1. clock
  2. Jablonka & Lamb

Jablonka & Lamb

By clock on March 22, 2008.

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.

Tags
Books
evolution

More like this

Myth 3: Darwin was a Lamarckian
Myth 3: Darwin was actually a Lamarckian This one is subtle. It implies that Darwin, because he lacked a Mendelian account of heredity, was not actually a "true" (or Neo-)Darwinian. The error depends on the extent of what is named as a school of thought in science and why. As far as I know, the…
Another creationist gomer in a local paper
Even here in Minnesota, we get creationists ranting in the newspapers. This one is in the Brainerd Dispatch. In response to a previous writer's statement " ... modern neo-Darwinian synthesis of organic evolution is supported by more compelling and intellectually satisfying empirical evidence that…
Jonathan MacLatchie really is completely ineducable
It's like talking to a brick wall: MacLatchie is appallingly obtuse. When last I argued with him, I pointed out that the major failing of his entire developmental argument against evolution was that it was built on a false premise. As I said then, I can summarize it with one standard template: "…
I See Stupid People: The Michael Egnor Edition
To prevent brain damage, the Surgeon General recommends that statements by Michael Egnor be read using approved devices such as the StupidView9000 Orac bravely dives deeper into the Discovery Institute's creationist drivel, and reports on the continuing ignorant idiocy of Michael Egnor. I don't…

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?

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.