Talk:Lamarckism/Archive 1

Intentional Deconstruction?

Can someone explain why Lamark’s theory is listed as being based on Essentialism? This seems to tie it in with controversial presuppositions, while excluding other perspectives on evolution, such as Darwin’s, from the same context. It is merely the mis-understanding of genetic variation (i.e. Darwin) that limits its continuity with Lamark’s theory and making another general theory more coherent and comprehensive.

Either both or neither should be related to essentialism, I am not making a case for one or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.71.67.26 (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Darwin and Lamarckism

"As science historian Stephen Jay Gould has noted, if Lamarck had been aware of Darwin's proposed mechanism of natural selection, there is no reason to assume he would not have accepted it as a more likely alternative to his "own" mechanism." I am concerned about this passage--I don't know if it reflects what Gould said accurately, but it is not logical. Natural selection and Lamarckism aren't necessarily alternatives. In fact, Darwin was a committed Lamarckian--that is, he believed changes in somatic cells altered the germ line, particularly in his theory of "gemmules." Natural selection and Lamarckism are not incompatible, the latter provides a mechanism for the generation of the variation upon which natural selection acts. Lamarckism, interpreted broadly as heritable changes in the germline due to environmental influence, has not and can not be rigorously disproven (you can't prove that something NEVER happens in biology). It is in conflict with aspects of the Modern Synthesis, but not Darwin. Smh73 (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is very true. Lamarck himself only exposed this mecanism in 1 chapter (out of 32) of a single book. Darwin made a theory of it and proposed it as a (the?) main mecanism of evolution. --denis "spir" (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Stylistic concerns

A blacksmith, through his work, strengthens the muscles in his arms. His sons will have like muscular development when they mature sounds much better to me than similar muscular development, although I admit the use of "like" in this manner is perhaps a bit archaic or at least not widely known in American English. --Marshman 17:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I confess similar sounds much more familiar and much better to me than like, although I admit I'm not a native English hearer. --KYPark 03:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I said, that use is an older, but very correct use of the term "like" in English, and still used in the sciences. The meaning is "similar". Unfortunately, the word "like" is much abused in modern American (has become a slang expresson), and many people have very different experiences with it. I for one prefer not to write to the lowest common denominator (I think there is a Simple English Wikipedia for that). The fact that "simlar" sounds better to you just shows limitation in your experience with English (which you admit); but none of us should just accept limitation. Reading should expand our experiences. Coinsider that you have now learned another correct use of the word "like". --Marshman 19:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it sounds better regardless. A side note: the Simple English Wikipedia has long struggled, and I doubt that it will last another year. So Wikipedia itself may one be forced to consider and cater to that denominator. --Maru (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia is an important resource, whose natural constituencies are 1) young English speakers 2) others whose English is limited. 3) Adults with learning difficulties. We need more work from skilled contributors to improve this branch of WP. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia makes learning easy. We use common words, and short sentences. It helps these people: 1) Young children 2) Those who only know a little English 3) People who find it difficult to learn. If you can write well, please help us grow! Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Simple:WP and simple:Simple English Wikipedia

Respect....

I changed the intro to: Lamarckism is a theory of biological evolution proposed by French biologist Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck. Developed in the early 19th century, Lamarckism holds that traits acquired (or diminished) during the lifetime of an organism can be passed on to the offspring. Lamarck based his theory on two observations, in his day considered to be generally true:

...as I believe Lamarckism is not a "discredited theory" any more than Darwin is "discredited" for some of the things he said in "Varieties..." Msr.Lamarck was a true genious of his day and the intro as previously written was not objective enough.

For that same reason I deleted the link to "Obsolete Scientific Theories" though I might have been a little hasty in that. (spirit of free speech and all) I'll try to replace it.

Further, I strongly object to the phrase: the main argument against Lamarckism is that experiments simply do not support the second law—purely "acquired traits" are not inherited.

Evolution of any sort generally takes eons to accomplish. I cannot conceive of an experiment that would definitively show that minor allele modification or genetic drift is not accomplished in this manner. Could someone please cite work of this sort? --LeonardM 23:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see a fellow Brin-ler on here. I'll only reply to the last point: if Lamarckism takes a similar amount of time to shift allele frequencies in a population, it becomes extremely difficult to distinguish from a Baldwin effect, and secondly, regular evolution can be seen in only a few generations under sufficiently extreme selection pressures (like those which have been effected in laboratories), so given a real effect which one can see, versus an effect which is not detected, and whose supporters kept inventing excuses.... Well, one can see why naive Lamarckism was dismissed, in addition to a lack of decent explanation for how changes to somatic cells can be reflected in or transmitted to germ-line cells. Although of course there is the objection that mere "augmentation" and "diminishment" cannot generate the novelty of nature, or indeed any novelty at all. But this is not my field, so I'll hush up now. --Maru (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Maru, same here! Just wait until I get my Blind Cave Tetra experiment going. Shoot, they might be especially susceptable to *morph-ability* in general. I'll let you know in about 20 years! --172.133.136.193 13:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you forgot to login there... I shall look forward to reading your results in a vanity press-published book filled with long rambling screeds and incoherent essays, punctuated by occasional fits of idiosyncratic grammar and spelling! :) --Maru (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, sorry Maru. I didn't mean to sully the entire Wikipedia with my presence. ..and Gosh, I didn't think my edit was THAT out of line. but ..well, since you're an ArchBishop or whatever in the WikiCatholic church, I'll take your word for it. I'll examine my conschins, I mean Con-Sh*t and resolve not to WikiSin any more. OK? --LeonardM 02:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Go my child, go and sin no more. Read the Holy Texts and receive the balm of the Holy Spirit unto thy mind, and the Great Jimbo shall receive you unto His bosom. --Maru (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Darwin said something like "A book from which I learned nothing (I remember my surprise)." David R. Ingham 22:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Lamarckism Obsolete??

LoL, Revert it back if you like. I don't have time to go to the mats on it right now. Mark my words though, epigenetic influence will prove a stronger drive to evolution than the blind random chance that Darwin so strongly advocated. (whatever the heck THAT is! :) LeonardM 18:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

References

Could this article be better referenced? Even if some external links were added? --Nicholas 22:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Lamarckism disproven?

This seems inaccurate to me. Lamarckism in a wider sense may have been demonstrated to be unlikely/ dominated by other processes/ not happen but to say it is disproven is surely bunk. In the world of bacteriology Lamarckism is alive and kicking -- where it has been argued that bacteria can "learn" resistance from one another and then pass that "learning" on to future generations [1]. In the words of Salvador Luria: "bacteriology is the last stronghold of Lamarckism" (although he himself did not believe Lamarckism to hold for bacteria). The Encyclopedia Britannica comments that the process also holds for some protozoa[2]. Coricus 06:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Will "superseded" do? Vremya 08:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)]]

That seems fair -- but must apologise... I performed an edit on the page to add information about J. Cairns (et al) and removed your update. Please have a look throughthe article and see if its acceptable. Thanks.

Coricus 09:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Article Merger

I know the scientists out there aren't likely to be happy about this but I think we should at least debate whether the article on racial memory should be merged into the one on Lamarckism. If science doesn't stop new-age pseudoscience from taking older discredited scientific theories and running with them (by simply changing the words to something else) then it loses its best facet -- the ability to educate and lift everyone's level of knowledge. Coricus 09:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually think there are a whole range of articles here that need to be reorganised. See my suggestion of merging epigenetics and epigenetic inheritance. Would racial memory fit better there? I also feel very strongly about debunking the myth that Lamarckism is obsolete. It has actually had quite some support in recent years (see my recent edit of that article and this one), although evolution as per the modern synthesis is definitely the dominant force (also see nature vs. nurture). - Samsara _contrib ^talk 13:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am adimantly against merging these articles. It seems today that too many historical and scientific theories are grouped together because they are now deemed false, lessening their importance. Racial memory has many implication Lammarck's biological theory does not. I vote against merging these two articles, though I know this is not democracy. Hummel

Redsupremacy says:

I have streamlined racial memory so it makes more sense, though i know think they should be kept seperate.

acquired characteristics, Darwin's pangenesis

I'm copying this discussion here as it may be useful in writing this article. It comes from Talk:Natural selection originally. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 17:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"Darwin, moreover, had also to overcome the then dominant view that individual organisms can transmit to their progeny modifications elicited in them by environmental factors. In contrast, Darwin argued that adaptation is the result of the culling by nature of inheritable variation that arises without directionality."

As far as I know, Darwin did accept the transmission of "somatic" modifications, he proposed pangenesis, his own idea of that. Thus accepting then that the modification could arise directionally.

But with natural selection taken in consideration, acquired characteristics, by itself, were not the main mechanism driving the evolution of adaptations. Along with that, there was the point that the environment is limited (Malthus influence), and those who are better adapted would succeed reproductively with more ease, outnumbering the lesser adapted variants, and eventually only the better adapted ones would exist.

Only with the rediscovery of Mendel's works with heredity that the inheritance of acquired characteristics was finally abandoned. Initially Mendel's genetics were also seen as a trouble for natural selection, by some. However, nowadays there's the myth resulting from oversimplification and historical incorrectness that Lamarckism and Darwinism conflict each other in the sense of "natural selection of non-acquired characteristics" versus "transmission of characteristics acquired by individual effort".

Even though Darwin received a letter of Mendel himself, as I've read it or heard it, he never opened, for some reason. Mendel's genetics remained unknown for some more time, and were never defended by Darwin. (I guess I've read that on Carl Zimmer's "at the water's edge", but I've also read something that makes me suspicious, I guess that was in wikipedia, about Darwin citing some of Mendel's papers.

• that's not quite a reference, but a text that says things in the same sense I'm saying: 'The Imaginary Lamarck: A Look at Bogus "History" in Schoolbooks'

--Extremophile 21:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a reference. Michael T. Ghiselin is a well-respected evolutionary biologist. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 22:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Lab mice

This year, a group of British(?) scientists did an experiment that showed that a female mouse put under a lot of stress would produce offspring that exhibited a stronger perpensity for stress and anxiety than the offspring of a mouse that was kept in calm and relaxed conditions.

I believe that they found actual verifiable chemical changes in the mice born from the stressed mother that were not the result of learned behavour.

I know that this isn't the same thing as new a genetic trate being passed on, but it seems like a fringe example of Lamarckism?

If it is, could somebody please find some data on it (sorry I don't have any more information to proffer) and add it to this section as it turns around some of the agruments pressed on this page about this princple being pure hockum.

Can we have some supporting references for this and include it, please? Also, I'm not convinced by the piece on lab rats already in the article. This really needs supporting sources or it should be removed. At present it smacks of new ageism and pseudoscience... 193.129.65.37 08:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverse transcriptase

At the viral level, apparently there's a set of enzymes called Reverse transcriptase enzymes. These transfer from the RNA back to the DNA, and may be responsible for the way viruses 'jump' species. Wonder if anyone would like to source this for this article? Seems like the one area where Lamarckism might be relevant and true.ThuranX 03:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

I have 'updated' this page to place footnotes in the current Wiki format. Also deleted an external reference to a site that is by subscription. Comments on doing this would be appreciated [I am new to this]. --Dumarest 16:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Bacteriology is the last "stronghold" of Lamarckism cf. Weiner-Novick's experiment, 1957 and the experiment of Melvin Cohn and Kengo Horibata

I found material that shows that Bacteriology is the last "stronghold" of Lamarckism, namely the E.coli which are discussed :

Autrans Proceedings, epigenomique.free.fr/Cours_HN/Multistationarity.pdf

Epigenesis and the lactose operon: importance of a positive feedback circuit.

The experiment was reported by Novick and Wiener in the famous journal “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences US” [4]. Lactose utilisation by the bacterium E. Coli had been studied for some time in the Pasteur Institute. It was known that lactose catabolism required both an enzyme (the β-galactosidase) that degrades lactose and a permease that facilitates its penetration into the cells. Both proteins were not synthesised by the bacteria unless lactose, designated hence as the “inducer” of this synthesis, was present in the culture medium. Novick and Wiener evidenced an epigenetic modification when the bacteria were grown in the presence of a low concentration of lactose, which was not sufficient to induce the synthesis of the two proteins.

However if the cells had been previously induced (by a high concentration of lactose in the medium, but

for as short as 10 minutes), they could synthesise the proteins in the presence of the low lactose concentration for (at least) 150 generations. Thus the phenotype of the same bacteria with regard to the production of β-galactosidase, was different in this culture medium (with a low concentration of lactose) depending on whether they had or not experienced during 10 min, 150 generations ago, a high concentration of lactose. This is a wonderfully simple but quite typical epigenetic modification. And the consequences are not trivial. It means that the phenotype of this extremely well known bacterium, whose genome has been fully sequenced, is still not predictible, when the bacteria are in a medium containing a low lactose concentration if the history of the culture is not known!

Now, as everybody knows, the mechanism of the induction by lactose of the synthesis of the proteins required for its metabolism was unravelled by Jacob and Monod [5], who were awarded the Nobel prize for their now famous “operon model”. Fig 1 depicts the mechanism as it is established now. In the absence of lactose a negative regulator, protein LacI, which is always produced due to the constitutive expression of gene lacI , is active and prevents the expression (transcription followed by translation) of three genes including gene lacZ encoding the β-galactosidase, and lacY, encoding the lactose permease. In the presence of lactose, a derivative of this sugar (allolactose) has a high affinity for protein LacI and provokes an allosteric modification of this protein that looses its affinity for the promoter of the operon, which can thus be transcribed. When there is no more lactose, protein LacI resumes its active conformation, and the synthesis of the enzymes is rapidly interrupted. But how does lactose enter inside the cells? When the external concentration is high, it can diffuse through the cell wall, but this process is not sufficient at low lactose concentration. This explains why, in general, bacteria cannot be induced by low lactose concentrations.

Let us now go back to the Novick and Wiener experiment. At low lactose concentration, the cells cannot be induced, but pre-induced cells have produced a permease that allows lactose transport into the cells even at low concentration! So all that is to the epigenetic behaviour is that the permease allows the entrance of lactose that allows the synthesis of the permease etc…From this simple fact, arise all the properties of epigenesis: the phenotype (with regard to β-galactosidase synthesis) depends on the history of the culture, a short pulse of a high concentration of lactose (or a transitory removal of lactose) suffices to change one of the phenotype into the other, and there is hysteresis, since the concentration required to induce the culture is much higher than the concentration below which the cultures is “de-induced” (fig 2).

All these properties are those of a bistable system, a non linear dynamical system with two steady states. And all these properties result from the fact that the lactose permease promotes its own synthesis under low lactose concentration, that is, lactose permease is part of a positive feedback circuit.

Links:

1. Enzyme Induction as an All-or-None Phenomenon -- Novick and Weiner , 1957 www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=528498

2. "Physiology of the inhibition by glucose of the induced synthesis of the beta-galactosideenzyme system of Escherichia coli." , Melvin Cohn and Kengo Horibata http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=290602&tools=bot

Article merge?

There's currently an article on 'Inheritance of acquired characters' which is quite a short stub. I'm a bit confused, please ignore my ignorance if i am displaying any, but why is there two articles on what appears to be the same thing. Are Lamarckism and the theory of acquired characteristics different because as far as i can tell they relate to the same thing. If they are different, are they different enough to qualify being two separate articles or could they be merged into one? Thanks, Gazzelle 15:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Theory of acquired characteristics seems to be about the general idea throughout history and the many different proposals, and this article about Lamarck's specific theory. --Gwern (contribs) 18:19 10 January 2007 (GMT)

Epigenetics

According to the field of epigenetics, Lamarckism is partly correct and there's quite a bit of evidence. To sum it up briefly, there's a number of genes that can be turned off or on during your lifetime by a variety of factors and these can be inherited. This is a cutting edge field of science so I doubt most people have ever heard of it and since it supports Lamarckism I'm sure many scientists dismiss it out of habit but the science behind it and the evidence for it is very sound. In fact, this explains a huge number of problems with genetics including how at least some types of cancer are triggered. --Calibas 17:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Article revision

This article needs some major cleaning up. There are a lot of places where someone intended to create links, but in fact just made messy text. And Neo-Lamarckism is covered twice. The "Soma to germ line feedback" section is incomprehensible to nonscientists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.89.173 (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Disproven

We cut off the ears and tails of dogs, yet each new litter has to be cut also. A tribe in Africa stretch out their necks with rings, yet each baby has to get rings of its own. A body builder, his kid won't be strong, he will have to work out like his dad. -- Posted 9 Feb 2008 by 68.56.49.13 (Sig added by Writtenonsand (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC) )

Yes, that's exactly what modern evolutionary theory says. Modern evolutionary synthesis :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"A tribe in Africa stretch out their necks with rings". Perhaps you are thinking of the Kayan people of Myanmar (Burma) and Thailand (i.e., southeast Asia, not Africa). The Ndebele people of Africa wear neck rings, but as far as I know wear them only as "necklaces" and not to produce an elongated neck. Wearing similar torc necklaces used to be very common in ancient European cultures. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Your examples prove nothing, since none of these things improves the survivability of the being in question. They don't kill dogs who are born with ears and tails, or babies born with their necks unstretched, and being a bodybuilder or overly strong doesn't necessarily(especially in current human society) improve your survivability or ability to procreate. I believe the idea of gene activation lends some credence to the idea that genetic changes occurring during the lifetime of an animal may be passed on to offspring.Ronar (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Epigenetics

Sorry, my english is very bad. I not found any reference to the paper "epigenetycs; genome meet your environment" that it also is about lamarckism. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.201.104 (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Is Will Wright's SPORE an example of Lamarckism in popular culture? --Trithemius (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Darwin quoting Mendel?

Why does the article say that Charles Darwin quoted Gregor Mendel? I thought Charles recieved a copy of Gregor's work but never read it.

2008-10-08 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.67.105.223 (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A commentary on the topic found no evidence that Darwin was aware of Mendel's work. THE EXTENT OF CHARLES DARWIN’S KNOWLEDGE OF MENDEL. Andrew Sclater http://www.springerlink.com/content/w112307246x77t37/ http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~jaliff/GA%20Sci%2061-3.pdf

I've removed the comment that Darwin cited Mendel. Fences and windows (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this Lamarckism?

Take a look at this: European Journal of Human Genetics (2006) 14, 131–132. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201567 Epigenetics: Sins of the fathers, and their fathers "...the behaviour (or environment) of prepubescent boys could influence the phenotype of their sons and grandsons...." And: "The study suggested that in humans, a one-off environmental event could influence phenotype for more than one generation in a sex-specific way. If true, these findings implied a novel kind of transgenerational inheritance, an idea strengthened by recent studies in animal systems." http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/n2/full/5201567a.html

Also look at all evidence quoted in the ES (Spanish) version of this article. --Sbassi (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not Lamarkism unless you can prove directional changes to DNA, not done in this case. There are many ways environmental damage can be transmitted socially: obvious case, families that smoke &c: affected children continue parents' behaviour more often than random. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sept 2009 - Intro Misleading

Both to comply with the recommended form of a lead and to give readers an accurate overview of this topic the lead needs to have a consistent message as to the current acceptance of Lamarkianism and a brief mentions of the current research validation.

At present the lead is misleading.

At present the lead is misleading. (I am also surprised by the lack of mention of http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7256/full/460688a.html ) SmithBlue (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't be surprised, Wikipedia articles don't get as much as you think. It sounds like you're interested in improving it and are qualified to do so. :-) Please go ahead. Personally I would say be cautious about reading too much into comparisons between epigenetics and Lamarckism, though, it gets hyped by the science media. Most epigenetics isn't transgenerational, and when it is there isn't much evidence for epigenetics changes that are *adaptive* responses to the environment. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 14:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Lamarck's theory

This section is called "Lamarck's theory", but is not an account of Lamarck's theory. It is an account of the views of two historians about popular views of Lamarck's theory, and thus two removes from the thing it is supposed to be about. There should be a section, "Lamarck's theory", which gives an account of what Lamarck himself actually proposed, perhaps with some account of the historical context, properly cited. (I don't consider myself qualified to write this.) The current text of the section belongs in a new section about the reception of his ideas from then until now. Even considered in those terms, the wording of this section is tendentious in some places, giving the impression that certain ideas that are to be found in Lamarck are later distortions. In at least two of the examples given, Lamarck did indeed say the things popularly attributed to him.

Firstly, the example of the giraffe's neck is described as "what is traditionally called "Lamarckism"", but the example is drawn directly from Lamarck -- p.122 of the English translation of *Philosophie zoologique*. Just to be sure, I've compared the translation with the French original online at http://www.lamarck.cnrs.fr and it agrees. I don't think the blacksmith is in Lamarck, but many other examples of a similar kind are -- wading birds developing long legs, browsing quadrupeds developing sturdy hooves, etc. I have not edited anything here.

Secondly, in the section "Lamarck's theory", the article says "With this in mind, Lamarck has been credited in some textbooks and popular culture with developing two laws:" This gives the impression that the two numbered laws that follow are not from Lamarck, but are something that "some textbooks and popular culture" ascribe to him. But these two laws, thus stated, are a direct and unattributed quote from that same English translation of Lamarck. I've limited my editing to adding a reference to the translation and which-tags to the lead-in ("some textbooks"? "popular culture"?), but the whole sentence is still misleading as it stands. Is the intention to assert that Lamarck did not come up with these laws himself but was expressing ideas which were already widely believed? If so, it needs to say and substantiate that. Ghiselin's web page cited in this section makes that claim but does not cite any sources, making it unsatisfactory evidence. RichardKennaway (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

So if someone cuts off their arm?

Their child will be born with one arm? 184.96.254.177 (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No, but if someone gets a piece of fruit stuck in their throat their descendants will have a bulge in their throat.

The larynx in the human throat, noticeably more prominent in males, is called an Adam's apple, from a notion that it was caused by the forbidden fruit sticking in Adam's throat as he swallowed.

I think we can see where Lamarck got his inspiration for his theories. AerobicFox (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Still not a proven

Despite the cited "proof" in this articles, I still do not see nay credible proof that acquired traits can be passed on genetically. It is not okay for this article to state that Lamarckism has been proven correctly when in fact it has not. The blacksmith example is bunk. Sure, blacksmiths' sons may very well also have muscular arms, but this is more likely because an artisan's son is likely to try his hand at his father's trade. Furthermore, a blacksmith is likely to have been muscular before starting his trade, which IS a heritable trait. Obviously this is an argument using logic rather than references. --MariechenP (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I am confused. Lamarckism is a largely disproven theory, so you won't be finding any sources that say it is proven, nor should this article state as much. It's still possible that Lamarckism can have some truth to it amongst bacteria, but it is almost beyond any doubt not applicable to larger organisms.AerobicFox (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Meta-Lamarckism and Ross Honeywill quote

Suggest removing, or paraphrasing in a sentence, the paragraph on Ross Honeywill's Meta-Lamarckism theory. The current paragraph, which is almost entirely quotation, is violating WP:QUOTE, specifically: "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided.

Is this view generally endorsed, or what?

I can't tell from a quick glance whether this *is* or *is not* a scientific principle which is generally accepted today. And could we please contrast it with Lysenkoism? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you even read the lede or first section of the article. Nuttish (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. Do you know whether Lamarckism is generally accepted today? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The information is in the article. Perhaps you should give it more than a "quick glance"? rpeh •T•C•E• 16:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I took another look. I couldn't find it. It's not in the lede, and the "Current Views" section is ambiguous. Citing a single paper published less than a year ago doesn't tell the reader whether the idea is generally accepted by scientists.

So I repeat my question: Where does the article clarify whether this *is* or *is not* a scientific principle which is generally accepted today? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I really suggest you read the article properly and stop seeking black and white answers on topics where none exist. The article says that interest has increased, and there are several cites that you could use for further reading. Turning up on a talk page and demanding that people answer your questions isn't appropriate behaviour. If you claim the article isn't clear you could do your own research and improve it yourself. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

there seems to be contradictory information. In the "Lamarckism and single-celled organisms" section, it starts off saying it has been discredited for larger lifeforms, whilst earlier in "current views" it mentions what seems to be studies relating to larger lifeforms (ie chickens) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.156.248 (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed has a valid point, the modern view section should include a reminder that Lamarckism is not part of the scientific orthodoxy. The fact that it has attained increased recent interest is misleading if one does not understand that the theory was entirely rejected, and that the interest is in Lamarckian inheritance as an exception to the still dominant paradigm of genetic inheritance. I suggest adding a few words to the current view section indicating the ancillary nature of the current renewed interest in Lamarckism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyddea (talk • contribs) 08:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Are these examples of Lamarckism

Our little toes are disappearing? Due to the use of shoes, which results in weakening of our tendons and muscles in our toes? Our wisdom teeth are disappearing (I only had two)? Because we are eating softer processed food, rather than chewing tough meat and gnawing bones?

Considering natural selection, and traits which are advantageous to survival, what would the advantage to having smaller toes and fewer teeth be?

Also, won't parents which eat a healthy diet and/or exercize produce offspring who are healthier? Our average height has increased significantly over the last few centuries. Why can't that be considered as changes during a lifetime being passed on to offspring? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flight Risk (talk • contribs) 03:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Lamarckism in the plant kingdom

Could this information find a place in the Lamarckism article? 74.118.30.114 (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Still viable, discredited, or dismissed?

This article was a bit confusing to me at first. After re-reading a couple of sections, I have a better grasp of it, but there are still some things that I think lead to confusion.

The intro says that "the importance of individual efforts in the generation of adaptation was considerably diminished", that the theory was generally abandoned, and that interest in the theory has recently increased since several studies "have highlighted the possible inheritance of behavioral traits acquired by the previous generation". All pretty straightforward.

Then, "With the development of the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution and a lack of evidence for either a mechanism or even the heritability of acquired characteristics, Lamarckism largely fell from favor.".

After that, in the Current Views section, it says "Several recent studies" "have rekindled the debate once again.", and that MIT's Technology Review reported that "The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed".

Again, nothing too crazy yet - these aren't mutually exclusive (with the possible exception of "lack of evidence" and studies that "provide support", but it is a bit confusing. We go from "diminished" and "abandonment", to "possible", then find that the modern theory of evolution and "lack of evidence" caused this theory to fall from favor, and then learn that recent studies "provide support" for the theory.

But then, in the single-celled organisms section, it says that "While Lamarckism has been discredited as an evolutionary influence for larger lifeforms". There is a source cited at the end of the sentence, but it seems that source would apply to the "some scientists controversially argue that it can be observed among microorganisms." assertion rather than the discredited portion. If it has been discredited, the article doesn't do a very good job of showing when/why it happened.

I apologize for the lengthy post, but I came to this article having never really heard anything about Lamarckism before and found it to be confusing. Especially since I looked it up after seeing it referred to as the "discredited Lamarckian theory" (which a quick Google search shows a ton of results for, including another Wikipedia page that references this one). I really don't know if it's been discredited, disproven, abandoned in favor of newer theories and how exactly the new studies play into the picture. Just my opinion, but it seems that this could be clarified somehow and made less confusing. I'm not sure of the best way to do that - maybe something toward the beginning that sums up it's rise and fall (and rise again?) along with more details about the reason it was "discredited" as opposed to just losing favor over time after no evidence was found and newer theories came out. I could just be stupid, but I wanted to point that out in case any other readers who are new to the subject find it as confusing as I did.

ScrobDobbins (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Memetics

I appreciate what user 195.188.41.30 is trying to do at the mention of memetics near the beginning of the article, and I hope he or she figures out the right way to do it with standard templates (editorialising within the tag is not the way), but I question whether the whole sentence beginning "In a wider context, soft inheritance..." belongs there at all. There is no wider context than biology for Lamarckism as such, and the analogical use of the term in the context of cultural change is already adequately addressed in the section "Lamarckism and societal change", which says as much about memes as necessary. RichardKennaway (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I deleted this text: "In a wider context, soft inheritance is of use when examining the evolution of cultures and ideas, and is related to the theory of memetics^{[dubious - memetics is not widely accepted due to it being unsubstantiated]}." for two reasons. Firstly, as in my comment just above, this sentence is unnecessary -- Lamarckism applied to culture is already sufficiently treated in a later section and does not need to be mentioned here. Secondly, inserting a discussion into a pseudo-"dubious" tag is incorrect practice. A standard "dubious" or "citation needed" tag should be inserted and discussion carried out here on the talk page.

I also deleted "^{[Needs revision in light of recent findings i.e. Tim Spector, Identically Different]}" for the same reason: comments like this should be made on the talk page only.RichardKennaway (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Epigenetics should not be confused with Lamarckism

I have three papers that describe that here [3], [4] and [5] to be added to the article shortly. A little angry (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Giraffe diagram

A diagram of a Giraffe was added to this article but this is somebodies own diagram and misrepresentation of Lamarckism, not from a scientific source.

Michael Ghiselin covers the giraffe fallacy here [6], the text that was on the diagram was entirely inaccurate to what Lamarckism actually says. So I removed it. TreeTrailer (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Stimulated copy number variation is arguably a form of Lamarckism

A recent article describes a mechanism by which environmental changes cause an organism (yeast in this case) to its DNA. Hull, Ryan M.; Cruz, Cristina; Jack, Carmen V.; Houseley, Jonathan (27 June 2017). "Environmental change drives accelerated adaptation through stimulated copy number variation". PLOS Biology. 15 (6): e2001333. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2001333.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link): "... we directly demonstrate that Copy Number Variation of the copper-resistance gene CUP1 is stimulated by environmental copper.".

This article doesn't mention Lamarckism and this Wikipedia article doesn't mention "copy number variation". It seems to me that this is a clear instance of Lamarckism. I have not added a section regarding this because I do not yet know of a peer-reviewed journal article making the link.

Robin Whittle (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like Lamarckism exactly. It's not far from ordinary gene regulation with the twist of varying number of copies, obviously a surprising thing to do. Without a source that asserts Lamarckism it cannot be added to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Astronaut's DNA changed

I don't know if this is relevant here, but Lamarckism popped-up in my mind while reading this: Astronaut's DNA no longer matches that of his identical twin, NASA finds. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Mutation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Lamarckism#Experiments

Is it useful to list every single experiment that was claimed to support Lamarckism? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, firstly, this is only a small list of the better-known experiments. Secondly, the claims – and their refutations – are relevant because they are the factual basis for the debate and indeed the continuing interest in neo-Lamarckism. However, I can't see any value in reporting that people wrote books on the subject; we should use their opinions and let the citations do the talking. By the same token, I see no value in trying to maintain a bibliography that we don't use anywhere in the article and that will never be complete, we're not a directory. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Mateusz Konieczny: Some serious reorganization; summarized key experiments in tables, lost a lot of repetition. Hope that solves the problem for you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap Thanks! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Lamarckism is obsolete

Lamarckism is obsolete. There is no known possible mechanism for how it could occur and no repeatable experimental evidence that supports it. I think it should be included in the "Obsolete biological theories" category. I know there has been some hype about 'epigenetics' reviving Lamarckism but this is inaccurate, they are entirely unrelated. Any thoughts? Skeptic from Britain (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, OK if it makes you happy. I'd point to the historical importance in the evolution of evolutionary thought. Moreover, examples keep cropping up of mechanisms that - to be sure - aren't classical Lamarckism but still fire people up because of obvious similar flavours, and this keeps the topic current after a fashion. Furthermore, "obsolete theory" connotes something of more modest scope to me. Perhaps all religion should be relegated to the "obsolete ideas about life, the universe, and everything" category, and I would not disagree with anyone who would propose that, but I would also recognise that going to war with an awful lot of people over a mere label is not worth it. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:DC07:168A:B2A3:677C (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"Textbooks are wrong" "Soft Evolution"

We follow rather than lead the textbooks here on the encyclopedia. Like it or not, Lamarckism has come to mean what it has come to mean. Skeptics, Cynics, Epicureans, and anarchists all feel your pain. However, we are not doing our job if we force the lead to take a side in the debate rather than inform the general reader what the term has come to mean. Lamarck has his own page where you can mount a defense all day long. This page currently suffers from WP:UNDUE from Gould and Ghiselen. And the page is trying to do three opposing things 1) defend Lamarck, 2)defend soft evolution 3)question soft evolution. In shorthand, a neutral description would go like this, "Lamarckism has come to mean "inheritance of behaviorally acquired traits (or however it's properly cashed out)" it is named after Lamarck with the following caveats (other people had this idea, it was a small part of his work), and the idea of inheritance of acquired traits has been disputed and supported in the following ways...." What's more, I don't know if "soft evolution" is sufficiently backed up by WP:RS. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, DolyaIskrina, you know that I always greatly respect and value your opinions on articles as incisive and well-thought out, and I'm grateful for the attention you've given this article. You have made multiple points and I'll reply to each of them now. Firstly, we obviously agree that articles must be neutral, and the places where you've noticed this one looking non-neutral must clearly be fixed at once - they will be, today. I note in passing that this actually affects only a small part of the article, as the historical facts and suggested mechanisms (whether they occur in nature or not) are reliably cited. Next, if the article is trying to do multiple opposing things, it at least cannot be accused of partisanship – it is neither in favour ( your #2), nor (your #3) against it; but clearly it is presenting the case for both sides a bit too strongly, and if it also seems (your #1) to be defending Lamarck, both things must be remedied. Then, both Gould and Ghiselen are well-respected biologists, and using Ghiselen's blog is easily justified under Wiki-policy. Further, their view is supported by the existing quotation and citation of Conway Zirkle, a well-known botanist, so there are already multiple reliable sources on the matter in the article. On your edit comment about secondary sources, I see the textbook accounts of Lamarck, Darwin, and Weismann as primary sources; Gauthier, Ghiselin, and Zirkle commenting on those as secondary. If you mean that debate among secondary commentators counts as primary, we would face an infinite regress! But there's really no sign of an opposing side: nobody has replied to claim that Lamarck actually was a textbook Lamarckist, and the primary facts wouldn't support that anyway. There is a further issue about sources of the kind you seem to be hoping for: biologists are keen to propose theories (like the Hologenome one in the article), and other biologists are keen to rebut those (like Steele's); but they (and the journals in which they publish) are not much interested in rebutting wrong or garbled takes on the history of biology found in introductory textbooks, so if they mention such things at all, it is usually in essays (as Gould) or blogs (as Ghiselin) - Zirkle was unusual among biologists in writing a paper for a philosophical journal; we are unlikely to get better sources. The best we can do is to be neutral ourselves and to introduce these commentators neutrally - I'll have another go at that. I'm not sure what you may mean by "soft evolution", but since that must include all the 'Mechanisms resembling Lamarckism' including epigenetics, the hologenome, and the Baldwin effect, there is a mass of evidence available; and even where mechanisms such as Steele's appear wrong to biologists, they are relevant here. This has been a long reply, but I hope clear and to the point. I believe the article is sound and the facts well-established; I will work on the tone and balance now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap. I'm a fan of yours as well. Sorry my previous post was a little rambling and sloppy. I haven't had a chance to look at your recent edits, but I wanted to clarify one of my many points above. I meant to write soft inheritance which was coined by Ernst Mayr, but I don't know if it's actually caught on, and if not probably shouldn't be in the lead. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem. It's one of several common synonyms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Your edits look good to me. As to the issue of how well and quickly the professionals correct textbooks, I see your point, but happily due to your edits I don't think we need to figure that out today. But my concern remains. I'm not sure that "soft inheritance" is supported by the sources as a synonym for Lamarckism. There is a linguistic fog between "Inherited epigenetic variation" "soft inheritance" and Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. (BTW: is there any kind of inheritance besides transgenerational? Do they really mean multitransgenerational? Oy biologists and words) My proposed fix would be to make this a page about the outdated term "Lamarckism" that was more or less wrongly attributed to "Jean-Baptiste Lamarck", and then point readers to [Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance]] for the modern understanding and recent research. And again I think we should lose references to "soft inheritance" in the lead of this page. But I could be wrong. I haven't read the hard copy sources on this page. DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

In that case we need to undo the redirect of Soft inheritance to here ... and write a new article on that subject. The transgenerational epigenetic thing is one instance of soft inheritance, not the only one. "Lamarckism" touches on soft inheritance and in the popular imagination proposes another mechanism for it. So there is scope for a new article; but disentangling the threads will not be easy as they are tightly interwoven; the epigenetic section of the article, for example, uses sources that freely call what they are talking about "Lamarckism". Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Lede image

This article needs an explanatory supporting image in the lede. Much use of Wikipedia never gets beyond the first few sentences and we need to convey the gist of an article as much to the casual reader as those who want an in depth view. Lumos3 (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that applies to hundreds of thousands of articles; and what image would summarize this article correctly, I wonder? It certainly must not be a facile suggestion of high-school "Lamarckism" which as far as biology is concerned, isn't even wrong, and it was a view held by everyone from Aristotle to Darwin, with the exception, basically, of Lamarck. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Having slept on it, I've had a go at an image which is at least based on something Lamarck actually did say. Perhaps it will serve the purpose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Important discoveries in debate about theory of evolution in neo-Lamarckism vs. Darwinian natural selectionism ("Darwinism")

Some important scientists and researchers have came out in the field of genetics claiming to prove that the natural selection theory in Darwinism is highly flawed in areas where Lamarckian genetics has now been proven right. Would be important to mention and elaborate upon. Also the obvious connection to theories of eugenics coming from somewhere in this area of thought here rather than classical social darwinism often considered bunk science today by many as an explanation of eugenics. Seems like there needs to be a great expansion in this article highlighting the new modern understanding of neo-Lamarckism as highly biologically tenable with much scientific insight discovered greatly improving upon the theory of evolution for instance in the broader understanding of the scientific community, rather than mostly emphasizing claims throughout this article about how people couldn't prove or disprove the theory or aren't sure if evidence was valid or not in the distant past rather the present day understandings. Recent new discoveries mentioned need to be taught if they are relevant and useful for greatly improving the quality of the article beyond just a "good article". Some editing users seemed apprehensive about adding things because they are either "not useful" or "irrelevant" but it seems there's no real argument to base the accusation in. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, @184.71.97.170: but the reversion is not "vandalism". You need to seek consensus before changing the article. That's part of WP:BRD. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV issue matter right now then. How is what Chiswick Chap did not both arbitrary and contentious (WP:POV)? How is what you're doing defending him as not potentially doing something malicious not a fallacious argument (WP:POV)? You two are completely side-stepping the main point of the argument and refuse to address it. That's failure to engage in WP:BRD. If it's not vandalism you would join the actual dialectical discussion instead of making accusations and defending Chiswick Chap's arbitrary edit he can't sufficiently explain as of the current moment for you (WP:POV). His edit suggested maliciousness in the trolling tone of his RV edit comment about how my edit was "useless" especially with his sarcastic "thanks" (WP:POV). TLDR it's an important issue matter of WP:NPOV here for me. He sounded like a vandal troll seemingly trying to start an edit war which is explictly against protocol whereas WP:BRD is never absolutely necessary and merely optional but is often cited hypocritically by those that defend pointless edit warring. Don't forget WP:BRR, you're missing out on a big part of the editorial process here. Peep the last part of WP:BRD you're also ignoring, besides D being ignored only by asking me to gain consensus ALONE, it's just trying to talk down about making a bold edit despite citing WP:BRD. The last guideline rule of WP:BRD is this that you need to engage in with me:

(Bold again) "Let the other editor apply agreed-upon changes. If they don't want to, that's okay, but be sure to offer. The offer alone shows deference and respect. If that editor accepts, (1) the history will show who made the change and the other editor will have control over the precise wording (keeping you from applying a change different from the one agreed upon). And, (2) such a practice prevents you from falling afoul of the three-revert rule. Assume this revision will not be the final version. You do not have to get it all done in one edit. If you can find consensus on some parts, make those changes, and let them settle. This will give everyone a new point to build from. Having completed one successful cycle, you may also find it easier to get traction for further changes, or you may find you have reached a reasonable compromise and can stop." 184.71.97.170 (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Honestly, it's very hard to follow your statements because they are extremely verbose. See WP:TLDR. Anyway, I'm not engaging in a content dispute (partially because, again, your comments are extremely verbose), and frankly I don't care about the content, what I care about is that you made a bold edit, and Chiswick Chap, as is his right, reverted the edit; he is an editor in good standing who has been around for 16 years. Perhaps his edit summary was ill-advised and inflammatory, but you're also assuming that his comment was insincere, perhaps it wasn't; it's hard to tell over text. And while we're at it, accusing him of trying to spark an edit war is a form of casting aspersions. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You should be able to argue something with someone if you requested WP:BRD standard protocol. There's like 7 short sentences at the start of this section to engage in what you asked me to do that you refuse to do and that would suggest you're potentially vandalizing the article for your apparent friend, which seems just as spiteful as his comment in his edit opposing me. If you're not willing to do this with me then we will have to proceed much differently following from now. Nobody is casting aspersions here except you by accusing me of doing so. I'm saying it seemed like he was eager for a fight. And you have admitted that he was being inflammatory. I've proposed good edits, they got removed, they refuse to discuss it and only accuse me of wrongdoing for pointing out their own blatantly obvious misbehaviour. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

184.71.97.170, I have no idea who the other editor is. My decision to revert your change was on its own merits. You are welcome to create an WP:RFC or similar, or you can wait until there is clear consensus to proceed with your proposed changes. You are not, however, allowed to bludgeon the conversation in an attempt to get your way. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I've looked at the recent reverts, and I would have the following advice for the IP editor. First, find citations for what you are trying to add. Second, read WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTNEWS. It is my understanding that recent developments in epigenetics would seem to broaden previous notions of inheritance, but whether or not they literally revive Lamarck is a much more controversial statement. In other words, notions of inheritance that would have been (wrongly) dismissed previously as Lamarckism (as in insult) are now being taken more seriously. However, that doesn't mean that Lamarckism is actually right. It'd be a bit like saying revisions to the Theory of Relativity mean Newton was right. It's much more nuanced than that. Anyway, find a source before making the change.DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I mean what I read before not about Lamarckism but the neo-Lamarckian theory of evolution I wrote into the article. Neo-Lamarckism developed its own theory of evolution that contrasts with the way Darwinism views natural selection. Some scientists have published researched noting that Lamarckism had some thing right that Darwinism got wrong in their understandings of evolution in nature by processes they observed. Lamarckism itself has never been proven right or wrong but much of it has been proven right if not most of it. Basically we see it as mostly accurate today but it's something from the past several years that is why most people are interested in it now from scientific communities. In the distant past for quite a long time it was very hard to prove much of Lamarckism correct but we live in very different times. Often it is denigrated because the Soviets believed in it, since they may have used it improperly or misunderstood it. There is citations for all of that which had been mentioned that can be explained in detail I'm sure is quickly available but it can be troublesome and difficult finding exact specific sources when being asked for them, such as needing it being the direct one, like when it's required to be the actual sources from the scientific study rather than a science news journal reporting an analysis and summary on it or something of that brand topic even if it is really valid, because of wikipedia's policies. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Unless you find mainstream scientific sources saying that Lamarckism is back, we will keep calling it obsolete. I have not seen anything here but empty rhetorics, starting with has never been proven right or wrong and ending with it is denigrated because the Soviets believed in it. And your edits in the article are just unsourced editorializing, that is, your opinion, and not helpful either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

LOL well then this is an obsolete article you need to greatly revamp and provide much more sourcing for if you feel the need otherwise to scrub it "clean". The article itself says the same type of things if not itself THAT in several other places so you may as well scrub the entire article as you see fit however you wish considering much of this article is just "empty rhetorics" to you. It's not vandalism for you to "clean" this article, is it? Like okay friend well if you can't see the truth listed from the article because it's my opinion according to you then may as well go ahead and remove any mention to the Soviets and how this article shows how it is long spoken of Lamarckism itself as a theory never having been able to be proven wrong nor right officially in general within academic consensus for certain on here, and how the article itself mentions evidence proves it right. Just go ahead and the scrap the article the way you're suggesting you want to if it's such a big deal that these are my "opinions" based on the article research provided within the article about epigenetics. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

More empty rhetorics. Suggest actual concrete improvements to the articles, bring reliable sources for your claims, or go away. This is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)