A pioneering evolutionary biologist turns 269

Posted 1 August 2013 by Joe Felsenstein

Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck, would have been 269 today (August 1), were it not for his untimely death at 85. But he did accomplish a few things -- he was one of the greatest pioneers of invertebrate biology (and he coined the words "invertebrate" and "biology"). And he put forward one of the very earliest theories of evolution, one that had proposed mechanisms. A major mechanism he proposed, to explain adaptation in place of natural selection, was that effects of use and disuse of organs would be passed on to the next generation by inheritance of acquired characters. Although that inheritance has come to be called "Lamarckian inheritance", he did not invent it -- it was commonly known to be true in those days.

He was wrong about inheritance, but he got another important fact right ... He argued that humans are most closely related to "the orang of Angola (Simia troglodytes Lin.)" which can easily be recognized as referring to the chimpanzee, or perhaps the bonobo. Which has to be one of the better guesses he made. Much of Lamarck's theory sounds impossibly mystical to us today, with mysterious complexifying forces. But science of the era (around 1800) often sounds that way today, and we have to remember that scientists felt that all these mysterious tendencies would be documented by science and made part of the body of knowledge. So let us raise a glass of excellent Picardy calvados to Lamarck. the greatest evolutionary biologist until Darwin, born on August 1, 1744.

66 Comments

John Harshman · 1 August 2013

Picardy calvados? You blaspheme! Calvados comes only from Basse-Normandie. By law.

Paul Burnett · 1 August 2013

John Harshman said: Picardy calvados? You blaspheme! Calvados comes only from Basse-Normandie. By law.

Well, let's be uncouth Americans and use some applejack instead.

Douglas Theobald · 1 August 2013

I don't know, John --- check out this pic:

http://www.metsdelestran.fr/remotemodules/product_presentation/102894/800x600_7a8c844ffccb8267b59e86919fa17785.jpeg?rand=1375413035

Its ACC, Pays du Bray, which is historically Picardie and certainly not Basse-Normandie. Must be some exceptions.

Robert Byers · 1 August 2013

Why toast error?
The important thing about him is that he guessed about mechanisms to explain biological origins.
Thats what is needed today. Evolutionists do not strive to question if their could be other natural mechanisms that drive biology!
In the future present evolutionism most likely will be seen like his inheritance stuff.
Not saying their dumb but they were wrong. Nice try.

His ideas of our relatedness to Orangatans is just as much a guess as the other stuff. Just as wrong. Its just looking at the form of the body and quickly concluding relationship. Its just a line of reasoning or guessing.

Who's to say inheritance of changes is not a little true. If the DNA can be changed by a creature then it would be sent to the offspring.
Who says its impossible that there is not mechanisms in the body..
I've been reading Einstein s book on his idea and he stresses about the corrections of wrong ideas in physics was not anticipated until the next discovery.
Biology is more difficult then physics and so its more likely first ideas can be corrected.
I see modern evolutionism just stuck in their position because of complete lack of scepticism because they couldn't even imagine other mechanisms. Of coarse also they are afraid of creationism.
If evolutionists are on the wrong side it will just put them in that group in science who got it wrong and without excuse.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q · 1 August 2013

There is some evidence that Lamarckian mechanisms do work. They seem to help newborn mammals to adapt their immune system to challenges their mothers experienced. Of course they don't change the germ line sequences and thus don't contribute to evolution directly. But they may have contributed to the evolution of mammalian v-gene repertoires.

Keelyn · 1 August 2013

Robert Byers said: Biology is more difficult then physics ...

Booby! You finally said something we both agree on!

Scott F · 1 August 2013

Actually, surprisingly, the gist of what Byers said this time is mostly correct. In the future, modern evolutionary theory could be shown to have been in error, just like after 200 years we have shown that many things that Lamarck believed were in error, just like after 150 years we have shown that many things that Darwin believed were in error.

The problem is one of degree. Today, we have 200 or 150 more years of evidence. Whatever theory might replace the modern theory of evolution would have 150 to 200 years more evidence to explain than Darwin or Lamarck had to deal with. Also, there were much larger gaps in what Darwin or Lamarck knew, and they both recognized those gaps at the time. Today, even though we're just starting to open the box of Evo-Devo, there are far fewer gaps in our knowledge than there used to be. Sure, there's the whole abiogenesis question that we haven't been able to crack yet. But even though we may not know what the gap is filled with, we still have a pretty well defined shape to that hole.

It's like Newtonian physics versus relativity. Newton's physics was revolutionary, but it had a much large gap to fill. Several hundred years later, Relativity had a much smaller gap to fill, and it was relatively (pardon the pun) a well defined gap at the time. True, it opened up whole other areas of scientific endeavor that hadn't been considered, but it was more a case of adding to or amending Newtonian physics, rather than replacing it.

Even if the modern theory of evolution is a theory in crisis, as the Creationists would want us to believe, it is a very successful theory in explaining a lot of things. Any theory that replaces it will have to do at least as well.

Scott F · 1 August 2013

Robert Byers said: Why toast error?

You misunderstand. We aren't toasting error. We are toasting the courage to look at the evidence available at the time, and to make predictions about how the world might work, and to propose experiments to show if those predictions were correct or not. Modern Creationists and IDiots don't have the courage to make predictions about how the world works, or to propose experiments, and they ignore all evidence. Making stuff up doesn't take courage. Sitting in your office composing press releases doesn't take courage. Sticking your fingers in your ears and your head in the sand doesn't lead to a brighter future.

Joe Felsenstein · 2 August 2013

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q said: There is some evidence that Lamarckian mechanisms do work. They seem to help newborn mammals to adapt their immune system to challenges their mothers experienced. ...

To be "Lamarckian" in the sense of Lamarck's theory of adaptation, we would have to have an inherited effect of use and disuse. The paper cited talks of lifelong (but not inherited) effects of mother's immunoglobins. That does not qualify as Lamarckian, since as you note there is no subsequent genetic inheritance.

Joe Felsenstein · 2 August 2013

Robert Byers said: Why toast error? ...

Almost any occasion is a good reason to drink Picardy calvados, or Spanish champagne, or ... But I would draw the line at toasting YEC views such as Byers's. Lamarck was way ahead of Byers.

Rolf · 2 August 2013

John Harshman said: Picardy calvados? You blaspheme! Calvados comes only from Basse-Normandie. By law.

Another Calvados lover? Cheers!

eric · 2 August 2013

Robert Byers said: Why toast error?

Because his errors were far less wrong than the errors made before him, so he advanced the state of human knowledge. Boy, you creos are grumps.

jwramseyjr · 2 August 2013

Robert Byers said: Why toast error?

Being wrong still teaches us things. We know now that “Lamarckian inheritance” is wrong in many ways, but the knowledge we gained in order to demonstrate this helps us to better understand the world we live in. The problem with creationism is that it doesn't even try. It contributes nothing that helps us to understand how the world works. "God did it." is the ultimate debate ender.

gnome de net · 2 August 2013

Robert Byers said: I see modern evolutionism just stuck in their position because of complete lack of scepticism because they couldn't even imagine other mechanisms.

Many other mechanisms can be and have been imagined, but none have produced any supporting evidence.

Bobsie · 2 August 2013

Robert Byers said: Biology is more difficult then physics ...

The corrent word is "than". "Then" is temporal, "than" is a comparison.

Keelyn · 2 August 2013

Bobsie said:
Robert Byers said: Biology is more difficult then physics ...
The corrent word is "than". "Then" is temporal, "than" is a comparison.

It is typical of Byers' word usage style [consistently wrong]. I suppose I could have marked 'sic' on it, but after all these years it seems rather pointless. I simply went with the essence of the statement.

harold · 2 August 2013

eric said:
Robert Byers said: Why toast error?
Because his errors were far less wrong than the errors made before him, so he advanced the state of human knowledge. Boy, you creos are grumps.

Actually, I don't think it's an "error" to advance a testable hypothesis which is later tested and found to be wrong. Lamarck didn't know about, and unjustifiably deny, a better explanation. He advanced an early hypothesis about something that was unexplained at the time. Granted, people do sometimes call early hypotheses that don't pan out "errors". But even if we do that, we can note the difference between proposing a testable explanation for something which is not yet explained, versus unjustifiably denying what is known in an asinine manner, creationist style. The latter is "error" by any standard. (Also, Lamarck could be toasted for his many correct observations.)

Paul Burnett · 2 August 2013

jwramseyjr said: Being wrong still teaches us things.

Being wrong CAN still teach us things...except that the IDiots and creotards refuse to learn from being wrong.

SLC · 2 August 2013

I may have posted this comment previously on this site and posted it a few days ago on Larry Moran's blog but since the issue of being wrong has come up, I will repeat it.

Enrico Fermi was quoted as once opining that a scientist who has never been wrong probably hasn't contributed much to advancing the state of scientific knowledge (a paraphrase). The three most important scientists, at least in the Common Era, who ever lived were occasionally wrong. Thus Isaac Newton was wrong about the ability of chemical processes to change lead into gold and about a strictly particulate theory of light being able to explain diffraction and interference. Darwin was wrong about inheritance being an analog process; it is a digital process. Einstein was wrong about the existence of black holes and almost certainly wrong about quantum mechanics. However, they were right far more ofter then they were wrong.

Carl Drews · 2 August 2013

James Watson's book The Double Helix contains entertaining stories of how both Watson and Linus Pauling made embarrassing mistakes in the course of their scientific research. They learned from their errors, made the necessary corrections, and went on to make great discoveries. They both have Nobel Prizes now.

Just Bob · 2 August 2013

SLC said: However, they were right far more ofter then they were wrong.

I'm not sure I'd even go that far. No matter how much they were wrong, they were right in some big, important ways. And that's what they're justifiably famous for. How many times did Edison fail at making a practical light bulb?

Henry J · 2 August 2013

Actually, I don’t think it’s an “error” to advance a testable hypothesis which is later tested and found to be wrong.

Just look at all those models of atoms and how those changed over the years.

Joe Felsenstein · 2 August 2013

We have at least one commenter here who is way ahead of all those famous scientists -- he's wrong about almost everything!

DS · 2 August 2013

Bobsie said:
Robert Byers said: Biology is more difficult then physics ...
The corrent word is "than". "Then" is temporal, "than" is a comparison.

DS · 2 August 2013

DS said:
Bobsie said:
Robert Byers said: Biology is more difficult then physics ...
The corrent word is "than". "Then" is temporal, "than" is a comparison.

Of coarse your write.

harold · 2 August 2013

Bobsie said:
Robert Byers said: Biology is more difficult then physics ...
The corrent word is "than". "Then" is temporal, "than" is a comparison.

Give Robert Byers a break. The fact that he used a correctly spelled word at all is a step in the right direction, even if it wasn't the word he meant.

Joe Felsenstein · 2 August 2013

Give us all a break, all of you.

Anyone with comments about Lamarck? Remember him?

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 2 August 2013

Scott F said: Actually, surprisingly, the gist of what Byers said this time is mostly correct. In the future, modern evolutionary theory could be shown to have been in error, just like after 200 years we have shown that many things that Lamarck believed were in error, just like after 150 years we have shown that many things that Darwin believed were in error. The problem is one of degree. Today, we have 200 or 150 more years of evidence. Whatever theory might replace the modern theory of evolution would have 150 to 200 years more evidence to explain than Darwin or Lamarck had to deal with. Also, there were much larger gaps in what Darwin or Lamarck knew, and they both recognized those gaps at the time. Today, even though we're just starting to open the box of Evo-Devo, there are far fewer gaps in our knowledge than there used to be. Sure, there's the whole abiogenesis question that we haven't been able to crack yet. But even though we may not know what the gap is filled with, we still have a pretty well defined shape to that hole. It's like Newtonian physics versus relativity. Newton's physics was revolutionary, but it had a much large gap to fill. Several hundred years later, Relativity had a much smaller gap to fill, and it was relatively (pardon the pun) a well defined gap at the time. True, it opened up whole other areas of scientific endeavor that hadn't been considered, but it was more a case of adding to or amending Newtonian physics, rather than replacing it. Even if the modern theory of evolution is a theory in crisis, as the Creationists would want us to believe, it is a very successful theory in explaining a lot of things. Any theory that replaces it will have to do at least as well.

Obligatory linky ... The Relativity of Wrong By Isaac Asimov

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 2 August 2013

Joe Felsenstein said: Give us all a break, all of you. Anyone with comments about Lamarck? Remember him?

I'll be good now.

It is not enough to discover and prove a useful truth previously unknown, but that it is necessary also to be able to propagate it and get it recognized. — Jean-Baptiste Lamarck Philosophie Zoologique (1809), Vol. 2, 450, trans. Hugh Elliot (1914), 404

John Harshman · 2 August 2013

Sure, Joe. I believe we've discussed this before, but can you establish that Lamarck believed in common descent from one (or a few) ancestors, as Darwin did? What is commonly thought to be his view is of many parallel lineages, each developing along a (somewhat branching) scala naturae, with the current biota being a snapshot of different age-cohorts caught at different points.

Joe Felsenstein · 2 August 2013

Well, I'm not sure "many" is the right word to use. His tree "showing the origin of the various animals" has one lineage starting at "Worms" and leading, via some branches to Insects, Arachnids, Crustaceans, Annelids, Cirrhipedes, Molluscs, Fishes, Repltiles, Birds, Monotremes, Amphiobious Mammals, Cetaceans, Ungulates, and "Ungiculate Mammals" (which is most other mammals). Separate from this tree but grouped suggestively near each other are Infusorians, Polyps, and "Radiarans". So animals have 2-4 origins. Plants would be separate.

There is also the complication that the tree is not exclusively showing ancestry -- if a form on the tree got wiped out, he felt that it could re-evolve from the form preceding it. Thus it was also a set of channels for what evolution could do.

John Harshman · 2 August 2013

Ah, but is that a tree relating extant animals by descent, or is it a tree showing the alternative paths that any of countless independent lineages may take on its journey up from slime? Only in the former case does it make the point you want to.

Joe Felsenstein · 2 August 2013

The answer to your question seems to be "yes". ;-)

Robert Byers · 2 August 2013

Scott F said: Actually, surprisingly, the gist of what Byers said this time is mostly correct. In the future, modern evolutionary theory could be shown to have been in error, just like after 200 years we have shown that many things that Lamarck believed were in error, just like after 150 years we have shown that many things that Darwin believed were in error. The problem is one of degree. Today, we have 200 or 150 more years of evidence. Whatever theory might replace the modern theory of evolution would have 150 to 200 years more evidence to explain than Darwin or Lamarck had to deal with. Also, there were much larger gaps in what Darwin or Lamarck knew, and they both recognized those gaps at the time. Today, even though we're just starting to open the box of Evo-Devo, there are far fewer gaps in our knowledge than there used to be. Sure, there's the whole abiogenesis question that we haven't been able to crack yet. But even though we may not know what the gap is filled with, we still have a pretty well defined shape to that hole. It's like Newtonian physics versus relativity. Newton's physics was revolutionary, but it had a much large gap to fill. Several hundred years later, Relativity had a much smaller gap to fill, and it was relatively (pardon the pun) a well defined gap at the time. True, it opened up whole other areas of scientific endeavor that hadn't been considered, but it was more a case of adding to or amending Newtonian physics, rather than replacing it. Even if the modern theory of evolution is a theory in crisis, as the Creationists would want us to believe, it is a very successful theory in explaining a lot of things. Any theory that replaces it will have to do at least as well.

Yes it could be error just like Einstein said about the previous ideas before his. I don't think evolutionary biology is a theory but only a hypothesis. They don't use biological evidence to back up the need for evidence for a theory to be claimed. They use fossils, genetics, morphology, etc etc. very little lab work. its not been 200 years of evidence but 200 years with non biological evidence added to Darwins non biological evidence. Thats why creationism always has a problem fighting evolution on the biology. Ther's no biology to sink your teeth into. ID people only now do use the same methods as evolutionists and get famous summer books. Yet both are wrong in thinking they are debating the biological evidence.

Robert Byers · 3 August 2013

gnome de net said:
Robert Byers said: I see modern evolutionism just stuck in their position because of complete lack of scepticism because they couldn't even imagine other mechanisms.
Many other mechanisms can be and have been imagined, but none have produced any supporting evidence.

I would say they haven't since Darwin. they liked his idea and that was that. I think it is in fact just a interim period ike I read about in the book I'm reading from Einstein on his idea. he stressed they were satisfied and only minor problems mildly hinted there was room for correction. This YEC thinks there is innate triggers , after thresholds are passed , that morph biology as needed. In the past and the present. The YEC must believe in great mechanisms as God stopped creating biology after the first week. yet biology has totally changed every creature on earth including man. for example we need a mechanism to explain quick colour change for mankind after the flood. No intermediates. whole populations upon migrating to africa, or Asia or europe all changed as we know them today. It could only be innate triggers that supplied the need immediately. Yes these are ancient actions and evidence for or against is slippery for sure. it can only be by hypothesis but not theory that conclusions are drawn. Nature provides the examples of chameleon , and artic creatures who change colour as a likely spectrum for innate triggers changing bodies whether fast, seasonal, or with people exceptional crises . Evolutionists too quickly closed the book on biological mechanisms and will be embarrassed within about 15 years i think.

TomS · 3 August 2013

Robert Byers said: Evolutionists too quickly closed the book on biological mechanisms and will be embarrassed within about 15 years i think.

However, creationists making the prediction that "evolution will be disproved within X years" have never been embarrassed by the repeated failure of that prediction for well over a century.

DS · 3 August 2013

How the fudge would Bobby boy know? What journals does he read? What is his field of expertise? What training does he have? How would he know what real scientists have and have not done? All he's got is more "end of evolution is near" crap, same as the last one hundred and fifty years. How boring.

TIme to dump the mindless boob to the bathroom wall once again.

John Harshman · 3 August 2013

Joe Felsenstein said: The answer to your question seems to be "yes". ;-)

No, seriously. Is there textual evidence for just what Lamarck meant by that? If he was referring to a real tree, where did the false impression originate?

gnome de net · 3 August 2013

Robert Byers said: [I]t can only be by hypothesis but not theory that conclusions are drawn.

Since you have restated your argument, I will restate my reply: Many other mechanisms can be and have been hypothesized, but none have produced any supporting evidence. Conclusions are not drawn from (or by) hypothesis; conclusions are drawn from evidence that supports a hypothesis. In the absence of supporting evidence, the hypothesis is revised or discarded. Your hypothesis about innate triggers, which seems to be testable and falsifiable, is the start of a scientific investigation. With supporting evidence it should be enthusiastically embraced by the scientific community. Without any evidence, as real as innate triggers may be, your hypothesis will receive no scientific acknowledgement.

harold · 3 August 2013

John Harshman said:
Joe Felsenstein said: The answer to your question seems to be "yes". ;-)
No, seriously. Is there textual evidence for just what Lamarck meant by that? If he was referring to a real tree, where did the false impression originate?

The degree to which Lamarck was an early pioneer is hard to overstate. As an extremely early pioneer, he formed his ideas in the complete absence of support from cell biology, biochemistry, classic or molecular genetics, or any of the other basic biomedical fields of knowledge that we take for granted today. About the only biomedical field that was to any degree moderately well established before Lamarck, to the best of my knowledge, was normal human anatomy. There had also been a few other sporadic discoveries, such as Harvey's demonstration of the circulation of the blood, and some obscure early microscopy. Linnaeus was an approximate contemporary. I would suspect that it is very difficult to hammer some of Lamarck's systematic thinking into modern terminology. He clearly grasped that organisms may have less or differently adapted ancestors (and by implication, descendants).

John Harshman · 3 August 2013

Harold,

That doesn't seem to be any sort of response to the question I asked. Have I missed something?

Joe Felsenstein · 3 August 2013

DS said: How the fudge would Bobby boy know? .... TIme to dump the mindless boob to the bathroom wall once again.

His responses are at least somewhere near the topic. The real problem, as always, is the large amount of traffic that people generate trying to answer him. We have at least as much of a troll-chaser problem as we have a troll problem. For now I'm not dumping all these people to the BW.

harold · 3 August 2013

John Harshman said: Sure, Joe. I believe we've discussed this before, but can you establish that Lamarck believed in common descent from one (or a few) ancestors, as Darwin did? What is commonly thought to be his view is of many parallel lineages, each developing along a (somewhat branching) scala naturae, with the current biota being a snapshot of different age-cohorts caught at different points.

To directly reply to this - What I meant immediately above is that efforts to "translate" Lamarck's views into modern terminology should be done with strong awareness of the very different context in which Lamarck worked. I'm not an expert on his writings, and completely defer to the expertise of anyone who is, but I would be surprised if he reached the conclusion, even intuitively, of universal common descent. Parallel "specially created" lineages with evolution within each would seem like a plausible eighteenth century idea, and a very insightful one at that. For someone lacking even nineteenth century biochemistry, genetics, paleontology, etc, to conceptualize universal common descent, would be most remarkable.

Joe Felsenstein · 3 August 2013

John Harshman said: No, seriously. Is there textual evidence for just what Lamarck meant by that? If he was referring to a real tree, where did the false impression originate?

There is some textual evidence but (I am embarrassed to say) I have to defer searching for that for about a week, as I am finishing up work prior to traveling tomorrow to co-lead a weeklong course in North Carolina. I found some relevant links using Google with the terms: Lamarck tree phylogeny

James · 3 August 2013

I have no idea what this one was in response to, but it is way OT, so ... (JF)

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Ray Martinez · 3 August 2013

Joe Felsenstein wrote: "Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck, would have been 269 today (August 1), were it not for his untimely death at 85. But he did accomplish a few things – he was one of the greatest pioneers of invertebrate biology (and he coined the words “invertebrate” and “biology”). And he put forward one of the very earliest theories of evolution..."(boldfacing added).

If I remember correctly Joe has created a topic honoring Lamarck on his birthday for the third year in a row; and each time he has made the exact same error, and each time I have responded by pointing out his error. Once again: Joe would have us believe that Lamarck (b.1744--d.1829) offered and understood evolution as we understand evolution since the rise of Darwinism (1859-1872). This is seen in the quote above....as if Lamarckian evolution was completely natural or unintelligent like Darwinian evolution.

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/lamarck1.html David Clifford, Ph.D., Cambridge University "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."

Hence, Lamarck included a place for God IN the production of species. Lamarck was not a transmutationist or Evolutionist, but a Creationist.

John Harshman · 3 August 2013

Hence, Lamarck included a place for God IN the production of species. Lamarck was not a transmutationist or Evolutionist, but a Creationist.

If what you quote is correct, wouldn't he more properly be viewed as both?

Joe Felsenstein · 3 August 2013

For the third year in a row, Ray Martinez has used the same word game:

Ray Martinez said: ... If I remember correctly Joe has created a topic honoring Lamarck on his birthday for the third year in a row; and each time he has made the exact same error, and each time I have responded by pointing out his error. Once again: Joe would have us believe that Lamarck (b.1744--d.1829) offered and understood evolution as we understand evolution since the rise of Darwinism (1859-1872). ...

... and once again I have to point out Ray's weasel-words "as we understand evolution since the rise of Darwinism". Of course, and likewise Isaac Newton did not have any laws of motion "as we understand laws of motion since the work of Einstein". Sheesh, this is tiresome.

Ray Martinez · 3 August 2013

John Harshman said:
Hence, Lamarck included a place for God IN the production of species. Lamarck was not a transmutationist or Evolutionist, but a Creationist.
If what you quote is correct, wouldn't he more properly be viewed as both?

In our times, when a person advocates God to have any role IN the production of species, the same means, automatically, that the entire process is teleological; so the answer is no: Lamarck cannot be viewed to be two contradictory things at the same time (Creationist and Evolutionist).

Joe Felsenstein · 3 August 2013

Ray Martinez said: In our times, when a person advocates God to have any role IN the production of species, the same means, automatically, that the entire process is teleological; so the answer is no: Lamarck cannot be viewed to be two contradictory things at the same time (Creationist and Evolutionist).

Funny thing is, Ray is terribly picky about who, other than him, is a real creationist. He has been heard many times to say that people like Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, or William Dembski don't qualify, as they admit the possibility of some evolution. In Ray's book, almost everyone other than him are not true creationists. Except, apparently, Lamarck.

Robert Byers · 3 August 2013

gnome de net said:
Robert Byers said: [I]t can only be by hypothesis but not theory that conclusions are drawn.
Since you have restated your argument, I will restate my reply: Many other mechanisms can be and have been hypothesized, but none have produced any supporting evidence. Conclusions are not drawn from (or by) hypothesis; conclusions are drawn from evidence that supports a hypothesis. In the absence of supporting evidence, the hypothesis is revised or discarded. Your hypothesis about innate triggers, which seems to be testable and falsifiable, is the start of a scientific investigation. With supporting evidence it should be enthusiastically embraced by the scientific community. Without any evidence, as real as innate triggers may be, your hypothesis will receive no scientific acknowledgement.

Yes supporting evidence is the origin for a theory to be proclaimed. My innate idea is difficult to test and so hypothesis is all there is. i guess I mean supporting evidence can be there but not biological evidence. This IS the point about evolution I strive to point out. Its not a biological theory because its supporting evidence is not biological evidence. its other supports. therefor i say its just a hypothesis still and not worthy to claim to be a theory.

Joe Felsenstein · 3 August 2013

OK, folks, let's stop right there. I am going to let the incomparable Byers have that as his last word. Any further discussion on evidence, conclusions, hypotheses etc. will go on on the Wall.

Back to Lamarck ...

Scott F · 4 August 2013

My response (and a question) to Robert is on the Wall.

Peace.

Joe Felsenstein · 4 August 2013

Here is a quote from Lamarck, from this web page of quotes from Philosophie Zoologique:

Conclusion adopted hitherto: Nature (or her Author) in creating animals, foresaw all the possible kinds of environment in which they would have to live, and endowed each species with a fixed organisation and with a definite and invariable shape, which compel each species to live in the places and climates where we actually find them, and there to maintain the habits which we know in them. My individual conclusion: Nature has produced all the species of animals in succession, beginning with the most imperfect or simplest, and ending her work with the most perfect, so as to create a gradually increasing complexity in their organisation; these animals have spread at large throughout all the habitable regions of the globe, and every species has derived from its environment the habits that we find in it and the structural modifications which observation shows us.

Note that Lamarck describes the view "adoped hitherto" (i.e. up to now) as that "Nature, (or her Author)" has created animals of all kinds. Lamarck's own "individual" view involves just "Nature" having produced animals "in succession". This ladder, a version of the Great Chain of Being, however is not perfectly linear, as Lamarck was forced to branch it sometimes. Further reading of Lamarck, which you can do here will show that species in this linear order cannot permanently go extinct, but will re-evolve from their predecessors. Thus Lamarck's tree is partly genealogical, partly a preordained track of development. What is important about Lamarck's scheme is that (a) he had a mechanism, use and disuse, which along with inheritance of acquired characters explained adaptation, and (b) he had different animals arising from each other. Even though they did the latter repeatedly, and even though there was also a rather mystical general complexifying force present too, these were predecessors of the more recent notion of a phylogeny. The use-and-disuse and the inheritance of the resulting changes will be found at the same web page as the above quotes. These two "Laws" of Lamarck are also found about 2/3 of the way through the complete translation, which is in that versio unfortunately unpaginated . An interesting student essay on Lamarck's thought will be found (strangely formatted on my browser) here.

gnome de net · 4 August 2013

David Clifford, Ph.D., Cambridge University “In 1809 [Lamarck] 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.”

The flaw/error occurs here: "...as a species transformed into a more advanced one, it left a gap..." which needed to be filled by the Creator. Is this flaw/error in Lamarck's theory or in Clifford's interpretation of Lamarck's theory?

John Harshman · 4 August 2013

So it appears that we have a branching conveyor belt (or perhaps an escalator would be the proper term), in which species are always moving toward the top steps and new species are always getting on at the bottom.

Joe Felsenstein · 4 August 2013

gnome de net said: ... The flaw/error occurs here: "...as a species transformed into a more advanced one, it left a gap..." which needed to be filled by the Creator. Is this flaw/error in Lamarck's theory or in Clifford's interpretation of Lamarck's theory?

My (limited) understanding is that after a gap appears, the species below it evolves upwards to fill it. I do not see why Clifford attributes that to intervention by a Creator. Can anyone find where this is in Lamarck? Given that Lamarck assumed a complexifying force, wouldn't he just assume that this natural force would do the job?

John Harshman said: So it appears that we have a branching conveyor belt (or perhaps an escalator would be the proper term), in which species are always moving toward the top steps and new species are always getting on at the bottom.

I'm not so sure the conveyor belt would keep moving. Lamarck's view seems more like a tree growing upwards, with growth only at the tip of the trunk. (Not counting those interior gaps filling in, which doesn't quite work with the tree analogy). Lamarck's genealogy of life also branches like a tree, but only once in a long while.

John Harshman · 4 August 2013

Whether the escalator moves or not depends on the frequency of extinction, I suppose.

apokryltaros · 4 August 2013

John Harshman said: Whether the escalator moves or not depends on the frequency of extinction, I suppose.

Movement of the escalator depends on the availability of new ecological niches, not extinction frequency. After all, your parents do not need to automatically die in order to make room for you.

John Harshman · 5 August 2013

Movement of the escalator depends on the availability of new ecological niches, not extinction frequency. After all, your parents do not need to automatically die in order to make room for you.

Let's recall that there is in fact no escalator. We're talking about Lamarck's faulty ideas, not the real world. And in Lamarck's world, the availability of a new ecological niche results from extinction of the previous incumbent.

Scott F · 5 August 2013

John Harshman said:
Movement of the escalator depends on the availability of new ecological niches, not extinction frequency. After all, your parents do not need to automatically die in order to make room for you.
Let's recall that there is in fact no escalator. We're talking about Lamarck's faulty ideas, not the real world. And in Lamarck's world, the availability of a new ecological niche results from extinction of the previous incumbent.

I don't think anyone here believes there is an escalator. The discussion seems to be figuring out what Lamarck was thinking, not figuring out what we should be thinking. If this statement is accurate:

"...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.”

then it implies to me that the new ecological niche results, not from the previous incumbent going extinct, but from the previous incumbent leaving that niche by "improving" itself to fill another niche.

TomS · 5 August 2013

Joe Felsenstein said:
gnome de net said: ... The flaw/error occurs here: "...as a species transformed into a more advanced one, it left a gap..." which needed to be filled by the Creator. Is this flaw/error in Lamarck's theory or in Clifford's interpretation of Lamarck's theory?
My (limited) understanding is that after a gap appears, the species below it evolves upwards to fill it. I do not see why Clifford attributes that to intervention by a Creator. Can anyone find where this is in Lamarck? Given that Lamarck assumed a complexifying force, wouldn't he just assume that this natural force would do the job?

My (limited) interpretation of what Clifford was saying is that, while the upper levels can be filled by evolution of lower-level species, the species at the bottom have to be filled by some other process - spontaneous generation and/or creation. That seems to make sense, but whether Lamarck explicitly said that or whether Clifford is saying that he did, I don't claim any special knowledge.

Henry J · 5 August 2013

But did he really think that the entire species had to change in order for a change to occur, rather than a subset of it changing, and leaving the other subset where it was?

John Harshman · 5 August 2013

then it implies to me that the new ecological niche results, not from the previous incumbent going extinct, but from the previous incumbent leaving that niche by “improving” itself to fill another niche.

My understanding is that there is a top to the escalator, so that when every step is filled, everything stops; there can be no evolution at the top, only extinction. So, once the escalator has run for sufficient time such that a species has reached the top, further vacancies are driven only by extinction, though any given vacancy does propagate downward as the species on the step below the vacancy moves up, creating a vacancy on its old step. And a better metaphor than an escalator might be a large set of linked escalators, one per lineage, with only one step occupied per escalator but with bars reaching sideways from each occupied step preventing species on other escalators from occupying the corresponding step. But that gets hard to visualize.

Ray Martinez · 5 August 2013

Joe Felsenstein said:
Ray Martinez said: In our times, when a person advocates God to have any role IN the production of species, the same means, automatically, that the entire process is teleological; so the answer is no: Lamarck cannot be viewed to be two contradictory things at the same time (Creationist and Evolutionist).
Funny thing is, Ray is terribly picky about who, other than him, is a real creationist. He has been heard many times to say that people like Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, or William Dembski don't qualify, as they admit the possibility of some evolution. In Ray's book, almost everyone other than him are not true creationists. Except, apparently, Lamarck.

Joe definitely has a valid point. I've argued Behe, Meyer, and Dembski not real Creationists based on acceptance (not possibility) of species mutability. Of course such argument pleases the aforementioned. They don't want to be viewed as Creationists; seems they are ashamed of the Creator, the Father of their alleged Savior. I'm willing to retract my identification of Lamarck to have been a Creationist for the time being. Obviously, all things considered, the issue at hand is complex, requiring more thought before conclusions can be made.

DS · 5 August 2013

Thank you Ray for admitting that you could be wrong.