Lamarckism Explained

David_Lebling · 20 Jan 1999, 10:27 · from urth-v0023.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: David_Lebling at avid.com
Subject: (urth) Lamarckism Explained
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:27:42
Message-ID: <urth-v0023-0002 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0023/0002.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Those interested in Wolfe's profession of belief in Lamarckism (mentioned
in _Castle of the Otter_, among other places) are referred to this month's
(February, 1999, I think) issue of _Natural History_.  Stephen J. Gould's
column is about Lamarck.

Lamarck's theory of evolution is also known as the "two-factor theory."
One factor is a push towards increasing complexity.  The other (which is
the part often caricatured as "giraffes stretching their necks") is a push
from the environment which results in variation orthogonal to the level of
complexity.

The idea seems to be that the vertical line of increased complexity leads
from inanimate to animate to microorganisms to worms to reptiles to mammals
(to simplify the progression overmuch).  The orthogonal push of
environmental pressure (and we don't seem to be talking about "natural
selection", but something else) produces variations on the basic theme, so
we get bears and hippos and moles and squirrels once we have mammals.

It is possible that what Wolfe is interested in in Lamarck is the
"increasing complexity" factor, which to my mind allows the idea of
progressive evolution rather than chance mutation and adaptation.  This has
always been one of the two big problems some believers (including believers
in Marx) have with Darwin; the other, of course being the inclusion of
humans in the theory.  (In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a confimed
Darwinist).

     -- Dave Lebling
     (aka vizcacha)

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net