Lamarckism

Lamarck argued, as part of his theory of heredity, that a blacksmith's sons inherit the strong muscles he acquires from his work.[1]

Lamarckism, also known as Lamarckian inheritance or neo-Lamarckism,[2] is the notion that an organism can pass on to its offspring physical characteristics that the parent organism acquired through use or disuse during its lifetime. It is also called the inheritance of acquired characteristics or more recently soft inheritance. The idea is named after the French zoologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829), who incorporated the classical era theory of soft inheritance into his theory of evolution as a supplement to his concept of orthogenesis, a drive towards complexity.

Introductory textbooks contrast Lamarckism with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. However, Darwin's book On the Origin of Species gave credence to the idea of heritable effects of use and disuse, as Lamarck had done, and his own concept of pangenesis similarly implied soft inheritance.[2][3]

Many researchers from the 1860s onwards attempted to find evidence for Lamarckian inheritance, but these have all been explained away,[4][5] either by other mechanisms such as genetic contamination or as fraud. August Weismann's experiment, considered definitive in its time, is now considered to have failed to disprove Lamarckism, as it did not address use and disuse. Later, Mendelian genetics supplanted the notion of inheritance of acquired traits, eventually leading to the development of the modern synthesis, and the general abandonment of Lamarckism in biology. Despite this, interest in Lamarckism has continued.

Since c. 2000 new experimental results in the fields of epigenetics, genetics, and somatic hypermutation proved the possibility of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of traits acquired by the previous generation. These proved a limited validity of Lamarckism.[6] The inheritance of the hologenome, consisting of the genomes of all an organism's symbiotic microbes as well as its own genome, is also somewhat Lamarckian in effect, though entirely Darwinian in its mechanisms.[7]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Lamarck1830 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Ghiselin1994 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Gould2002p177 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bowler 2003 245–246 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Medawar 1985 168 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference SpringerHolley2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Rosenberg Sharon 2009 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).