Happy birthday to the first evolutionary biologist

I join you in raising a toast to Lamarck's memory.

"Quasi-Lamarckian" evolution has actually been observed in yeast through the formation and transfer of beneficial prions. You can read more about it here: http://lifeinsidethecell.blogspot.com/2011/07/elephants-child-mad-cow-disease-and.html

Alas, Joe, he was not. Not only did Erasmus Darwin beat him by nearly a decade, both were trumped by Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis in 1745, who came up with an evolutionary biology on the basis of studying heredity (polydactyly).

Oh, and his tree is not a tree. It is a predetermined roadmap of how lineages might individually evolve. The first tree metaphor was due to Simon Peter Pallas in 1766 and the first actual phylogenetic diagram was published by Angier in 1801.

http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/04/the_first_use_of_a_taxonomic_t/

the first evolutionary biologist

John S. Wilkins said: Alas, Joe, he was not. Not only did Erasmus Darwin beat him by nearly a decade, both were trumped by Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis in 1745, who came up with an evolutionary biology on the basis of studying heredity (polydactyly).

mrkus.rk said: "Quasi-Lamarckian" evolution has actually been observed in yeast through the formation and transfer of beneficial prions. You can read more about it here: http://lifeinsidethecell.blogspot.com/2011/07/elephants-child-mad-cow-disease-and.html

This, in so many, words, is the essence of Lamarckian evolution: progeny inherit the traits that their parents acquire. Because, over the course of their lifetimes, the snouts of the elephants were stretched into trunks, those elephants' children also had long trunks.

Joe Felsenstein said: ... Looking at the description of Maupertuis's work in Wikipedia, I don't think he comes close enough to evolution (he has massive spontaneous generation, though some sort of selection as to which of those survive). As you are aware, evolution was mentioned by thinkers here and there all the way back to the ancient Greeks. But Lamarck is the first biologist who puts together a fairly complete package. As for Erasmus Darwin, I'd say he was the first evolutionary poet.

Joe Felsenstein said: ... A lot of people, noting recent work in epigenetics, are declaring that it is "Lamarckian" inheritance. I would argue that it isn't. The essence of Lamarckian evolution was that the effects of use and disuse are adaptive, and also are passed on to the offspring.

A lot of people, noting recent work in epigenetics, are declaring that it is “Lamarckian” inheritance. I would argue that it isn’t. The essence of Lamarckian evolution was that the effects of use and disuse are adaptive, and also are passed on to the offspring. Epigenetics does not, as far as I know, involve mechanisms that tend nonrandomly to make beneficial changes – there are random changes which are then passed on to offspring quasi-permanently. To get any adaptive trend you have to invoke natural selection on these, which is certainly possible.

john.s.wilkins said:

Joe Felsenstein said: ... Looking at the description of Maupertuis's work in Wikipedia, I don't think he comes close enough to evolution (he has massive spontaneous generation, though some sort of selection as to which of those survive). As you are aware, evolution was mentioned by thinkers here and there all the way back to the ancient Greeks. But Lamarck is the first biologist who puts together a fairly complete package. As for Erasmus Darwin, I'd say he was the first evolutionary poet.

Wikipedia is insufficient to evaluate him. He had a theory of species transformation, a theory of particulate heredity, and came close to Mendel's ratio, based on empirical work. Yes, he thought there was spontaneous generation, but then so did almost everyone, including non-evolutionists. If you read some of his work, and a better history (I recommend Mary Terrall's biography) you will see that what he produced was more like a modern evolutionary theory than anything Lamarck produced.

Thanks to John Wilkins for the information about evolutionary biologists before Lamarck.

As for the issue of what mechanisms of evolution are "Lamarckian", the major challenge for anyone putting forward a theory is explaining adaptation. Living organisms are far better-adapted than can be accounted for by pure mutation (wiithout natural selection). Lamarck's solution to this was to invoke use-and-disuse together with inheritance of acquired characters.

But just having the rate of mutation respond to an environmental challenge is not sufficient to explain adaptation. So that is not the mechanism Lamarck was assuming. The epigenetic mechanisms I have heard of do not have a tendency to work in the direction that increases adaptation. So, for my money, they are not "Lamarckian".

Joe Felsenstein said: The epigenetic mechanisms I have heard of do not have a tendency to work in the direction that increases adaptation. So, for my money, they are not "Lamarckian".

john.s.wilkins said: Lamarckian acquired characters tended towards increased complexity (he'd have said "perfection", only in French) because there is a tendency for things to get more complex in his worldview (adopted by Spencer out of Comte). Neo-Lamarckian thinkers thought this too. Epigenetics is a darwinian process (the lowercase is deliberate) in another substrate, that's all.

Harold wrote:

"It’s rather fascinating. The absolutely ruthless willingness to play any word game, however silly, to avoid conceding a point. It’s the one defining characteristic of all the creationists here. I’ve repeatedly noted the authoritarian nature of this - the underlying idea is that whatever can be imposed is “true”, regardless of evidence, logic, or coherence. Indeed, these things are deliberately avoided.

Is this trait isolated, or do they behave in a similar way in every conflict between their wishes and reality?"

I say it's Lamarckian inheritance. They wanted to evolve a gene that would let them all be absolutely ignorant, obstinate and arrogant. Through hard work and supreme mental effort they have succeeded in mutating themselves in this form of Homo ignorensis. I mean it couldn't just be learned behavior, it's too prevalent and too stereotyped. They could all have developed this degree of cognitive dissonance independently could they?

DS said: Harold wrote: "It’s rather fascinating. The absolutely ruthless willingness to play any word game, however silly, to avoid conceding a point. It’s the one defining characteristic of all the creationists here. I’ve repeatedly noted the authoritarian nature of this - the underlying idea is that whatever can be imposed is “true”, regardless of evidence, logic, or coherence. Indeed, these things are deliberately avoided. Is this trait isolated, or do they behave in a similar way in every conflict between their wishes and reality?" I say it's Lamarckian inheritance. They wanted to evolve a gene that would let them all be absolutely ignorant, obstinate and arrogant. Through hard work and supreme mental effort they have succeeded in mutating themselves in this form of Homo ignorensis. I mean it couldn't just be learned behavior, it's too prevalent and too stereotyped. They could all have developed this degree of cognitive dissonance independently could they?

Darwinian mechanisms routinely produce results that look Lamarckian since selection acts not on what organisms can do but on what they actually do. To revert to a cartoon version of the giraffe bit, if the proto-giraffes don't try to browse trees, their offspring won't wind up with longer necks, not because acquired characteristics are inherited but because there won't be any selective advantage to having a long neck if tree browsing isn't part of the behavioral repertoire. It looks like effort results in genetic change and, in a sense it does, but only via a detour through conventional selection. Lots of mainstream evolutionists have discussed the genetic assimilation of acquired characters, including, notably, Baldwin, John Tyler Bonner, and Odling-Smee whose niche construction theory is pretty much based on it.

ALPHABET said: Darwinian mechanisms routinely produce results that look Lamarckian since selection acts not on what organisms can do but on what they actually do. To revert to a cartoon version of the giraffe bit, if the proto-giraffes don't try to browse trees, their offspring won't wind up with longer necks, not because acquired characteristics are inherited but because there won't be any selective advantage to having a long neck if tree browsing isn't part of the behavioral repertoire. It looks like effort results in genetic change and, in a sense it does, but only via a detour through conventional selection. Lots of mainstream evolutionists have discussed the genetic assimilation of acquired characters, including, notably, Baldwin, John Tyler Bonner, and Odling-Smee whose niche construction theory is pretty much based on it.

harold said:

Provide me with a paper authored by him on the subject of animal psychology and behavior

This from a guy who claims that learned behaviors are subsequently genetically passed on to offspring.

I'm alphabet or rather Jim Harrison, the guy who made the comment about Darwinian mechanisms producing apparently Lamarckian results. For some reason Yahoo keeps replacing my name with a code.

I just move a bunch of comments to the BW. I hopefully got every comment in here about or replying to Atheistoclast. Let me know if something is missing.

Reed A. Cartwright said: I just move a bunch of comments to the BW. I hopefully got every comment in here about or replying to Atheistoclast. Let me know if something is missing.

Reed A. Cartwright said: I just move a bunch of comments to the BW. I hopefully got every comment in here about or replying to Atheistoclast. Let me know if something is missing.

As far as I'm concerned, if I have any comment related to a troll, it SHOULD be sent to the BW.

So let me once again ask John Wilkins a question. How did Lamarck's use-and-disuse mechanism work together with the tendency to "perfection". The latter operated on the main branches of his tree. Did the former act on side branches? I gather that your view is that it acted (somehow) as the mechanism of the tendency toward "perfection", right?

Joe Felsenstein said:

Reed A. Cartwright said: I just move a bunch of comments to the BW. I hopefully got every comment in here about or replying to Atheistoclast. Let me know if something is missing.

Thanks. I particularly appreciate your even-handedness, as evidenced by the fact that you moved one of your own comments to the Bathroom Wall!

Reed A. Cartwright said: I just move a bunch of comments to the BW. I hopefully got every comment in here about or replying to Atheistoclast. Let me know if something is missing.