your attempt at logic, anti-IC, Intelligent Creation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I went through my education in evolution in the 70s and 80s. And I do not recall any ridiculing of Lamarck. What I remember is that he was used as an example of the scientific process in action. He proposed a theory that made sense and appeared to fit the evidence. But when that theory was tested, it did not stand up well.

    The only one that came close to being ridiculed, and for valid reasons, was Wallace. He was acknowledged as independently coming up with the theory of evolution, but his "belief" that man was outside of it was ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Acartia:

      I went through my education in evolution in the 70s and 80s. And I do not recall any ridiculing of Lamarck.

      Classic, this is the third phase: "We knew it all along and never said anything of the sort. Whatever are you talking about?"

      I suspect you were not proposing Lamarckian ideas. Here are some quotes:

      "The really heretical thing to say is that the environment could be pushing the epigenetic information in a direction that is beneficial … that raises the hackles."

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060807154715.htm

      "Aaaargh! Epigenetics is not Lamarckism! ... Epigenetics is hot right now (and again, it's NOT Lamarckism!)"

      http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/29/maybe-the-media-should-intervi/

      "Lamarck and his ideas were ridiculed and discredited."

      Joseph Springer, Dennis Holley. (2012). An Introduction to Zoology. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p. 94.

      In 1998, the great contributor to the development of the Modern Synthesis, John Maynard Smith, made a very significant and even prophetic admission when he wrote ‘it [Lamarckism] is not so obviously false as is sometimes made out’ (Maynard Smith, 1998), a statement that is all the more important from being made by someone working within the Modern Synthesis framework. The time was long overdue for such an acknowledgement. Nearly 50 years before, Waddington had written ‘Lamarck is the only major figure in the history of biology whose name has become to all extents and purposes, a term of abuse. Most scientists’ contributions are fated to be outgrown, but very few authors have written works which, two centuries later, are still rejected with an indignation so intense that the skeptic may suspect something akin to an uneasy conscience. In point of fact, Lamarck has, I think, been somewhat unfairly judged.’ (Waddington, 1954).

      Denis Noble, “Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology,” Exp Physiol 98.8 (2013) pp 1235–1243.

      "To be branded a heretic and a pariah meant that my career to keep doing research in this area were extremely limited."

      http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/stories/s13250.htm

      Delete
    2. "Classic, this is the third phase: "We knew it all along and never said anything of the sort. Whatever are you talking about?" "

      Cornelius, I have never questioned your honesty or sincerity, please don't question mine unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

      All I was saying was that, contrary to your assertion, my education did not include a ridiculing of Lamarck. My teachers and profs treated him with respect. He was a person who proposed a means of evolution that, at the time, appeared to explain the evidence. When Darwin came along, and then the new synthesis, the preponderance of evidence supported the new theories over Lamarck'd.

      It was never presented to us as ridiculing Lamarck, it was presented as an example of how the scientific process works.

      You can choose to believe that I am lying, but that is your problem not mine.

      Delete
    3. AT:

      Sorry, I did not mean it in that way.In response to your point, as I suggested earlier, I think you would have met with very different sentiment if you had pursued Lamarckian -based research. Sure, instructors may have been charitable in their teaching of Lamarck, but that simply is not how it played out at the research / publishing level.

      Delete
    4. If I had gone into Lamarckian based research, developed testable hypotheses (and mechanisms to explain how it worked), and had positive results that stood up to review and were repeatable, I would be embraced by almost any university. For over 100 years, it is this ability to develop testable hypotheses that produced positive results that Lamarck's supporters were incapable of doing.

      Whether or not epigenetics is Lamarckian is something that I am not qualified to discuss, but if we assume it is, I don't see researchers having difficulty publishing their papers on the subject.

      Science is very predictable. You may have resistance to any new idea (probably will) but if you can support it with testable hypotheses and evidence, it will be examined in good faith. There are plenty of examples of this.

      Delete
  8. Acartia: The only one that came close to being ridiculed, and for valid reasons, was Wallace.

    "Valid reasons" for "came close"?

    Wallace correctly believed himself not to be soulless. The idea that Darwinian evolution could account for the existence of our spirit nature was as laughable to him as to the majority on the planet today. Get used to it. Truth wins in the end. And at the end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Msee:

      Wallace correctly believed himself not to be soulless. The idea that Darwinian evolution could account for the existence of our spirit nature


      No says it does, only the physical body. Do you think that God could not ensoul whatever He choose?

      Delete
  9. This is the kind of article that twists the knife in the Darwinist's wounds. It must really hurt them, like holy water on a vampire.

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think the love-hate relationship between Darwin and Lamarck presaged the love-hate relationship between the Synthesis and Stuart Kauffman or Lynn Margulis. (If their theories turn out to be necessary to keep Evolution plausible, we can pretend that they were just the sort of thing we should have expected.) The Synthesis has been a little like the Master Control Program in TRON, ultimately absorbing the souls of contrary programs.

    ReplyDelete