Happy 268th birthday to Lamarck

"he is best known as the first major evolutionary biologist, who propounded a theory of evolution"

One only distinguishes oneself in the army if one is on the morally right side since its about killing people.
Anyways.
You say its not his fault about Lamarck ism and ideas that acquired traits can be passed on to offspring.
As a YEC creationist I think something like this does happen and is the reason for much of diversity in biology.

I know darwin thought this was possible because he brought it up when trying to explain how women could raise their intelligence , that being biological as he said, by carefully teaching the girls prior to reproduction. (The descent of man).

Biology is so glorious and strange their is no reason to deny the option that creatures can acquire traits in life and pass them on to their kids.
it just requires the acquired traits to be triggered by innate mechanisms within the bodies.

Robert Byers said: [snip a lot of wrong stuff]

Joe Felsenstein said:

Robert Byers said: [snip a lot of wrong stuff]

Since our usual troll Byers is well-known not to be willing to discuss any issue in science even semi-seriously, any answer to these mostly-irrelevant thoughts will take place on the Bathroom Wall, and so will any replies by him.

apokryltaros said:

Joe Felsenstein said: ... [snip] Since our usual troll Byers is well-known not to be willing to discuss any issue in science even semi-seriously, any answer to these mostly-irrelevant thoughts will take place on the Bathroom Wall, and so will any replies by him.

Will this apply to the troll Ray Martinez, too, please?

Booby Byers has also been posting comments on Larry Moran's blog of late. Several other commentors there have suggested that he is a Poe. What is the consensus here as to whether he is a Poe?

I've always been confused by that diagram. Are amphibious mammals directly descended from fish or from reptiles? (I'm assuming that "M." stands for "mammals"; if not, what does it stand for?) Why are fish and reptiles in the same spot at all? And just how do Ongules differ from Onguicules?

--John H., not a masked panda at all.

SLC said: Booby Byers has also been posting comments on Larry Moran's blog of late. Several other commentors there have suggested that he is a Poe. What is the consensus here as to whether he is a Poe?

John H. said: I've always been confused by that diagram. Are amphibious mammals directly descended from fish or from reptiles? (I'm assuming that "M." stands for "mammals"; if not, what does it stand for?) Why are fish and reptiles in the same spot at all? And just how do Ongules differ from Onguicules? --John H., not a masked panda at all.

Robert Byers said: [snip]

What did Darwin think of Lamarck's theory?

"it appeared to me extremely poor; I got not a fact or idea from it" ("The Life And Letters Of Charles Darwin" 1887:215, Vol.2; F. Darwin editor; London: Murray).

Ray Martinez said: What did Darwin think of Lamarck's theory? "it appeared to me extremely poor; I got not a fact or idea from it" ("The Life And Letters Of Charles Darwin" 1887:215, Vol.2; F. Darwin editor; London: Murray).

Joe Felsenstein said:

Ray Martinez said: What did Darwin think of Lamarck's theory? "it appeared to me extremely poor; I got not a fact or idea from it" ("The Life And Letters Of Charles Darwin" 1887:215, Vol.2; F. Darwin editor; London: Murray).

He may have felt that way, but Lamarck's views influenced many people. There is an excellent book by Adrian Desmond, The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London, which outlines the great influence that Lamarck and other "transmutationists" of the early 1800s had on political, social and religious controversies of the time. Lamarck may have had little influence on Darwin's ideas about evolutionary mechanisms, but he certainly was had an important effect on the willingness of scientists to accept common descent. By the time Darwin published the Origin, the evidence from fossils, development, biogeography and systematics had prepared the way for the rapid acceptance of common descent. Even opponents of Lamarck like Cuvier and opponents of Darwin like Owen had compromised their views in that direction and moved away from the notion of fixity of species.

SLC said: As I understand it, in later editions of his book, in response to criticisms of natural selection, Darwin allowed as how the theory of inheritance of acquired traits might contribute to evolution. This is why it is recommended that anyone interested in reading, On the Origin of Species read the first edition.

Agreed. Think that the job of history of science is to undo the myths, legends, and Whig histories that accumulate in science over time. There's another good post on Lamarck and Lamarckism in this respect by The Renaissance Mathematicus [http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/saints-and-demons/].

Joe Felsenstein said: Notice too that nongenetic effects that then get inherited was not invented by Lamarck, though he made them an important part of his theory. It is historically incorrect to call this "Lamarckian inheritance" (and SLC did not call it that).

Joe Felsenstein said (in the opening post): [...] And to add one last jibe: epigenetics is not in any way an example of the use-and-disuse mechanisms that Lamarck invoked.

On 2) Darwin observed inheritance as a fact of nature, in 1859, and stood quiet about its mechanism. When he eventually did explicate a theory concerning the mechanism, it was as false as whatever you may conceive as Lamarckism. He speculated about hereditary particles that he called gemmules, which swim around in the body and can be transmitted from parent to offspring thus communicating acquired traits somehow.

Keywords: pangenesis, Darwin, gemmules.

On the rest: Why do you need to judge Lamarck and Darwin in modern terms and apportion truth and falsity between them? If they were wrong about things that they could not possibly have known better, why not cut both of them some slack?

Joachim said: On the rest: Why do you need to judge Lamarck and Darwin in modern terms and apportion truth and falsity between them? If they were wrong about things that they could not possibly have known better, why not cut both of them some slack?

Eric Finn said: ... I have a set of questions. Not only on epigenetics, but also on Lamarcian approach in general. 1) The epigenetic effects do not mediate over many generations. Is this true or false ?

2) Both the Lamarck’s and Darwin’s proposals rested heavily on inheritance of traits, but neither of them could propose a mechanism, how the traits are mediated from one generation to the next. Both of them just postulated it. Is this true or false ?

3) Lamarck’s proposal has not been abandoned because it was silly, but because Darwin’s proposal (especially supplemented by modern synthesis) appears to work better in the nature that we can observe. Is this true or false ?

4) There is no way to supplement the Lamarckian approach by means of a “modern synthesis” to fit it to our observations, not even if we are allowed to invoke mechanisms yet unknown. Is this true or false ?

Joe Felsenstein said:

Eric Finn said: ... I have a set of questions. Not only on epigenetics, but also on Lamarcian approach in general. 1) The epigenetic effects do not mediate over many generations. Is this true or false ?

I am not sure what "mediate" means (carry out a negotiation between two people?). Epigenetic effects seem to revert after a few generations.

2) Both the Lamarck’s and Darwin’s proposals rested heavily on inheritance of traits, but neither of them could propose a mechanism, how the traits are mediated from one generation to the next. Both of them just postulated it. Is this true or false ?

True. Of course even Mendel's factors were hypothetical, and their molecular basis only began to be worked out by molecular biology about 65 years ago.

3) Lamarck’s proposal has not been abandoned because it was silly, but because Darwin’s proposal (especially supplemented by modern synthesis) appears to work better in the nature that we can observe. Is this true or false ?

Neither Lamarck's nor Darwin's mechanism of heredity was correct. Darwin's mechanism for evolution of adaptations works.

4) There is no way to supplement the Lamarckian approach by means of a “modern synthesis” to fit it to our observations, not even if we are allowed to invoke mechanisms yet unknown. Is this true or false ?

Lamarck's mechanism of use-and-disuse does not work because it proposes that phenomena like change of size of muscles when they are heavily used apply to all organs. This is not true: "pumping iron" does not work for your eyes or your kidneys. Furthermore your bigger muscles are not inherited. I will add that epigenetic changes may be induced by environmental causes, but as far as we know they are random in direction, as are mutational changes in genes.

SLC said: It is my understanding that Darwin actually had in his position a copy of Mendel's paper, either as a separate document or a journal in which it was published.

Agreed, it took folks with a much stronger quantitative background than Darwin or Mendel or many of the other naturalists of the time to recognize the significance of Mendel's work with respect to the problem of "blending inheritance"... thus the unholy marriage of mathematics and biology began

Hitler and Fisher were born less than a year apart, coincidence?

I THINK NOT
muahahahahahahahaa

https://me.yahoo.com/a/8kVPqs1vt4iVclt8ugfaMPhFRtz7tX8k#224b2 said: ... Hitler and Fisher were born less than a year apart, coincidence? I THINK NOT muahahahahahahahaa

Joe, on the Darwin-Mendel stuff I agree with you about 80%. I think the language barrier would've stopped any face-to-face meeting or even journal review from going anywhere.

But I do not think that Darwin and his peers would've discounted the work of a HS teacher just because it came from a HS teacher, if it had been presented well (and in English). After all, only 50 years after Darwin, the scientific community had no problem recognizing the genius of the work of a patent clerk. Yeah, the scientific establisment was classist in the 1860s. But they were classist in the 1900s too. Didn't stop them from recognizing good work when they saw it. The trick was getting them to see it.

eric said: Joe, on the Darwin-Mendel stuff I agree with you about 80%. I think the language barrier would've stopped any face-to-face meeting or even journal review from going anywhere. But I do not think that Darwin and his peers would’ve discounted the work of a HS teacher just because it came from a HS teacher, ...

Kudos to Felsentein, this thread is, as far as it goes now, an excellent example of what the history of science should be (IMGHO).

For those intrigued by the Mendel-Darwin-connection, do click on the link Felsenstein provides! (And do read the e-mails of the curators of the Darwin heritage!!!)

I think it is a good source for debunking an urban legend born from the Whiggish idea that the re-discorveres of Mendel should have been in the know of the Modern Synthesis, whereas they themselves saw Mendelism as a patent contradictiont o Darwinism.

Joachim said: Kudos to Felsentein, this thread is, as far as it goes now, an excellent example of what the history of science should be (IMGHO). For those intrigued by the Mendel-Darwin-connection, do click on the link Felsenstein provides! (And do read the e-mails of the curators of the Darwin heritage!!!) I think it is a good source for debunking an urban legend born from the Whiggish idea that the re-discorveres of Mendel should have been in the know of the Modern Synthesis, whereas they themselves saw Mendelism as a patent contradictiont o[f?] Darwinism.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Joachim said: ... I think it is a good source for debunking an urban legend born from the Whiggish idea that the re-discorveres of Mendel should have been in the know of the Modern Synthesis, whereas they themselves saw Mendelism as a patent contradictiont o[f?] Darwinism.

I suspect Joachim misspoke and meant to say something else, for it was the Modern Synthesis itself that brought Mendelian mechanisms into evolutionary biology. The Mutationists of 1900-1920 were the ones who saw Mendelism as contradicting the role of natural selection. On behalf of my clients Wright, Fisher, Haldane, Mulller, Dobzhansky, Mayr, Simpson, Huxley, and Stebbins I enter a plea of innocent.

Lamarck is a very important figure. He certainly holds a strong claim to being the first scientist to fully recognize the fact of evolution and articulate a testable hypothesis about the mechanism of evolution, in a rigorous, modern way.

It is a bit sad that his name is currently associated with a widespread misunderstanding of evolution, in the English speaking world (in French-influenced areas he's simply remembered as a great scientist). On the other hand, it's also a good thing.

It's not really surprising that the first articulated testable mechanism proposed for evolution was also exactly the most common biased human misinterpretation of how evolution works. Note - that's misinterpretation of how it works, as opposed to biased denial that it happens at all.

If teachers didn't specifically discuss Lamarckism and explain why it doesn't explain observations as well as the contemporary theory of evolution, a substantial proportion of students would assume Lamarckism.

I personally saw the advantage of the modern/"Darwinian" synthesis when I learned about it - it doesn't require any magic. I happened to have a non-hostile but bemusedly skeptical attitude toward magic, the supernatural, miracles, etc, as a student.

Nevertheless, I can easily see why the idea of nature "striving" for "improvement" and "perfection" is highly palatable to human minds.

Lamarck came up with what can legitimately be termed a first idea, based on his long years of pioneering work with invertebrates. It was precisely the not quite correct idea that a human brain would be expected to come up with, especially in the social context of Lamarck's time, but before Lamarck there was no modern, testable proposed mechanism for evolution. Lamarck was an innovator whose ideas were expanded and superseded, not a denialist.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Ray Martinez said: What did Darwin think of Lamarck's theory? "it appeared to me extremely poor; I got not a fact or idea from it" ("The Life And Letters Of Charles Darwin" 1887:215, Vol.2; F. Darwin editor; London: Murray).

He may have felt that way, but Lamarck's views influenced many people. There is an excellent book by Adrian Desmond, The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London, which outlines the great influence that Lamarck and other "transmutationists" of the early 1800s had on political, social and religious controversies of the time. Lamarck may have had little influence on Darwin's ideas about evolutionary mechanisms,

but he certainly had an important effect on the willingness of scientists to accept common descent.

By the time Darwin published the Origin, the evidence from fossils, development, biogeography and systematics had prepared the way for the rapid acceptance of common descent.

Even opponents of Lamarck like Cuvier and opponents of Darwin like Owen had compromised their views in that direction and moved away from the notion of fixity of species.

Ray Martinez said: ... The implication here is that evolution enjoyed acceptance. Said implication is completely false: evolution enjoyed no scientific acceptance before 1859; science held species immutable (see Darwin "On The Origin" 1859:6; London: Murray). ... Challenged. ... Please produce two or three scholarly references in support or retract?i ... Challenged. Please produce two or three scholarly references in support or retract? ... Concerning Cuvier: produce two scholarly references in support or retract? ... Concerning Owen: he claimed, after Darwin published in 1859, to have advocated evolution around 1850. Then in response to the reception of "The Origin" he blistered Darwin with several reviews. Then he remained a bitter enemy of Darwin and evolution the remainder of his life. What he propagated circa 1850 was "providential evolution" (= Creationism).

Sometime during the 1840s Owen came to the conclusion that species arise as the result of some sort of evolutionary process.[13] He believed that there was a total of six possible mechanisms: parthenogenesis, prolonged development, premature birth, congenital malformations, Lamarckian atrophy, Lamarckian hypertrophy and transmutation,[14] of which he thought transmutation was the least likely.[14] The historian of science Evelleen Richards has argued that Owen was likely sympathetic to developmental theories of evolution, but backed away from publicly proclaiming them after the critical reaction that had greeted the anonymously-published evolutionary book Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation in 1844 (it was revealed only decades later that the book had been authored by publisher Robert Chambers). Owen had been criticized for his own evolutionary remarks in his Nature of the Limbs in 1849.[15] At the end of On the Nature of Limbs Owen had suggested that humans ultimately evolved from fish as the result of natural laws,[16] which resulted in him getting criticized in the Manchester Spectator for denying species like humans were created by God.[17]

"...but he certainly had an important effect on the willingness of scientists to accept common descent..."

Some (scholarly) references to support include: The Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate: French Biology in the Decades Before Darwin, by historian Tony Appel, and Genesis: The Evolution of Biology, by historian Jan Sapp.

From the former: "The progressives were inclined to see the debate not as a conflict between Cuvier and Geoffroy but rather as a conflict between the conservative Cuvier and France's founder of evolution, Lamarck. Thus, the debate not only provided a point of departure for biological theorizing in France and in England, but also served as an important chapter in the history of evolutionary biology. Before 1859 it emphasized the importance of theorizing in biology and the need to search for morphological laws. It led to the abandoning of teleological explanation as sufficient in explaining animal structure, and gave encouragement to new approaches to embryology. "

Joe Felsenstein said: I will add that epigenetic changes may be induced by environmental causes, but as far as we know they are random in direction, as are mutational changes in genes.

Eric Finn said:

Joe Felsenstein said: I will add that epigenetic changes may be induced by environmental causes, but as far as we know they are random in direction, as are mutational changes in genes.

First, thank you for answering my questions. It seems to me that the randomness of epigenetic changes works against Lamarckian interpretations. Could you please clarify, how the randomness was found out. In case you wish to use links on the Internet, please try to find links that are not behind a pay wall.

If food was not readily available during the father's slow growth period, then cardiovascular disease mortality of the proband was low. Diabetes mortality increased if the paternal grandfather was exposed to a surfeit of food during his slow growth period. .... A nutrition-linked mechanism through the male line seems to have influenced the risk for cardiovascular and diabetes mellitus mortality.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Ray Martinez said: ... The implication here is that evolution enjoyed acceptance. Said implication is completely false: evolution enjoyed no scientific acceptance before 1859; science held species immutable (see Darwin "On The Origin" 1859:6; London: Murray). ... Challenged. ... Please produce two or three scholarly references in support or retract?i ... Challenged. Please produce two or three scholarly references in support or retract? ... Concerning Cuvier: produce two scholarly references in support or retract? ... Concerning Owen: he claimed, after Darwin published in 1859, to have advocated evolution around 1850. Then in response to the reception of "The Origin" he blistered Darwin with several reviews. Then he remained a bitter enemy of Darwin and evolution the remainder of his life. What he propagated circa 1850 was "providential evolution" (= Creationism).

Joe Felsenstein: I see you have produced no scholarly references.

I kindly asked you to support certain claims. In response you ask the same of me. Okay....but I did provide one reference supporting the fact that science held species immutable before Darwin published....here it is again: Darwin "On The Origin" 1859:6; London: Murray. If you still think evolution enjoyed acceptance prior to 1859 then please produce two or three references....Thank You.

JF: So we'll start with you. Please produce two schoarly references to support your position.

Which position?

JF: You could start with Desmond's book and see what he says there.

Concerning what? Desmond's book was your source for what exactly?????

JF: Also look at what Owen and Cuvier really thought. Cuvier opposed any idea that species changed, but he did accept that catastrophes occurred and new species came into existence after them.

"Cuvier opposed any idea that species changed" (Joe Felsenstein). I accept your retraction for implying Cuvier accepted mutability.

Owen was of course a bitter opponent of Darwin's, but here is an intriguing quote from his Wikipedia page: Sometime during the 1840s Owen came to the conclusion that species arise as the result of some sort of evolutionary process.[13] He believed that there was a total of six possible mechanisms: parthenogenesis, prolonged development, premature birth, congenital malformations, Lamarckian atrophy, Lamarckian hypertrophy and transmutation,[14] of which he thought transmutation was the least likely.[14] The historian of science Evelleen Richards has argued that Owen was likely sympathetic to developmental theories of evolution, but backed away from publicly proclaiming them after the critical reaction that had greeted the anonymously-published evolutionary book Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation in 1844 (it was revealed only decades later that the book had been authored by publisher Robert Chambers). Owen had been criticized for his own evolutionary remarks in his Nature of the Limbs in 1849.[15] At the end of On the Nature of Limbs Owen had suggested that humans ultimately evolved from fish as the result of natural laws,[16] which resulted in him getting criticized in the Manchester Spectator for denying species like humans were created by God.[17] And of course Owen was a quite respectable scientist of his day so that will do double-duty in refuting your assertion that evolution "enjoyed no scientific acceptance before 1859".

Wikipedia is anything but a scholarly source. The page could have been written by Paris Hilton. But I did check the citations. Unfortunately, at the moment, I do not have access to the works cited. You are contending that eminent scientist Richard Owen accepted the mutability of species before Darwin published in 1859. On page 310 of the first edition "Origin Of Species" (1859) Darwin named Richard Owen as a leading fixist. In response Owen protested. He claimed, as I already mentioned, to have advocated evolution circa 1850. Your Wikipedia source and its sources are in general agreement. Then I identified Owen's evolution as pseudo-evolution "providential evolution" (= Creationism). I obtained from Neal Gillespie "Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation" (1977). I cannot produce a page number at this time. The point is that Owen was a Creationist who flirted with pseudo-evolution, that is, "designed evolution." In 4th edition of "On The Origin" (1866:XVIII; London: Murray) Darwin acknowledges the contradictory position of Owen: "This belief in Professor Owen that he then gave to the world the theory of natural selection will surprise all those who are acquainted with the several passages in his works, reviews, and lectures, published since the 'Origin,' in which he strenuously opposes the theory; and it will please all those who are interested on this side of the question, as it may be presumed that his opposition will now cease. It should, however, be stated that the passage above referred to in the 'Zoological Transactions,' as I find on consulting it, applies exclusively to the extermination and preservation of animals, and in no way to their gradual modification, origination, or natural selection. So far is this from being the case that Professor Owen actually begins the first of the two paragraphs (vol. iv. p. 15) with the following words:—'We have not a particle of evidence that any species of bird or beast that lived during the pliocene period has had its characters modified in any respect by the influence of time or of change of external circumstances.'" Note the final sentence that says Owen rejected evolution.

JF: I've provided some information; you have provided none. And no, I don't have to meet a standard ("two scholarly references") that you don't even try to meet. I am a scientist who tries to understand the history of his field. Are you, perhaps, a professional historian of science? If you have those credentials, I'll be impressed by your unsupported opinions. Not until.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/8kVPqs1vt4iVclt8ugfaMPhFRtz7tX8k#224b2 said: Agreed, it took folks with a much stronger quantitative background than Darwin or Mendel or many of the other naturalists of the time to recognize the significance of Mendel's work with respect to the problem of "blending inheritance"... thus the unholy marriage of mathematics and biology began Hitler and Fisher were born less than a year apart, coincidence? I THINK NOT muahahahahahahahaa

Ray Martinez said: ... The point is that Owen was a Creationist who flirted with pseudo-evolution, that is, "designed evolution." ... With all this said: Lamarck advocated pseudo-evolution too. I have already provided the quote by David Clifford, Ph.D., Cambridge University.

SLC said: Darwin and Lincoln were born on the same day. Coincidence?

Joe Felsenstein said:

Ray Martinez said: ... The point is that Owen was a Creationist who flirted with pseudo-evolution, that is, "designed evolution." ... With all this said: Lamarck advocated pseudo-evolution too. I have already provided the quote by David Clifford, Ph.D., Cambridge University.

Oh, I see what your argument is: all these folks before Darwin are "pseudo-evolutionists" and if I want to argue that they accepted some sort of evolution I have to produce all kinds of quotes from authorities and somehow get you to accept that Lamarck, Owen, etc. weren't "pseudo-". Will not play. Lamarck did have change in his theory, along with a mechanism (use-and-disuse with inheritance of the modifications of the characters). He also assumed that new organisms would arise at the root of the tree, so that in the past that has been fodder for Ray to claim that this was done by a Creator in Lamarck's theory. But that doesn't matter. Lamarck's explanation for adaptation is materialist (if wrong too). So he was arguing for evolution and for a mechanism for adaptation. (For those who wonder about my lack of interest in debating Ray on this, I refer them to the huge number of posts here where Ray has argued that all sorts of opponents of evolutionary biology here were not real creationists, that he was the only real creationist. Most everybody else here finds his purism ridiculous. But he seems to think that he always wins these arguments because he is the judge of what it means to be a creationist).

I'm really enjoying the alt-history "what if Darwin met Mendel" thread in these comments. My take: if Darwin had met Mendel (and had an interpreter handy), it would have changed the course of scientific history. Here's my reasons:

1. Darwin was aware of two major holes in his theory. One was the "blending" of heritable traits. Mendel's findings gave a very good explanation of heritability that would account for the gap in theory.

2. Darwin was incredibly good at recognising lines of evidence. His modus operandi was to collect as much information from as many different observations as possible and synthesise them. Given his recognition of such evidence as finch beak lengths and barnacle taxonomy, I believe he would have seized upon Mendel's findings.

3. Darwin wouldn't have cared that Mendel was a school teacher. Alfred Russel Wallace was a non-practising lawyer, ex-surveyor, and school teacher, and it was Wallace's correspondence with Charles Lyell that prompted the writing of Origin of Species.

Of course, nobody really knows what would have happened. But I think Darwin would have adopted Mendelian inheritance in very short order.

Chris Lawson said: I'm really enjoying the alt-history "what if Darwin met Mendel" thread in these comments. My take: if Darwin had met Mendel (and had an interpreter handy), it would have changed the course of scientific history. Here's my reasons: 1. Darwin was aware of two major holes in his theory. One was the "blending" of heritable traits. Mendel's findings gave a very good explanation of heritability that would account for the gap in theory. 2. Darwin was incredibly good at recognising lines of evidence. His modus operandi was to collect as much information from as many different observations as possible and synthesise them. Given his recognition of such evidence as finch beak lengths and barnacle taxonomy, I believe he would have seized upon Mendel's findings. 3. Darwin wouldn't have cared that Mendel was a school teacher. Alfred Russel Wallace was a non-practising lawyer, ex-surveyor, and school teacher, and it was Wallace's correspondence with Charles Lyell that prompted the writing of Origin of Species. Of course, nobody really knows what would have happened. But I think Darwin would have adopted Mendelian inheritance in very short order.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Ray Martinez said: ... The point is that Owen was a Creationist who flirted with pseudo-evolution, that is, "designed evolution." ... With all this said: Lamarck advocated pseudo-evolution too. I have already provided the quote by David Clifford, Ph.D., Cambridge University.

Oh, I see what your argument is: all these folks before Darwin are "pseudo-evolutionists" and if I want to argue that they accepted some sort of evolution I have to produce all kinds of quotes from authorities and somehow get you to accept that Lamarck, Owen, etc. weren't "pseudo-". Will not play. Lamarck did have change in his theory, along with a mechanism (use-and-disuse with inheritance of the modifications of the characters). He also assumed that new organisms would arise at the root of the tree, so that in the past that has been fodder for Ray to claim that this was done by a Creator in Lamarck's theory. But that doesn't matter. Lamarck's explanation for adaptation is materialist (if wrong too). So he was arguing for evolution and for a mechanism for adaptation. (For those who wonder about my lack of interest in debating Ray on this, I refer them to the huge number of posts here where Ray has argued that all sorts of opponents of evolutionary biology here were not real creationists, that he was the only real creationist. Most everybody else here finds his purism ridiculous. But he seems to think that he always wins these arguments because he is the judge of what it means to be a creationist).

Ray Martinez, can you quote exactly where in Lamarck's theory Lamarck stated that there was a role for God in the production of species?

For the sake of accuracy: I simply point out that Lamarck’s theory had a role for God IN the production of species (reference already provided). And I have supplied two references (one of them incomplete) for Owen and the fact that he was not a genuine advocate of how we understand the concept of evolution since the rise of Darwinism. In addition: You end by saying that you will not engage a person (like myself) who maintains an egregious contradiction exists when persons who are Creationists accept evolution. Again, for the sake of accuracy, I do maintain that it is highly contradictory for Creationists to accept the main claim of Darwinism. Final Conclusions: Neither Lamarck or Owen accepted purely natural evolution (Darwinism). Darwinists are purists. I am an Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist, what you call a purist. Thank You.

harold said: Ray Martinez said

For the sake of accuracy: I simply point out that Lamarck’s theory had a role for God IN the production of species (reference already provided). And I have supplied two references (one of them incomplete) for Owen and the fact that he was not a genuine advocate of how we understand the concept of evolution since the rise of Darwinism. In addition: You end by saying that you will not engage a person (like myself) who maintains an egregious contradiction exists when persons who are Creationists accept evolution. Again, for the sake of accuracy, I do maintain that it is highly contradictory for Creationists to accept the main claim of Darwinism. Final Conclusions: Neither Lamarck or Owen accepted purely natural evolution (Darwinism). Darwinists are purists. I am an Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist, what you call a purist. Thank You.

For the sake of accuracy, Ray Martinez in engaged in pseudo-legalistic word games. Lamarck recognized that biological evolution occurs - he recognized both that descendants differ from ancestors, and that this often occurs in a way that results in adaptation of species to their environment. That's recognizing evolution. Ray Martinez is also playing games with the word "creationist". Ray Martinez is simply trying to equate the theory of evolution with atheism, to claim that the theory of evolution is an arbitrary ideology unchanged since its invention by "Darwin", and to redefine the term "creationist" to include all religious believers who accept the idea that any deity created anything. I leave it to the reader to form their own guesses as to why he would demand that the entire world change English usage in this way.

apokryltaros said: Ray Martinez, can you quote exactly where in Lamarck's theory Lamarck stated that there was a role for God in the production of species?

harold said: Even for a creationism outcast like Ray Martinez, undoubtedly banned from most actual pro-creationism venues,....

creationism is largely about never admitting that any creationist meme was ever wrong. Creationists routinely try to portray the theory of evolution as being exclusively the idea of Charles Darwin, and try to portray Charles Darwin as having more or less invented it from whole cloth. The reason that they do this is so that they can claim, and perhaps even try to convince themselves, that the theory of evolution is comparable to a religious or ideological doctrine. They want evolution to be "Dawinism" in the way that Marxism is Marxism. As I've noted many times, it's quite possible that they are sincere in this error. Concrete authoritarian minds may literally not be able to conceptualize things like arguments based on evidence, or extension and elaboration of ideas. They tend to perceive the world as a battle of wills between adherents of rival arbitrary ideologies. They follow their own arbitrary ideology for purely emotional reasons, so they want to believe that ideas that make them uncomfortable are nothing more than rival declarations of authority figures. The fact that evolution was noted by earlier figures, who proposed different mechanistic hypotheses, is probably deeply traumatizing to the tormented mind of Ray Martinez.

Ray Martinez said:

apokryltaros said: Ray Martinez, can you quote exactly where in Lamarck's theory Lamarck stated that there was a role for God in the production of species?

That particular information was already provided in the link I posted in support of my claim (downthread). Once again: See "The Victorian Web: 'Lamarck'" by David Clifford, Ph.D., Cambridge University.

apokryltaros said: Ray Martinez, can you quote exactly where in Lamarck's theory Lamarck stated that there was a role for God in the production of species?

Lamarck said: Sans doute, rien n'existe que par la volonté du sublime Auteur de toutes choses. Mais pouvons-nous lui assigner des règles dans l'exécution de sa volonté et fixer le mode qu'il a suivi à cet égard? Sa puissance infinie n'a-t-elle pu crèer un ordre de choses qui donnât successivement l'existance à tout ce que nous voyons comme à tout ce qui existe et que nous ne connaissons pas? Assurément, quelle qu'ait été sa volonté, l'immensité de sa puissance est toujours la même et de quelque manière que se soit exécutée cette volonté suprême, rien n'en peut diminuer la grandeur. Respectant donc les décrets de cette sagesse infinie, je me renferme dans les bornes d'un simple observateur de la nature. Alors, si je parviens à démèler quelque chose dans la marche qu'elle a suivie pour opérer ses productions, je dirai, sans crainte de me tromper, qu'il a plu à son Auteur qu'elle ait cette faculté et cette puissance. (PZ [1873 edition], pp. 74-75) Without doubt, nothing exists except by the will of the sublime Author of all things. But can we set the rules for the execution of His will and prescribe the manner He followed in these matters? Could not His infinite power have created an order of things which might give 'successive existence' to all we see exists and even those things we do not know about? Certainly, whatever His will, the immensity of His power is always the same and in whatever manner the Supreme Will was carried out, nothing diminishes its grandeur. Thus respecting the decrees of that infinite wisdom, I confine myself to the limits of a mere observer of nature. So, if I unravel something about the way Nature operates, I can say, without fear of being wrong, it pleases her Author that she has this faculty or that power. (My translation, improvements gratefully received)

Let's keep off the topic of who other than Ray is or isn't a creationist (it's been done to death on many other threads, anyway). Discussion of Lamarck and the role of special creation of new species in his theory is fine.

Ray Martinez said:

harold said: Ray Martinez said

For the sake of accuracy: I simply point out that Lamarck’s theory had a role for God IN the production of species (reference already provided). And I have supplied two references (one of them incomplete) for Owen and the fact that he was not a genuine advocate of how we understand the concept of evolution since the rise of Darwinism. In addition: You end by saying that you will not engage a person (like myself) who maintains an egregious contradiction exists when persons who are Creationists accept evolution. Again, for the sake of accuracy, I do maintain that it is highly contradictory for Creationists to accept the main claim of Darwinism. Final Conclusions: Neither Lamarck or Owen accepted purely natural evolution (Darwinism). Darwinists are purists. I am an Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist, what you call a purist. Thank You.

For the sake of accuracy, Ray Martinez in engaged in pseudo-legalistic word games. Lamarck recognized that biological evolution occurs - he recognized both that descendants differ from ancestors, and that this often occurs in a way that results in adaptation of species to their environment. That's recognizing evolution. Ray Martinez is also playing games with the word "creationist". Ray Martinez is simply trying to equate the theory of evolution with atheism, to claim that the theory of evolution is an arbitrary ideology unchanged since its invention by "Darwin", and to redefine the term "creationist" to include all religious believers who accept the idea that any deity created anything. I leave it to the reader to form their own guesses as to why he would demand that the entire world change English usage in this way.

As much as I would like to address your criticism, I can't; the Moderator has already said, in no uncertain terms, that this topic will stay on topic.

Joe Felsenstein said: Let's keep off the topic of who other than Ray is or isn't a creationist (it's been done to death on many other threads, anyway). Discussion of Lamarck and the role of special creation of new species in his theory is fine.

DS said:

Chris Lawson said: I'm really enjoying the alt-history "what if Darwin met Mendel" thread in these comments. My take: if Darwin had met Mendel (and had an interpreter handy), it would have changed the course of scientific history. Here's my reasons: 1. Darwin was aware of two major holes in his theory. One was the "blending" of heritable traits. Mendel's findings gave a very good explanation of heritability that would account for the gap in theory. 2. Darwin was incredibly good at recognising lines of evidence. His modus operandi was to collect as much information from as many different observations as possible and synthesise them. Given his recognition of such evidence as finch beak lengths and barnacle taxonomy, I believe he would have seized upon Mendel's findings. 3. Darwin wouldn't have cared that Mendel was a school teacher. Alfred Russel Wallace was a non-practising lawyer, ex-surveyor, and school teacher, and it was Wallace's correspondence with Charles Lyell that prompted the writing of Origin of Species. Of course, nobody really knows what would have happened. But I think Darwin would have adopted Mendelian inheritance in very short order.

I agree. Perhaps he might have even realized that something like Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium would operate at the population level. Oh well. Too bad he didn't at least read the paper.

Joe Felsenstein said: Let's keep off the topic of who other than Ray is or isn't a creationist (it's been done to death on many other threads, anyway). Discussion of Lamarck and the role of special creation of new species in his theory is fine.

Joachim said: Anyway, a myth that has Darwin as The One Villain is a strange creationist caricature of The One Hero myth of some Darwinians, which, I take it, you tried to counter a little with the original post in the first place.

apokryltaros said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Let's keep off the topic of who other than Ray is or isn't a creationist (it's been done to death on many other threads, anyway). Discussion of Lamarck and the role of special creation of new species in his theory is fine.

What about discussion of plants named after Lamarck, like Lamarck's evening primrose, and its mutant daughter species?

Joe Felsenstein said:

SLC said: Darwin and Lincoln were born on the same day. Coincidence?

And furthermore Darwin (who the Discovery Institute argues is the chief instigator of racism), and Lincoln (who they mysteriously don't give that label to) had very similar views on slavery. Coincidence or conspiracy? ;-)

Joe Felsenstein said:

apokryltaros said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Let's keep off the topic of who other than Ray is or isn't a creationist (it's been done to death on many other threads, anyway). Discussion of Lamarck and the role of special creation of new species in his theory is fine.

What about discussion of plants named after Lamarck, like Lamarck's evening primrose, and its mutant daughter species?

OK, as long as I have you terrified that you might accidentally wander off-topic, and then suffer unimaginably.

SLC said: ... They were, of course, quite prescient in that latter regard as evidenced by Wilson's 1916 proclamation to build a navy second to none.

harold said: Ray Martinez said

For the sake of accuracy: I simply point out that Lamarck’s theory had a role for God IN the production of species (reference already provided). And I have supplied two references (one of them incomplete) for Owen and the fact that he was not a genuine advocate of how we understand the concept of evolution since the rise of Darwinism. In addition: You end by saying that you will not engage a person (like myself) who maintains an egregious contradiction exists when persons who are Creationists accept evolution. Again, for the sake of accuracy, I do maintain that it is highly contradictory for Creationists to accept the main claim of Darwinism. Final Conclusions: Neither Lamarck or Owen accepted purely natural evolution (Darwinism). Darwinists are purists. I am an Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist, what you call a purist. Thank You.

For the sake of accuracy, Ray Martinez in engaged in pseudo-legalistic word games. Lamarck recognized that biological evolution occurs - he recognized both that descendants differ from ancestors, and that this often occurs in a way that results in adaptation of species to their environment. That's recognizing evolution.

In the Opening Post Joe Felsenstein already said Lamarck’s adaptation explanation was wrong.

Next, and most importantly, your usage of the term “evolution” is quite deceiving. Lamarck did NOT advocate evolution as we understand the concept since the rise of Darwinism.

His adaptation explanation was wrong, his mechanism (use and disuse) was completely rejected,

his view of “common descent” was discontinuous,

and he had a role for God IN the production of species (reference already provided).

Yet Harold wants us to believe that Lamarck’s “evolution” was evolution.

Lamarck did have a mechanism for evolution of adaptations, just not one that worked.

Lamarck's tree of life had a main trunk or trunks, up which he thought species changed by a general complexifying principle. Use and disuse was the mechanism of evolution along side branches off of these main trunks. It is clear that he felt that if the organisms in a portion of a main trunk were to go extinct, then they would re-evolve from the organisms further down. Also he felt that there was spontaneous generation of the organisms at the root of the animal tree and at the root of the plant tree.

Thus his tree is both an historical pattern of relationships and a fixed track along which historical change occurred. This sounds weird but notions like that were around at the time -- the natural philosophers of the Naturphilosophen school such as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (yes, that Goethe) had imagined fixed developmental tracks along which different species developed, just to different extents. It was that sense in which Goethe suggested that flowers had developed from leaves. Lamarck's tree also had temporal evolution in it as well (the developmental pathways did not).

All of this sounds like invocation of mystical immaterial forces to us today. To our ears they are very weird. But I think Lamarck regarded these forces as real and accessible to science -- he just felt that they weren't understood yet.

It is clear that Lamarck proposed mechanisms for change, mainly his use-and-disuse mechanism, and that in his scheme species were related and adapted through time.

Arguing that this was not evolution "as we know it since Darwin" is pure semantic gamesmanship. It is like saying that Newton was not really doing physics "as we know it since Einstein". And that is not worth the hot air needed to debate it.

harold said: Although Ray Martinez is still harping on the "definition of evolution", he has caused me to have an on topic insight that I will share. Most of us here defend the theory of evolution, but of course, ID/creationism denialists don't merely want to deny the theory of evolution (how evolution happens), they want to outright deny the FACT of evolution. They want to deny that evolution happens at all.

Lamarck is threatening to them for this reason. Lamarck accepted major aspects of the observable fact of evolution;....

Ray Martinez: and he had a role for God IN the production of species (reference already provided).

Harold: Which does not mean that he denied that species can evolve from earlier species.

Joe Felsenstein said: Lamarck did have a mechanism for evolution of adaptations, just not one that worked. Lamarck's tree of life had a main trunk or trunks, up which he thought species changed by a general complexifying principle. Use and disuse was the mechanism of evolution along side branches off of these main trunks. It is clear that he felt that if the organisms in a portion of a main trunk were to go extinct, then they would re-evolve from the organisms further down. Also he felt that there was spontaneous generation of the organisms at the root of the animal tree and at the root of the plant tree. Thus his tree is both an historical pattern of relationships and a fixed track along which historical change occurred. This sounds weird but notions like that were around at the time -- the natural philosophers of the Naturphilosophen school such as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (yes, that Goethe) had imagined fixed developmental tracks along which different species developed, just to different extents. It was that sense in which Goethe suggested that flowers had developed from leaves. Lamarck's tree also had temporal evolution in it as well (the developmental pathways did not). All of this sounds like invocation of mystical immaterial forces to us today. To our ears they are very weird. But I think Lamarck regarded these forces as real and accessible to science -- he just felt that they weren't understood yet. It is clear that Lamarck proposed mechanisms for change, mainly his use-and-disuse mechanism, and that in his scheme species were related and adapted through time. Arguing that this was not evolution "as we know it since Darwin" is pure semantic gamesmanship. It is like saying that Newton was not really doing physics "as we know it since Einstein". And that is not worth the hot air needed to debate it [boldfacing added---R.M.].

Ray Martinez said: Imagine that; Joe Felsenstein argues Lamarckian evolution and Darwinian evolution conceptually similar. Lamarck had a role for God; Darwin does not. Lamarck advocated discontinuous descent; Darwin continuous. Lamarck's mechanism excluded the environment; in Darwin's mechanism environment has a prominent role. What did Darwin think of Lamarck’s theory? “it appeared to me extremely poor; I got not a fact or idea from it” (“The Life And Letters Of Charles Darwin” 1887:215, Vol.2; F. Darwin editor; London: Murray).

Ray Martinez said: It is a rudimentary fact that evolution is inferred, not observed.

Lamarck’s “evolution” has no similarities to accepted evolution—none at all.

dalehusband said:

Ray Martinez said: Lamarck had a role for God; Darwin does not.

So what is your point? That Lamarck is preferable to Darwin because one was a Theist and the other wasn't? That is no way to judge scientific theories.

apokryltaros said: ... Lamarck's evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, and Hugo de Vries' discovery of its polyploid mutant daughter, O. gigas are often quoted as textbook examples of single-generation speciation. But, I've never been able to find a good picture of either. You don't, by any chance, happen to have or have access to pictures of either?

harold said: Galileo deduced that light has a velocity and tried to measure it. He failed, and probably the velocity of light cannot be measured accurately with the technology available at his time by any means.

harold said: Even for a creationism outcast like Ray Martinez, undoubtedly banned from most actual pro-creationism venues, creationism is largely about never admitting that any creationist meme was ever wrong. Creationists routinely try to portray the theory of evolution as being exclusively the idea of Charles Darwin, and try to portray Charles Darwin as having more or less invented it from whole cloth. The reason that they do this is so that they can claim, and perhaps even try to convince themselves, that the theory of evolution is comparable to a religious or ideological doctrine. They want evolution to be "Dawinism" in the way that Marxism is Marxism. As I've noted many times, it's quite possible that they are sincere in this error. Concrete authoritarian minds may literally not be able to conceptualize things like arguments based on evidence, or extension and elaboration of ideas. They tend to perceive the world as a battle of wills between adherents of rival arbitrary ideologies. They follow their own arbitrary ideology for purely emotional reasons, so they want to believe that ideas that make them uncomfortable are nothing more than rival declarations of authority figures. The fact that evolution was noted by earlier figures, who proposed different mechanistic hypotheses, is probably deeply traumatizing to the tormented mind of Ray Martinez.

TomS said:

harold said: Galileo deduced that light has a velocity and tried to measure it. He failed, and probably the velocity of light cannot be measured accurately with the technology available at his time by any means.

Because the speed of light is about 300,000 km/sec, it surely wasn't possible to measure the speed of light with any accuracy on Earth without clocks able to discriminate fractions of a second. But Ole Romer was able to get a rough estimate of the speed of light across the solar system in the 1670s. See the Wikipedia article Romer's determination of the speed of light. "The first measurements of the speed of light using completely terrestrial apparatus were published in 1849 by Hippolyte Fizeau (1819–96)."

It is a rudimentary fact that evolution is inferred, not observed.

Ray Martinez the notorious delusional creationist Liar for Jesus barfed:

harold said: Although Ray Martinez is still harping on the "definition of evolution", he has caused me to have an on topic insight that I will share. Most of us here defend the theory of evolution, but of course, ID/creationism denialists don't merely want to deny the theory of evolution (how evolution happens), they want to outright deny the FACT of evolution. They want to deny that evolution happens at all.

Not deny, but reject.

Lamarck is threatening to them for this reason. Lamarck accepted major aspects of the observable fact of evolution;....

It is a rudimentary fact that evolution is inferred, not observed.

Ray Martinez: and he had a role for God IN the production of species (reference already provided).

Harold: Which does not mean that he denied that species can evolve from earlier species.

When God is INvolved the same has always been known to the history of science as Natural Theology or Creationism. Lamarck's "evolution" has no similarities to accepted evolution---none at all.

Ray Martinez the delusional creationist Liar for Jesus barfed:

Joe Felsenstein said: Lamarck did have a mechanism for evolution of adaptations, just not one that worked. Lamarck's tree of life had a main trunk or trunks, up which he thought species changed by a general complexifying principle. Use and disuse was the mechanism of evolution along side branches off of these main trunks. It is clear that he felt that if the organisms in a portion of a main trunk were to go extinct, then they would re-evolve from the organisms further down. Also he felt that there was spontaneous generation of the organisms at the root of the animal tree and at the root of the plant tree. Thus his tree is both an historical pattern of relationships and a fixed track along which historical change occurred. This sounds weird but notions like that were around at the time -- the natural philosophers of the Naturphilosophen school such as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (yes, that Goethe) had imagined fixed developmental tracks along which different species developed, just to different extents. It was that sense in which Goethe suggested that flowers had developed from leaves. Lamarck's tree also had temporal evolution in it as well (the developmental pathways did not). All of this sounds like invocation of mystical immaterial forces to us today. To our ears they are very weird. But I think Lamarck regarded these forces as real and accessible to science -- he just felt that they weren't understood yet. It is clear that Lamarck proposed mechanisms for change, mainly his use-and-disuse mechanism, and that in his scheme species were related and adapted through time. Arguing that this was not evolution "as we know it since Darwin" is pure semantic gamesmanship. It is like saying that Newton was not really doing physics "as we know it since Einstein". And that is not worth the hot air needed to debate it [boldfacing added---R.M.].

Imagine that; Joe Felsenstein argues Lamarckian evolution and Darwinian evolution conceptually similar. Lamarck had a role for God; Darwin does not. Lamarck advocated discontinuous descent; Darwin continuous. Lamarck's mechanism excluded the environment; in Darwin's mechanism environment has a prominent role. What did Darwin think of Lamarck’s theory? “it appeared to me extremely poor; I got not a fact or idea from it” (“The Life And Letters Of Charles Darwin” 1887:215, Vol.2; F. Darwin editor; London: Murray).

John said: Lamarck remains an important figure in science since he was among the first to recognize the reality of biological evolution even if his Lamarckian theory to account for it was ultimately proven to be wrong, as demonstrated independently by Darwin and Wallace.

Just Bob said:

John said: Lamarck remains an important figure in science since he was among the first to recognize the reality of biological evolution even if his Lamarckian theory to account for it was ultimately proven to be wrong, as demonstrated independently by Darwin and Wallace.

IANAB, but equally significant, I think, was that he sought a NATURAL mechanism, and one that made intuitive sense, rather than the creationist cop-out of "Ooh, it's a miracle!"

harold said:

It is a rudimentary fact that evolution is inferred, not observed.

For the sake of third party readers, evolution is easily observed, for example antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

John said:

Ray Martinez the notorious delusional creationist Liar for Jesus barfed:

harold said: Although Ray Martinez is still harping on the "definition of evolution", he has caused me to have an on topic insight that I will share. Most of us here defend the theory of evolution, but of course, ID/creationism denialists don't merely want to deny the theory of evolution (how evolution happens), they want to outright deny the FACT of evolution. They want to deny that evolution happens at all.

Not deny, but reject.

Lamarck is threatening to them for this reason. Lamarck accepted major aspects of the observable fact of evolution;....

It is a rudimentary fact that evolution is inferred, not observed.

Ray Martinez: and he had a role for God IN the production of species (reference already provided).

Harold: Which does not mean that he denied that species can evolve from earlier species.

When God is INvolved the same has always been known to the history of science as Natural Theology or Creationism. Lamarck's "evolution" has no similarities to accepted evolution---none at all.

Evolution is being observed, Ray. We have two great long-term experiments in progress; Richard Lenski and his MSU team's controlled laboratory decades-long experiment with strains of E. coli bacteria and Peter and Rosemary Grant's decades-long experiment in studying in the field, variability in Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands. The only thing that isn't observed is your religiously-inspired pseudoscientific nonsense. Only a delusional mendacious intellectual pornographer such as yourself would refuse to accept the overwhelmining scientific evidence for biological evolution and that contemporary evolutionary theory is the best scientific theory that accounts for it now.

Now Ray wants to play word games with the word "observed". He demands You Tube videos no less. That's funny, if you google "you tube observed evolution" you get six and a half million hits. Now some of that is creationist crap of course, but a lot of it is good stuff, including some videos by Dawkins and three videos on the Lenski experiment:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6611AB93A19230E7

Now this will doubtless not be good enough for Ray. He will find some reason to disqualify it, even though it is exactly what he demanded. Who cares?

You are completely ignorant of Evolution 101

"...There is no God."

Psalm 14:1 and 10 other locations in the KJV. Quotemining is fun!

Just Bob said: "...There is no God." Psalm 14:1 and 10 other locations in the KJV. Quotemining is fun!

Ray wrote:

"What part of a 4 billion year old process did you observe as it allegedly occurs?"

Why? How much do you require be directly observed and how much can be correctly inferred before you are willing to accept the evidence? Were you there?

Ray Martinez the clueless notorious delusional creationist Liar for Jesus barfed: What part of a 4 billion year old process did you observe as it allegedly occurs? The main object of explanation in the Creation/Evolution debate is how the Biological Species Concept (Paley's watches) comes to have its existence in nature, not what occurs in a laboratory ("On The Origin Of Species" (1859)). As for the Grant's their entire work is inferred----that's what they mean what they say "observed." You are completely ignorant of Evolution 101.

harold said:

You are completely ignorant of Evolution 101

You went a long time without hurling an unjustified insult, by creationist standards, but eventually it had to come. Biological evolution can be observed in the present, and distant past biological evolution can be inferred. In science, something that is correctly inferred is valid. There is nothing wrong with valid inference. As it happens, biological evolution can also be directly observed, but saying that it is inferred is not at all the same thing as saying that it doesn't happen. Your Ernst Mayr quote mine apparently exploits the fact that by "evolution as a whole" Mayr apparently meant all biological evolution from earliest ancestors to the modern biosphere. Maybe you should have left that out, to make it even more misleading. “Evolution...must be inferred...” (Ernst Mayr “What Evolution Is” 2001:13) Of course, I could play at misleading quotes, creationist style, myself. The following examples are merely intended to show how silly the misleading quote game is... "It is a rudimentary fact that evolution is...observed" (Ray Martinez, 2012) "...evolution is observed...YouTube..." (Ray Martinez, 2012) Or maybe Mayr said something that was wrong. Your quote mine is also an argument from authority.

This is not a thread about whether evolution really happened or who observed it to happen. Lamarck anyone? History of evolutionary thought anyone? Whether epigenetics is or is not "Lamarckian"?

Joe Felsenstein said: This is not a thread about whether evolution really happened or who observed it to happen. Lamarck anyone? History of evolutionary thought anyone? Whether epigenetics is or is not "Lamarckian"?

Joe Felsenstein said: This is not a thread about whether evolution really happened or who observed it to happen. Lamarck anyone? History of evolutionary thought anyone? Whether epigenetics is or is not "Lamarckian"?

Ray Martinez said:

Joe Felsenstein said: This is not a thread about whether evolution really happened or who observed it to happen. Lamarck anyone? History of evolutionary thought anyone? Whether epigenetics is or is not "Lamarckian"?

In the Opening Post you included a model of Lamarckian descent. We see broken lineages, discontinuity.

Lam[ar]ck did not advocate common descent (continuity) as we understand the concept since Darwin.

Ray Martinez said: David Clifford, Ph.D., Cambridge University, writes: "In 1809 he published his most famous work, Philosophie Zoologique. This volume describes his theory of transmutation. The theory that Lamarck published consisted of several components. Underlying the whole was a 'tendency to progression', a principle that Creation is in a constant state of advancement. It was an innate quality of nature that organisms constantly 'improved' by successive generation, too slowly to be perceived but observable in the fossil record. Mankind sat at the top of this chain of progression, having passed through all the previous stages in prehistory. However, this necessitated the principle of spontaneous generation, for as a species transformed into a more advanced one, it left a gap: when the simple, single-celled organisms advanced to the next stage of life, new protozoans would be created (by the Creator) to fill their place." [boldfacing added---R.M.] The prefix "proto" means "first goer." These protozoans, created specially, must have numbered in the hundreds of thousands (to say the least). Lamarckian "evolution" was dependent on special creation; therefore it is not evolution as we understand the term since the rise of Darwinism. Lamarckism and Darwinism are completely different. The former was teleological; the latter materialism every step of the way. Today, Lamarck's view would be labelled Creationism.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Ray Martinez said:

Joe Felsenstein said: This is not a thread about whether evolution really happened or who observed it to happen. Lamarck anyone? History of evolutionary thought anyone? Whether epigenetics is or is not "Lamarckian"?

In the Opening Post you included a model of Lamarckian descent. We see broken lineages, discontinuity.

Absurd. The diagram is reproduced from Lamarck. He made the diagram out of dots because he did not have any ability to print a figure -- the diagram was typeset rather than drawn. The "discontinuity" is not intended by Lamarck, who does not describe his theory as implying discontinuity.

JF: I am curious though. You seem determined to disallow anyone before Darwin from having an evolutionary theory. So what about Patrick Matthew? He had natural selection, and common descent, almost 30 years before Darwin. Is his theory not evolution? Why?

So, Darwin wasn't the first one to come up with the idea of descent with modification. Darwin wasn't the first one to come up with the idea of natural selection. Darwin was one of two people who realized that natural selection was the major mechanism responsible for descent with modification. Thousands of others have refined and extended the basic theory over the last one hundred and fifty years. The theory has stood the test of time and is now the central unifying theory in all of biology.

Absolutely none of this makes Darwin a prophet or evolution a religion. It does indicate that Darwin was an important scientist and worthy of respect and admiration. That is all. Lamarck was also an important historical figure, but he mostly got it wrong and Darwin mostly got it right. Still, Darwin was influenced by Malthus, Lamarck and many others who came before him. That's the way science works.

If Ray has some point to make he should make it. So far none is apparent.

Of course, Lamarck had less data and background to work with than Darwin did. Who's to say what Lamarck would have come up with if he'd been in the same time period as Darwin?

Ray Martinez said: Two quotes from the OP: JF: "This time let’s use an image of the tree of animals..." First, it cannot be said the image models branching; therefore "tree" is error?

JF: "Note that not all animals are connected on this [model]." How does this square with "The 'discontinuity' is not intended by Lamarck, who does not describe his theory as implying discontinuity" (JF)?

Ray:

JF: ... So what about Patrick Matthew? He had natural selection, and common descent, almost 30 years before Darwin. Is his theory not evolution? Why?

Because, as Darwin pointed out (reference available upon request) Matthew's conception of natural selection was buried in the Appendix of an obscure Naval Timber journal; and while he had the idea or general concept, he did not publish anything about the principle and mechanics (unlike Darwin and Wallace).

Ray: Lamarck DID advocate the concept of evolution (species producing species) but the same was limited or restricted. His ladder model was dependent on spontaneous generation. Eramus Darwin (1794) also advocated the concept of evolution. His explication amounted to 10 pages in a medical treatise that exceeded 500 pages. While napping I could post five scholars who say the evolution of Erasmus Darwin was speculation.

Joe Felsenstein said: The point I wanted to make in the original post is that the use-and-disuse mechanism of Lamarck involved responses that he assumed were adaptive (an organ becoming better-developed when used). If we see an epigenetic change that lasts into the next generation, a change that we see is caused by an environmental effect, that does not make it an example of Lamarck's mechanism unless we can show that the change is adaptive as well.

Wikipedia said: Lamarck stressed two main themes in his biological work. The first was that the environment gives rise to changes in animals. He cited examples of blindness in moles, the presence of teeth in mammals and the absence of teeth in birds as evidence of this principle. The second principle was that life was structured in an orderly manner and that many different parts of all bodies make it possible for the organic movements of animals.

My guess is that to somebody with no knowledge of how genetics works, that change due use/disuse hypothesis would sound like a plausible guess, especially if no better guess was to be had given the amount of data available at that time.

Eric Finn said: I am not sure, if the above quote really applies to this discussion, but I fail to see, why epigenetic changes can not be perceived as an example of a mechanism in both the “Lamarckian” and “modern Darwinian” evolution. For different reasons, though.

Mike Elzinga said: If I understand what you are asking, I think it sounds plausible because – whether people were consciously aware of it or not – nearly everything subjected to forces in their environments will respond at the level of complexity for which those forces are effective. Springs bend in proportion to the forces acting on them; and that response is a property of the collective behaviors of all the atoms or molecules that make up the spring. Liquids flow to fit the container, etc.

Mike Elzinga said: Take a another very simple example of a water molecule . It can be dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen without changing either the hydrogen or oxygen atom. Water freezes into various kinds hexagonal arrays depending on environmental conditions; in other words, the properties of the water molecule itself are directly important, not the properties of hydrogen or oxygen.

Eric Finn said: ... This is also an interesting topic, but I tend to remember that Joe Felsenstein is not very tolerant, if posters get off-topic.

Eric Finn said: ... I would like to ask four follow-up questions. 1) Epigenetics The epigenetic changes that are passed on to the next generation are acquired during the individuals lifetime. In some cases it could, in principle, be the individuals choice of diet (as compared to a decision to pump iron). Of course, the famine in Överkalix was not anything like that. A description of Lamarck’s theory is given in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia said: Lamarck stressed two main themes in his biological work. The first was that the environment gives rise to changes in animals. He cited examples of blindness in moles, the presence of teeth in mammals and the absence of teeth in birds as evidence of this principle. The second principle was that life was structured in an orderly manner and that many different parts of all bodies make it possible for the organic movements of animals.

I am not sure, if the above quote really applies to this discussion, but I fail to see, why epigenetic changes can not be perceived as an example of a mechanism in both the “Lamarckian” and “modern Darwinian” evolution. For different reasons, though. It is very true that also mutations in the genes are acquired during “an individual’s lifetime”. Random mutations are not thought to be part of the explanation Lamarck proposed. So, it may be a moot point to emphasis the individual.

2) Adaptation I understand that Lamarck saw adaptation in lions becoming stronger and giraffes reaching higher. And also in moles becoming blind. If the moles do not use their eyes they will eventually lose them. Did he also think that the necks of the giraffes would become shorter, if the trees could not grow tall, e.g. because the top parts were eaten before they could grow ?

3) Advancement My impression (which is not really based on anything) is that Lamarck saw evolution to bring forth a constant improvement. Progressively taller and stronger, or otherwise better creatures would evolve, until the European humans would emerge. My question is, did Lamarck have a teleological view ?

4) Creation Also, it is my impression that Lamarck thought that once the lower creatures have advanced to the next stage, there is a gap that needs to be filled. For example, when the lowest of the low, i.e. the single-celled creatures, advance to the multi-cellular stage, the single-celled life forms need to be replenished somehow. Do you think Lamarck thought this way ?

Joe Felsenstein said: It is my understanding, confirmed by the quotes at that Wikipedia page, that Lamarck invoked two forces, a general complexifying force, and the effects of use and disuse. Thus not simply direct effects of the environment but a force tending to achieve adaptation.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Eric Finn said: ... This is also an interesting topic, but I tend to remember that Joe Felsenstein is not very tolerant, if posters get off-topic.

Feeling lucky?? Go ahead ... make my day!

Eric Finn said: You might appreciate the work Lord Kelvin did on the age of the solar system. He did not make any mistakes in his calculations, as far as I understand. The only thing was that he did not know about nuclear forces.

In 1895, Perry published a paper challenging Kelvin's assumption of low thermal conductivity inside the Earth, and thus disputing Kelvin's estimate that the Earth was only 20–400 million years old, but this had little impact.

Eric Finn said: Would you agree with the following statements regarding the proposal by Lamarck : 1) The living organisms are changing (all the time) 2) There are (natural) mechanisms that make the change possible 3) The process of the change results in (better) adaptation to the environment 4) The proposed mechanisms need to explain the adaptation

I must confess that everything I knew about Lamarck before this thread could have been summarised as “Lamarck was wrong in assuming that acquired properties could be inherited”.

TomS said: England, P.; Molnar, P.; Righter, F. (January 2007). "John Perry's neglected critique of Kelvin's age for the Earth: A missed opportunity in geodynamics". GSA Today 17 (1): 4–9. doi:10.1130/GSAT01701A.1.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Ray Martinez said: Two quotes from the OP: JF: "This time let’s use an image of the tree of animals..." First, it cannot be said the image models branching; therefore "tree" is error?

Again absurd. The diagram shows four branching events, and Lamarck's views also included a lot of subsidiary side-branches.

JF: "Note that not all animals are connected on this [model]." How does this square with "The 'discontinuity' is not intended by Lamarck, who does not describe his theory as implying discontinuity" (JF)? JF: The changes along the tree in the diagram are continuous.

Ray: Lamarck DID advocate the concept of evolution (species producing species) but the same was limited or restricted. His ladder model was dependent on spontaneous generation. Eramus Darwin (1794) also advocated the concept of evolution. His explication amounted to 10 pages in a medical treatise that exceeded 500 pages. While napping I could post five scholars who say the evolution of Erasmus Darwin was speculation. JF:... and with one hand tied behind my back I can see that you have conceded that these people all did propose that evolution happened.

Ray Martinez said: I have made this point several times.

Ray Martinez said: Produce one or two scholarly references that describe Lamarckian descent as modeling branching?

Lamarck said: Thus, to establish, with respect to living bodies, the state of things which we observe, the only thing nature had to produce directly (that is, without the combination of any organic action) was the simplest organic bodies, whether animals or plants. And she still reproduces these in the same way, every day, in favorable places and seasons. Now, by giving to these bodies which she herself created the capacity to feed themselves, to grow, to multiply, and to preserve each time the improvements they acquired in their organic structure and, finally, by passing on these same capacities to all the individuals produced by organic reproduction, over time, given the enormous diversity of always changing circumstances, the living bodies of all the classes and every order were, through these means, produced one after the other.

"These people" (only 2) did not propose evolution as understood since the rise of Darwinism. Both Lamarck and Erasmus Darwin did advocate the concept BUT the same was teleological (designed to occur). I have made this point several times.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Ray Martinez said: Produce one or two scholarly references that describe Lamarckian descent as modeling branching?

This is absurd, and repetitive. Here is a quote from Lamarck's Zoological Philosophy (an online English translation that you will readily find). To establish that his genealogy of animals (the main part that is seen in the figure in the Original Post), readers might consider this paragraph:

Lamarck said: Thus, to establish, with respect to living bodies, the state of things which we observe, the only thing nature had to produce directly (that is, without the combination of any organic action) was the simplest organic bodies, whether animals or plants. And she still reproduces these in the same way, every day, in favorable places and seasons. Now, by giving to these bodies which she herself created the capacity to feed themselves, to grow, to multiply, and to preserve each time the improvements they acquired in their organic structure and, finally, by passing on these same capacities to all the individuals produced by organic reproduction, over time, given the enormous diversity of always changing circumstances, the living bodies of all the classes and every order were, through these means, produced one after the other.

As for the point about "discontinuity", Lamarck does not have one great tree of life, he has separate trees for animals and plants. And some animals seem not to be connected to the tree for most other animals, as you can see on the figure. The issue was not whether there was at least one disconnect. The issue was whether Lamarck envisaged organisms evolving from other organisms. Ray denied that he did. Ray is wrong.

"These people" (only 2) did not propose evolution as understood since the rise of Darwinism. Both Lamarck and Erasmus Darwin did advocate the concept BUT the same was teleological (designed to occur). I have made this point several times.

Ray has been making this point several times, and it is irrelevant each time. The equivocation "evolution as understood since the rise of Darwinism" is ridiculously beside the point. I did answer this point. I pointed out that using the same rules we can establish that Newton did not formulate laws of motion ("as understood since the work of Einstein").. Since anyone with half a brain can see that Newton did formulate laws of motion, that rebuts Ray's statements. As for pointing out that there were only two of "these people", that is infinitely more than zero of them, which is the number Ray gave earlier. I would also add to Lamarck and Erasmus Darwin more people: * Robert Edmond Grant * Patrick Matthew * Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire * and even Richard Owen, to a limited extent and there were others.

Mr Martinez insists on what might be called a direct and discontinuous teleology. He appears to believe that God intervened at specific points in the history of life in a purposeful way, the ultimate purpose being to produce human beings "in his image". According to this understanding, each such intervention occurred discretely. I do not know if Mr Martinez also believes that the interventions necessarily took the form of direct creation of species by fiat or whether directed natural means might have been used (which is not to say that God is limited to natural means, only that He may use whatever means He wills).

The problem is that there is no evidence for this form of intervention, which would imply that there are clear and sharp dividing lines between the species. All the evidence is that there are no such lines now, nor have there ever been. The more closely speciation is studied, the more examples are found of populations that are separate species by some criteria, but not by others. Line and ring species are also data points. This has made the definition of the term "species" very fraught, but that is exactly as "Darwinian" evolution would predict.

That is the scientific objection to Mr Martinez's view - that there is no evidence for it, and all the observed evidence is against it. But there is a theological objection to it, also.

I know that this will not interest many, but Mr Martinez's view of teleology limits God. According to his view, God only controls the process of evolution by intervening on occasion. But God is not occasional. He is omnipresent. He is present in the interaction of every particle, wave and quantum that has happened, or will happen, or ever can happen. His intervention in the process of creating life need not have been miraculous, nor take the form of discrete actions. It could be continuous; and if natural means suffice, it is unreasonable to call on God for miracles. It is, in fact, directly proscribed, according to standard Christian theology.

Therefore, one may avow teleology and still not require miraculous or discontinuous intervention in the process. The process of evolution itself need not be intelligent or mindful, just as a machine tool is not intelligent or mindful. But machine tools, and evolution, may produce an intended result at the direction of a guiding intelligence.

That being the case, there is no theological objection to evolution as a continuous mindless process, while there is an important and cogent theological objection to the insistance on miraculous and discontinuous intervention in the origin of the species.

Dave Luckett said: Mr Martinez insists on what might be called a direct and discontinuous teleology. ...

Among Mr Martinez's claims of what Lamarck said, we find this:

"Both Lamarck and Erasmus Darwin did advocate the concept (of evolution) BUT the same was teleological (designed to occur)."

This, as I tried to show, does not mean that continuity of evolution was ruled out by Lamarck, as Mr Martinez seems to think. Lamarck might have accepted a deist interpretation of teleology, but he did not accept Mr Martinez's interpretation of it.

John said: If I may jump in, Robert Chambers' "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" was a notorious work published anonymously in the early 1840s which also paved the way for setting forth public acceptance - at least amongst the British intelligentsia - for the notion of biological evolution when Darwin and Wallace published their publications in 1858 and 1859 setting forth the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection.

British historian of science and English professor Rebecca Stott's newly published "Darwin's Ghosts: The Secret History of Evolution" deserves mention as an intellectual historical "guide" for those who are as acutely intellectually-challenged as Ray Martinez

Joe Felsenstein said: The issue was not whether there was at least one disconnect. The issue was whether Lamarck envisaged organisms evolving from other organisms. Ray denied that he did. Ray is wrong.

Ray Martinez: "These people" (only 2) did not propose evolution as understood since the rise of Darwinism. Both Lamarck and Erasmus Darwin did advocate the concept [of evolution] BUT the same was teleological (designed to occur). I have made this point several times.

Joe: Ray has been making this point several times, and it is irrelevant each time. The equivocation "evolution as understood since the rise of Darwinism" is ridiculously beside the point.

I did answer this point. I pointed out that using the same rules we can establish that Newton did not formulate laws of motion ("as understood since the work of Einstein").. Since anyone with half a brain can see that Newton did formulate laws of motion, that rebuts Ray's statements.

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: I have made this point several times.

But what's the POINT of your point? Even if we accept it as correct, why does it matter, and why should anyone care?

DS said: ... Since Ray has still failed to make any coherent point whatsoever, I suggest that it is time once again to dump his annoying and repetitive posts to the bathroom wall where they belong.

The only point I can discern is that Darwin was the first one to remove god from the equation, or something like that.

Henry J, could you clarify what you are saying? I have trouble with sorting out what you are referring to when you say "that", "it", and "this", and I'm not sure how to parse a sentence like "That atheists say that I get".

Joe Felsenstein said: Those are all correct for Lamarck's theory, though I think he did not talk much about (4), it was just implicit. However they are not a sufficient description of his theory -- he did propose that there were the two forces that accomplished these.

Eric Finn said: [...] I fail to see, why epigenetic changes can not be perceived as an example of a mechanism in both the “Lamarckian” and “modern Darwinian” evolution.

The only point I can discern is that Darwin was the first one to remove god from the equation, or something like that.

Eric Finn said:

Eric Finn said: [...] I fail to see, why epigenetic changes can not be perceived as an example of a mechanism in both the “Lamarckian” and “modern Darwinian” evolution.

I have changed my mind on this matter. Epigenetic changes can not be deemed to represent examples of the Lamarckian mechanisms (a general complexifying force, and the effects of use and disuse). The use and disuse should always affect the organs that are used or disused. Epigenetic changes can affect any organ. Moreover, the effects of the changes appear to be random in the sense that sometimes the changes help and sometimes they make it more difficult for the offspring to reach maturity. Maybe I now understand your statement in the opening post(?)