Why is it hard to use Lamark's thinking to substantiate evolution in plants?

Question

Why does Lamark's theory of Acquired Traits difficult to use specificly for the evolution of plants?

Answer 1

It doesn't work and it's not true, so it can't be used. Lamarkian theory could postulate that you might pass the gene for red hair down to your offspring if you went to the beauty salon and dyed your hair red. Our environment does shape our choices which can lead us to make certina reproductive choices, or can lead us to favor certain characteristics in the population. That leads to natural selection.

Answer 2

It's not just plants. It's everything. Lamark's hypothesis just doesn't fit the facts of evolution.

Acquired traits are not passed on to the next generation in plants or in any other living thing.

Answer 3

IMO, it's because Lamarck's ideas on evolution usually require "effort" on the part of individuals:
for example, animals stretching their necks to reack treetop leaves, and evolving into giraffes.

Plants don't stretch their necks. Plants don't "try out" different flower colours to see what results in attracting the most pollinating insects. Plants don't decide to not bother shedding their leaves in autumn/fall to see if being evergreen is better than being deciduous.

In animals, of course, you can also see how Lamarckian evolution doesn't work: you don't hit your dog in the face with a shovel in order to breed bulldogs, do you? :-)

Answer 4

This is due to the fact that some plants that have broken parts do not produce offsprings with the same defect that they have. In humans' case , let's say that a man who is missing an arm most likely would not produce a one-armed offspring.

Answer 5

If a theory does not fit the facts, then you need to work a new theory. If you go to the point of irreducible complexity you will find that evolution on the micro level is a statistic improbability