Anne-Marie wrote an excellent review of Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb.
I tend to think that the use of the term "neo-Lamarckism" (just like the use of "neo-Darwinism") is unnecessary as it will raise hackles and start linguistic battles instead of invite people to investigate new ways of thinking and new additions to the body of evolutionary theory.
Yes, we now understand that genes are necessary, but not sufficient, for heritability and we are increasingly including development in our accounts of evolution. And as much as I like the Developmental systems theory (DST), I don't think it needs a new name - it is just an addition to our thinking about biology, a newish and promising angle to use when looking at Life.
Comments
Shall I do a post on Lamarckism?
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | March 23, 2008 1:13 AM
Sure, I'd love to read that.
Posted by: Coturnix | March 23, 2008 2:20 AM
I had the same thought about their eagerness to label their approach as a new spin on Lamarckism, because it can be a loaded term, even among those who recognize the value in some of Lamarck's ideas. How far do we have to go in modifying an idea before it is a "neo" version, and how much further than that before it warrants a divorce from the original term?
Posted by: Anne-Marie | March 23, 2008 11:31 AM
At least neo-Darwinian school grew out of "old" Darwinian school of thought. I also never thought that their "neo-Lamarckian" stuff had any historical continuity with Lamarck - it looks new and modern to me, based on new information.
Posted by: Coturnix | March 25, 2008 10:28 PM