All creatures seem subject to genetic data exchange but human beings also seem to transfer a lot of non-genetic data important to survival, not just to offspring. Should Lamarck be given another chance instead of being taught as the guy who got it wrong?
2007-03-04 22:22:01 · 8 answers · asked by mince42 4 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
Well, Lamarck was wrong in one way - and right in another. We cannot apply his theory to the biological evolution, but it works on cultural development. The think once invented is more and more developed by the whole society.
2007-03-05 00:58:15 · answer #1 · answered by zuska m 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It seems that LaMarck routinely reappears in discussions relating to the genetic transfer of "information" between generations. The notion that giraffes developed longer and longer necks because of needing to feed on higher and higher branches does not speak to a LaMarckian scheme but rather to a selection, in a particular locale, for a species member with an advantageous trait for survival. The only way that there are large scale changes in genetic transfer of a new trait in limited generations is the occurrence of a new mutation that affords a distinct advantage to the line in which it developed.
2007-03-05 07:32:31 · answer #2 · answered by Gene Guy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, Lamarck was clearly mistaken in his basic assumption that "knowledge" could be transferred without a concious explicit transfer occuring.
Try this thought experiment; imagine that for several generations you shave the heads of all members of a particular family; do you expect them to start being born with no hair and then never growing any?
2007-03-05 06:33:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
As Einstein was to Newton there will be someone the same but to Darwin. Lamarck's ideas will form part of this new insight.
2007-03-05 06:31:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lamark had it wrong. For instance, genetically humans are born with the ability to learn language. They are taught the language of their parents, but no matter how many generations go by using the same language, no child will ever be born knowing the language of her parents.
2007-03-05 09:53:01 · answer #5 · answered by Joan H 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, because we actively teach our knowledge to our offspring, it doesn't just flow into them passively. In the Lamarckian scenario the giraffe is not teaching its baby to have a longer neck, the neck just gradually gets longer through straining movements - kind of like magic; there was no proposed mechanism.
2007-03-05 11:40:41 · answer #6 · answered by Alyosha 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Currently the coverage of evolution in the classroom is exceptionally shallow.
2007-03-05 06:38:34 · answer #7 · answered by Runa 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
this is something which had put me into thinking as well. i didnt get the answer but i personally feel that he should get better treatment, (even if some think that he had got it entirely wrong.)
2007-03-05 06:27:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋