Charles Darwin Influences.
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck
Lamarck was a french biologist who contributed to the science and theory of evolution in the early 1800's, about around the same time Charles Darwin was alive. He was known for his own theory of evolution knows as Lamarckism. Lamarckism is the idea that the development or physical changes of an organism goes through its life time is then transferred to it's of-spring. This was to support his theory that in order for evolution to take place, one must die and "go extinct" to continue forward for evolution as a species cannot go extinct, but instead turns into a new species.
Lamarckism was later disproven in modern evolution theories through geneticists in the 1930's, because of how physical changes in an organism that happen AFTER birth are not kept as they are strictly aesthetic changes and not genetic changes in the MRNA/DNA.
Some of the evolutionary key points may have influenced Lamarck in theory of evolution, but this does not necessarily mean he is right.
Organisms with better access to resources will be more successful in their reproductive efforts
- The idea that certain organisms with better resources contributes to the idea that in their life time an organism may be injured or be aesthetically changed in some shape or form that may either help or not one to get certain resources. For example, a rabbit whose fur is pure white may not have easy access to food and such as they are constantly at risk of being consumed by a predator compared to maybe a light brown rabbit. However, let's say this rabbit were to get into a situation that permanently changed it's fur color to a darker shade. Thus, this rabbit may have equal or better access to resources, but just cause their fur was changed after birth this does not mean their offspring will have this newly found fur color. Even then, Lamarck believed that in this situation that for evolution to take place that this would apply and for some reason that the aesthetic changes would continue into the offspring.
Nicely presented.
ReplyDeleteIn general, good explanation on Lamarck's mechanism, pointing out that it occurs within an organisms lifetime instead of occurring between generations.
A couple of points:
"This was to support his theory that in order for evolution to take place, one must die and "go extinct" to continue forward for evolution as a species cannot go extinct, but instead turns into a new species. "
I know that Lamarck argued against the concept of extinction as he believed that organisms in the fossil record that don't currently exist are just earlier forms of existing organisms. They didn't go extinct, they just changed. I was just unsure about the idea that organisms must "die and go extinct to move forward". Seemed to be contradictory.
A minor point, but Lamarck was born 68 years before Darwin. Darwin was only 20 when Lamarck died, still in university.
I see what you are arguing in your next section with regard to the point on competition for resources, but this was less emphasized by Lamarck, while it was central to Darwin's mechanism of natural selection. There are three core bullet points that can be directly attributed to Lamarck:
1. Impact of the changing environment
2. Importance of reproduction
3. Importance of heritability.
Lamarck incorporated all there into his mechanism of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics.
You could also add the point about "Individuals don't evolve. Populations do.", though that would be a *negative* influence since Darwin argued the exact opposite.
I agree with your conclusion in the next section. Lamarck should certainly be credited as the first to propose an actual mechanism for evolution. This was a huge step forward, regardless of its inaccuracies, but there were many others discussing and debating evolution during Darwin's time, not to mention by the time Darwin was in school, Lamarck's theory was old news and falsified. Lamarck was important but not necessarily indispensable. But that said, perhaps another individual in this list of five might have played a more crucial role?
The question in the final section asks about the influence of the church on Darwin's decision to publish, not about the church's response *after* he published. Until he published, no one but a few close friends knew about his theory. Darwin delayed publishing for more than 20 years. The question is, why? And how did the influence of the church play a role in this delay? What were Darwin's concerns? Darwin was fully aware that the concept of evolution would be controversial. The uproar such a publication would produce could hurt his standing in the community, personally and professionally. And was he only worried about himself or was he also worried about how his family might be impacted by publishing? Remember that his wife was very devout. How might she have been impacted if the church responded negatively to Darwin? Recognize that scientists don't work in a vacuum. They can be influenced not just by academics but also by social, cultural and personal issues.
Thank you for your insights and pointing things out that could’ve supported and falsified Lamarck in my post further!! I missed out on some key points, because as I was going through the components of evolution, I couldn’t wrap my head around about what could or could not apply to his theory.
DeleteThank you for the response.
DeleteHi Alyssa! My question for you is why do you think Jean Baptiste Lamarck had more impact than any other associate of Darwin, for instance Alfred Wallace? You said that Lamarckism was proven wrong which shows he might as not had as much influence on Darwin as we thought he would? With that note excellent writing and I really enjoyed reading your analysis, thank you :) !!
ReplyDeleteThe reason why I chose Larmarck was precisely because it was falsified. The assignment wasn’t just who we believed Darwin agreed with that influenced him, but also if it may be someone who negatively influenced him in a way... see Lamarck had the right idea about his theory of evolution and inheritance, but simply didn’t have the right direction. His faults could be corrected which couldv’e inspired Darwin.
DeleteHey Alyssa
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your blog post. I personally chose to do mine on here Thomas Malthus, but your post really made me think in a different way. I really like the way that you said that Darwin didn’t really need Lamaricks theory to make his theory but because his theory was falsified it helped Darwin to further his theory on evolution.