1. I believe Jean-Baptise Lamarck is the man who
had the most influence on the development of Darwin’s theory of Evolution. He
had both a positive and negative influence, as I will explain.
2. Lamarck was the first person to suggest that the
change of environment and the change in organisms are directly linked. Link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjS15yzz_HKAhVS-mMKHZTCBcQQFggxMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fevolution.berkeley.edu%2Fevolibrary%2Farticle%2Fhistory_09&usg=AFQjCNE9I0o_5RQCUxHm0QNWrF704JqNFQ&sig2=JLMSAMiseQY-59EOrbiK8A
3. The point that is most directly correlated to
Lamarck is “If the environment changes, the traits that are helpful or adaptive
to that environment will be different.” Although
Lamarck wasn’t correct in a lot of his hypothesis on how the relationship between
environment and organism works, he did lead the way to understanding how to
learn more about the relationship. Darwin used Lamarck’s underlying idea, but changed
it to fix the mistakes Lamarck made.
4. Without Lamarck’s hypothesis on the dynamic relationship
between life and environment, Darwin would not have been able to come about creating
his theory. Darwin explains that organisms change based off of the needs of
their environment over generations, how could he have come to this conclusion
without the studies of Lamarck?
5. Darwin was very indifferent when it came to
religion and actually took a theology class. Many people of the church, however,
were afraid that if this theory were to be largely accepted, then the fabric of
moral behavior in the people would be destroyed and the church itself would
crumble under the weight. Darwin was not against nor for religion, yet the
church still feared for the future of their believers.
Great post ! I also thought Lamarck had a tremendous amount of influence to Darwin. They both had similar theories but i think Lamarck helped support Darwin's findings and helped him reassure it. Specially Lamarck's finding on Organisms and inheritance might of have helped Darwin come up with Natural Selection.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLinks to your sources should be a supplement a full explanation in your text. The explanation that you have offered of Lamarck's theory is much too generic and simplified. It doesn't reflect the complexity of his ideas, nor does it explain to your readers how it compared and contrasted with Darwin's theory. An example of what I was looking for:
ReplyDeleteLamarck was the first to propose an actual mechanism explaining "how" evolution occurred, not just "if" it occurred. This is a big deal and, although Lamarck's ideas turned out to be incorrect, this first step in evolutionary theory laid the path for those like Darwin to follow. Lamarck argued that organisms changed during their lifetimes in response to changes in their environment through the use or disuse of physical structures. Those physical changes were then passed onto their offspring. The classic example is the lengthening of the giraffe's neck in response to taller trees.
I agree that the bullet point on the environment directly applies to Lamarck as his theory relied upon the changing environment to produce changes in behaviors which produced physical changes. There are two other points that could be attributed to Lamarck as well. One is that the traits must be heritable. Both Darwin and Lamarck recognized this crucial point, otherwise, traits couldn't get passed on reliably. Finally, both recognized the importance of reproduction in the process.
A point that is important because Lamarck and Darwin argued in direct opposition to each other is the idea that "Individuals don't evolve, populations do". Lamarck actually argued that individuals DO evolve. Darwin's mechanism didn't predict individual evolution as it acted on existing variation in the population. You can only see evolutionary change at the level of the population across generations, not within generations in an individual.
" Without Lamarck’s hypothesis on the dynamic relationship between life and environment, Darwin would not have been able to come about creating his theory. "
While I won't argue that Lamarck did not influence Darwin, to suggest that Darwin couldn't have developed his theory without Lamarck is to over estimate Lamarck's importance and to underestimate the influence of others, such as Malthus and Lyell. Lyell also raised the issue of the influence of the environment, as well as Cuvier. This idea was not unique to Lamarck.
"Darwin was very indifferent when it came to religion..."
That is the second time I have seen this argued in posts tonight and I am puzzled by it. Darwin actually began his college (or the equivalent) education in seminary school, studying to be a priest (which is what I think you refer to in the next line). He later discovered that he had a greater passion for the natural sciences, but the church tended to serve as a positive force in his life for the most part, particularly in the form of his wife, who was very devout. He wrestled with his faith when his beloved daughter Anne died, failing to understand why a loving God would allow a child to suffer. But none of that suggests a man "indifferent" to religion, does it?
That aside, the question of the church's influence on his decision to publish remains. Darwin delayed for more than 20 years before publishing. So what caused his delay? What were his concerns? What repercussions might he and his family have experienced as a result of publishing this controversial work in this scientific and religious environment?