/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11697356

20KiB, 400x197, lamarck.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Darwinism vs Lamarckism

Anonymous Thu 21 May 18:15:11 2020 No.11697356 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11697395 >>11697432 >>11697467 >>11697475

How could Darwin impose his theory without saying that hereditary traits can change (mutation)?

Wasn't Lamarck's theory more plausible in those days that genetics wasn't even a thing?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 May 2020 18:20:19 No.11697368 Report

Quoted By:

bump

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 May 2020 18:23:17 No.11697375 Report

Quoted By:

where are my science nerds?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 May 2020 18:32:27 No.11697395 Report

Quoted By:

>>11697356
nerdy nerdy nerdy nerdss

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 May 2020 18:38:54 No.11697408 Report

Quoted By:

Will you answer the call?

Now is the time

And the place is this thread

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO gettyimages-1160951112-1024x1024.jpg, 353KiB, 667x1024

Anonymous Thu 21 May 2020 18:40:52 No.11697414 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 May 2020 18:44:28 No.11697432 Report

Quoted By: >>11697462

>>11697356
>genetics wasn't even a thing?
They didn't know about DNA but hereditary alleles were figured out by Mendel, a monk while futzing around in the garden.
Animal Husbandry is even older than that. Even if folks didn't understand the mechanisms they still had a grasp of the concept.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 May 2020 18:52:06 No.11697462 Report

Quoted By: >>11697642

>>11697432
thanks, but they could stick anyway to the Lamarkist theory without replacing it by Darwinism without knowing mutations

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 May 2020 18:53:01 No.11697467 Report

Quoted By: >>11697489

>>11697356
You don't need a full model to have something useful. Darwinian evolution doesn't have mutations but then again back then a "traits" weren't defined rigorously with genetics so simply stating that animals with best traits survive was a valid way of looking at it. Doesn't really matter if all animals have all traits and express some, or if the traits themselves fundamentally change (mutation), the top level concept is still valid.
Inheriting traits was know from time immemorial and while lamarcks idea had some logic behind it people already knew that wasn't really how traits were passed down.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 May 2020 18:54:11 No.11697475 Report

Quoted By: >>11697506

>>11697356
darwin knew about variability

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 May 2020 18:57:27 No.11697489 Report

Quoted By: >>11697539

>>11697467
but these best traits that survive have to change to be different from the worst. This is why I say Lamarkism was equaly valid

>while lamarcks idea had some logic behind it people already knew that wasn't really how traits were passed down
wat? how could they know it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 May 2020 19:01:30 No.11697506 Report

Quoted By:

>>11697475
Lamarkism allows variability

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 May 2020 19:10:11 No.11697539 Report

Quoted By:

>>11697489
I just explained that they don't. It could just as well simply be that all things have all the traits and what changes is their expression or any number of reasons.
>wat? how could they know it?
experience. It's not like people who have done farming for hundreds or thousands of years suddenly were growing talons to plough the soil or blacksmiths who started growing fireproof skin.

I don't understand the point of this shitpost really

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 May 2020 19:35:29 No.11697642 Report

Quoted By:

>>11697462
You're implying Larmarckism was the default theory of the time but it wasn't. It's also unclear what you're even referring to since inheritance of acquired traits was not central to Lamarck's ideas. Such inheritance is only called "Lamarckism" and contrasted with Darwinian evolution these days due to stubborn misconception. Darwin accepted inheritance of acquired traits as a possible mechanism of evolution.

The actual difference between Lamarck and Darwin was that Lamarck believed in innate forces toward complexity and adaption, while Darwin explained how complexity and adaption arise from heredity and random action. Darwin was favored over Lamarck because his theory was simpler and more explanatory.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches