Did Darwin get it wrong?

[Angrboda]

There are things that Darwin got legitimately wrong, and depending on your knowledge level and personal interests, What Darwin Got Wrong can make for a documentary that is both entertaining and educational, particularly if you have only a layman's understanding of the topic. That being said, a video of that title from an unknown source could equally well be a stalking horse for creationist nonsense. I suppose it just depends on which is the case here, and the particulars of you as a viewer. The former might be resolved by investigating its source and critical reception. The latter, I can't help you with.

(ETA: Oh, and I wouldn't trust Zone's judgement in the matter any farther than I can throw him.)

[Chas]

I don't have time to watch this all- but it's clearly about epigenetics. Darwin had a lot of specifics wrong because he knew nothing about DNA (gemmules, as he called it), but only if you're picky. He couldn't know that plants, for instance, routinely double their genomes and are fine with this. He didn't know about transposons, or resident genomes, or methylation of particular DNA sequences- all of which can have immediate and major effects on a genome or a phenotype. But he did damned well for someone in his position.

And Lamarck was likewise a fine scientist (and the real father of evolutionary theory, IMO), but it's a stretch to link epigenetics to him.

Calling Lamarck the real father of evolutionary theory is not just a stretch, it's completely wrong.

His view was that the environment drove changes and those changes were heritable. This is utterly incorrect in every respect.

[Zazzy]

Calling Lamarck the real father of evolutionary theory is not just a stretch, it's completely wrong.

His view was that the environment drove changes and those changes were heritable. This is utterly incorrect in every respect.

I'm aware of Lamarck's ideas- and environmental changes were secondary in his consideration, although important. He was the first scientist to really postulate a coherent theory of evolution. It was wrong in the main, but it dealt with the obvious changes observed over time, and was a GREAT first attempt at describing why we see the changes we do. The man deserves respect and he mostly gets contempt now- from people who can crack a textbook and learn about DNA easily.

I'm defensive of Jean-Baptiste, as you can probably tell.

[Chas]

Calling Lamarck the real father of evolutionary theory is not just a stretch, it's completely wrong.

His view was that the environment drove changes and those changes were heritable. This is utterly incorrect in every respect.

I'm aware of Lamarck's ideas- and environmental changes were secondary in his consideration, although important. He was the first scientist to really postulate a coherent theory of evolution. It was wrong in the main, but it dealt with the obvious changes observed over time, and was a GREAT first attempt at describing why we see the changes we do. The man deserves respect and he mostly gets contempt now- from people who can crack a textbook and learn about DNA easily.

I'm defensive of Jean-Baptiste, as you can probably tell.

But the point really is that he was completely wrong and Darwin was largely right. Darwin came up with the actual algorithmic process.

[Zazzy]

But the point really is that he was completely wrong and Darwin was largely right. Darwin came up with the actual mechanism.

Yes- Darwin was correct (stunningly so). But this does not negate the debt we owe to those who came before. Darwin didn't start from nowhere.

Darwin wrote of Lamarck:
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801. . . he first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all changes in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.

Darwin clearly believed he stood on Lamarck's shoulders, and so I defend him.

[Chas]

But the point really is that he was completely wrong and Darwin was largely right. Darwin came up with the actual mechanism.

Yes- Darwin was correct (stunningly so). But this does not negate the debt we owe to those who came before. Darwin didn't start from nowhere.

Darwin wrote of Lamarck:
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801. . . he first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all changes in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.

Darwin clearly believed he stood on Lamarck's shoulders, and so I defend him.

Go right ahead, but don't defend him as 'the father of evolution' because he wasn't.

[Zazzy]

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?

[Minimalist]

I think what cinches the argument is that shithead xtians did not denounce Lamarck for Lamarckism the way they denounced Darwin for Darwinism.

[Zazzy]

I think what cinches the argument is that shithead xtians did not denounce Lamarck for Lamarckism the way they denounced Darwin for Darwinism.

In my experience, fundies have never heard of anyone in the field except Darwin. They are totally unaware that contributions to the field were made either before or after him- that the science evolved and evolves.

That is what is so annoying about talking with any of them- they are obsessed with Darwin and don't have any conception of the modern discipline- a rich, elegant, nuanced field. How can you talk intelligently with someone who hasa second-grade understanding of the field (my niece, in second grade, just learned about Darwin, and talking to her about it is about on the level of talking to fundies).

[Chas]

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.