On this day ...

i-6e4b15d4d581c7059d8597c7cdf034c4-180px-Jean-baptiste_lamarck2.jpg

On this day in 1829, Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Le Chavalier de Lamarck died penniless and blind in Paris. Lamarck is, of course, popularly remembered as the father of Lamarckism. But let us remember a few things - Darwin accepted "Lamarckism" (the inheritance of acquired characteristics) and Lamarck was an evolutionist at a time when the likes of Georges Cuvier were vehemently anti-evolution. Yes, he was wrong about spontaneous generation. Yes, he was wrong about the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
Yes, he was wrong as a teleologist. And perhaps he was wrong about the progressive nature of the fossil record. But he was a true evolutionist at a time where it was unpopular to be such. Perhaps the French are indeed right to see him as the "Fondateur de la doctrine de l'évolution."

More like this

Usually, Begley is reasonably good on science, but her latest piece is one big collection of misconceptions. It reflects a poor understanding of the science and of history, in that it confuses long-standing recognition of the importance of environmental factors in gene expression with a sudden…
In the course of tracking down the usual suspects in the history of the species concept, I often come across some unusual ones. So I thought I'd start blogging them as I find them. Today's suspects are Jean-Baptiste René Robinet (1735-1820) and Pierre Trémaux (1818-1895). Robinet was one of the…
"... for in all the boundless realm of philosophy and science no thought has brought with it so much pain, or in the end has led to such a full measure of the joy which comes of intellectual effort and activity as that doctrine of Organic Evolution which will ever be associated, first and foremost…
In which our hero discovers the joys of walking... Next on my trip, I visited David Williams, a paleobiologist at the Museum of Natural History in London. We talked at length about the nature of systematics (which is something I am increasingly less certain about) and of the history of species…

One minor nit: Darwin's "Lamarckism" consisted in the view that variants that were used would be more frequently inherited, and those that were not would not be. This is not the same thing as inheritance of acquired characteristics, which in any case wasn't unique or original to Lamarck.

Lamark is indeed one of the founders of evolutionary biology. He produced a plausible and testable hypothesis that caught the public's imagination and pushed the discipline forward. If we drop every predecessor from our ranks who's scientific hypothesis was proven wrong....

If Lamark were alive today I wonder what his Blog would look like and who would frequent the site and comment?

By Bruce Thompson (not verified) on 28 Dec 2006 #permalink