?One thing at a time! I was answering Paul Brandon's saying that "Darwin relied on Lamarck for a mechanism underlying natural selection". This is not the case. Natural selection is an alternative process to Lamarckian theory, as is evident from Darwin's writing in 1844 that in his theory "the means [of the transformation of species] are wholly different" from that postulated by Lamarck. (This was written when he had just completed his first major sketch of his theory.)
Chris Green is right that I should not have written that natural selection was in "opposition" to Lamarckian theory, rather that it was an alternative theory. Chris writes: >"On the contrary," Darwin allowed an increasingly large role >for Lamarckian evolution over the course of the six editions of >_Origin of Species._ Although Darwin saw that his mechanism >was different from Lamarck's. he did not rule out the Lamarckian > mechanism (these are two quite distinct questions). The issue here (if there is one!) seems to be a matter of degree. I wrote that >My understanding is that in later editions of *On the >Origin of Species* Darwin allowed a very limited role >for Lamarckian mechanisms because he had problems >with inheritance, and with the estimations of the age of >the earth at that time. I don't have expertise on this topic, but I'll quote the words of someone who does. The evolutionary philosopher Helena Cronin writes that "in Britain, by the second half of the nineteenth century, most Darwinians (including Darwin himself – but not Wallace) accepted use-inheritance as a subsidiary agent in evolution" (*The Ant and the Peacock: Altruism and Sexual Selection from Darwin to Today*, 1991, p. 36). In other words, although Darwin allowed an increasing role for Lamarckian mechanisms through the editions of *Origin* it remained *subsidiary* to the main process of natural selection. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org -------------------------------------------------------- Re: [tips] What A Day: Mystery, Redemption, Astrology, Astronomy, History, and Tragedy Christopher D. Green Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:30:55 -0700 Allen Esterson wrote: > Paul Brandon wrote: >> Darwin himself relied on Lamarck for a mechanism underlying >> natural selection, since he wasn't aware of Mendel's work. > > On the contrary, the theory of natural selection was in *opposition* to > Lamarck's theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In a > letter to Joseph Hooker in 1844 Darwin wrote that "the conclusions I am > led to are not widely different from his [Lamarck's]; though the means > are wholly so." More generally, Lamarck's evolutionary theory was > teleological (i.e., purposive), whereas natural selection is > non-teleological. > > My understanding is that in later editions of *On the Origin of > Species* Darwin allowed a very limited role for Lamarckian mechanisms > because he had problems with inheritance, and with the estimations of > the age of the earth at that time. > "On the contrary," Darwin allowed an increasingly large role for Lamarckian evolution over the course of the six editions of _Origin of Species._ Although Darwin saw that his mechanism was different from Lamarck's. he did not rule out the Lamarckian mechanism (these are two quite distinct questions). The idea that Darwin and Lamarck were "opposed" to each other didn't really become a dominant thread until after Darwin's death, when August Weismann's work became available in English. There were exceptions earlier, of course (e.g., Darwin's leading advocate in the US, Chauncey Wright, bemoaned the fact that many people calling themselves "Darwinians" in his day (the 1870s) were really "Lamarckians"), but many evolutionists tried to find an accommodation between the two theories. The modern presumption that Lamarck and Darwin were "opposed" to each other is primarily the result of a reconstruction of the debate that took place in the 1890s. Mendel's work was a separate issue. Indeed, when it was "rediscovered" around 1900, it was widely thought to be incompatible with natural selection, until the "modern synthesis" was put together in the 1940s by Huxley's grandson (Julian) and others. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=1793 or send a blank email to leave-1793-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
