(September 18, 2013 at 10:39 pm)Zazzy Wrote:(September 18, 2013 at 10:25 pm)Chas Wrote: Go right ahead, but don't defend him as 'the father of evolution' because he wasn't.I respectfully disagree. A good theory isn't about one person. The first person to come up with a theory of evolution- right in key respects, wrong in the particulars- is a father of the field. After years of studying this for a living (I am an evolutionary biologist, and I have tended to pay attention to the history), I hold a high opinion of Lamarck as being the progenitor of the field (as did Darwin). Disagree if you like.
But this is a silly argument. Are we in agreement that it's stretching it to link epigenetics to Lamarck?
If you want to credit anyone but Darwin, then you'd better look to the Greeks and the Chinese who had much earlier insights than Lamarck.
And, yes, linking epigenetics to Lamarck is wrong because Lamarck's ideas weren't even in the same ballpark.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.