Leave Lamarck Alone! Why the Use of the Term “Lamarckism” and Its Cognates Must Be Shunned

Tanghe, Koen

doi:10.1353/pbm.2019.0004

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The last case that could be made against Lamarckian accounts of modern epigenetics is that they are retrospective reinterpretations of a history that owes nothing to either Lamarck's own 'Philosophie zoologique' [33] nor to the standard Lamarckian theories of the period 1880-1920 [13,14,34]. On the contrary, the current understanding of the molecular mechanisms of epigenetic inheritance comes from the research program of standard molecular biology.…”

Section: (D) a Discontinuous Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Epigenetic inheritance and evolution: a historian's perspective

Loison

2021

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this article is to put the growing interest in epigenetics in the field of evolutionary theory into a historical context. First, I assess the view that epigenetic inheritance could be seen as vindicating a revival of (neo)Lamarckism. Drawing on Jablonka's and Lamb's considerable output, I identify several differences between modern epigenetics and what Lamarckism was in the history of science. Even if Lamarckism is not back, epigenetic inheritance might be appealing for evolutionary biologists because it could potentiate two neglected mechanisms: the Baldwin effect and genetic assimilation. Second, I go back to the first ideas about the Baldwin effect developed in the late nineteenth century to show that the efficiency of this mechanism was already linked with a form of non-genetic inheritance. The opposition to all forms of non-genetic inheritance that prevailed at the time of the rise of the Modern Synthesis helps to explain why the Baldwin effect was understood as an insignificant mechanism during the second half of the twentieth century. Based on this historical reconstruction, in §4, I examine what modern epigenetics can bring to the picture and under what conditions epigenetic inheritance might be seen as strengthening the causal relationship between adaptability and adaptation. Throughout I support the view that the Baldwin effect and genetic assimilation, even if they are quite close, should not be conflated, and that drawing a line between these concepts is helpful in order to better understand where epigenetic inheritance might endorse a new causal role. This article is part of the theme issue ‘How does epigenetics influence the course of evolution?’

show abstract

Section: (D) a Discontinuous Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Epigenetic inheritance and evolution: a historian's perspective

Loison

2021

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…his contemporaries only knew two biological dimensions: the somatic and the cultural or 'episomatic' dimension (Tanghe, 2019). He believed in the somatic inheritance of specific, somatically acquired biological characters.…”

Section: Lamarckismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…He believed in the somatic inheritance of specific, somatically acquired biological characters. Of course, we now know that life counts not two but four dimensions and four kinds of inheritance systems: somatic, episomatic, genetic and epigenetic (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005;Tanghe, 2019). The genetic inheritance system is generally considered to be the main inheritance system, though.…”

Section: Lamarckismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Or, more accurately: Weismann used the phrase 'inheritance of acquired characters' to mean only 'germ-plasm inheritance of acquired somatic characters'. One thing is certain: the somatic inheritance of somatically acquired variations, the genetic inheritance of genetically acquired variations (i.e., mutations) and the epigenetic inheritance of epigenetically acquired variations (i.e., epimutations) do not constitute Lamarckian forms of inheritance or Lamarckism in the Weismannian or strong meaning of the term and are not prohibited by genetics or the MS (Tanghe, 2019).…”

Section: Lamarckismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Weismann’s Barrier and Crick’s Barrier Still Preclude Two Kinds of Lamarckism

Tanghe

2021

Biosemiotics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In his target article 'The Illusions of the Modern Synthesis', Denis Noble argues that the Modern Synthesis is undermined by the major findings of molecular biology. The supposed falsification of Weisman's Barrier and of standard interpretations of Francis Crick's Central Dogma has paved the way for Lamarckian forms of inheritance which are prohibited by that theory of evolution. I argue that August Weismann postulated two barriers against two kinds of Lamarckism. However, his second barrier was speculative. It was made more concrete through the articulation of Francis Crick's Central Dogma. These two barriers still preclude Lamarckism or Lamarckian forms of inheritance, as understood by Weismann.

show abstract

“…I do not agree, though, with his claim that "neither Darwin nor the present synthetic theory of evolution nor modern genetics are interested in history" (Roger 1980, p. 282). See, in respect with Lamarck's ahistorical or "biotheoretical" theory of evolution, also Tanghe (2019). 45.…”

Section: The Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Fate of William Whewell’s Four Palætiological Domains: A Comparative Study

Tanghe

2019

Perspectives on Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1847, the British polymath William Whewell pointed out that the sciences for which he, in 1837, had coined the term “palætiological” have much in common and that they may reflect light upon each other by being treated together. This recommendation is here put into practice in a specific way, to wit, not by comparing the palaetiological sciences that Whewell distinguished himself but by comparing the general historical development of the scientific study of the four broad palætiological domains that he enumerated in 1847: the solar system, the Earth, its vegetable and animal creation, and man. For wide and various as their subjects are, it will be found that [the palætiological sciences] have all certain principles, maxims, and rules of procedure in common; and thus may reflect light upon each other by being treated together. William Whewell ( 1847 , 1, p. 640)

show abstract

Leave Lamarck Alone! Why the Use of the Term “Lamarckism” and Its Cognates Must Be Shunned

Cited by 4 publications

References 41 publications

Epigenetic inheritance and evolution: a historian's perspective

Epigenetic inheritance and evolution: a historian's perspective

Weismann’s Barrier and Crick’s Barrier Still Preclude Two Kinds of Lamarckism

The Fate of William Whewell’s Four Palætiological Domains: A Comparative Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About