# Lamarckism ### Main Idea > **Larmarckism** is the mistaken evolutionary theory based on the idea that biological adaptations are improvements acquired by an organism during its lifetime and then inherited by its descendants. ### Key argument for why it is wrong It assumes that **new knowledge** is already present in experience (or can be derived mechanically). However, knowledge must *first* be **conjectured** and *then* **tested**. ### The logical argument for why it is wrong * The concept of evolution and gradual improvement over time had been around before Darwin. * Prior to Darwin, *all* processes of gradual improvement were referred to as evolution, regardless of their **mechanism**. * Darwin distinguished the process that we now think of as evolution by calling it "evolution by natural selection" (though a better name would have been "evolution by variation and selection"). * Why is this so important? Well, any theory about improvement raises the question: *how is the knowledge of how to make that improvement created*? Was it already present at the outset? The theory that it was is [Creationism](Creationism.md). Did it just happen? The theory that it did is [Spontaneous Generation](Spontaneous%20Generation.md). * **Lamarckism**, proposed by Jean Baptiste Lamarck in the early 1800s proposed the idea that improvements acquired by an organism during its lifetime can be inherited by its offspring (consider a giraffe stretching its neck to reach higher trees, then having its neck grow, and then passing that on to its offspring). * The most glaring issue with this idea is as follows: * Evolutionary adaptations have an entirely different character than changes that take place during an organisms lifetime. * Evolutionary adaptations involve the **creation of new knowledge**. * Changes during an organisms lifetime only occur when there is already an **adaptation** present that allows for that change to be made * For instance, the tendency for muscles to become stronger/weaker with use/disuse is controlled by a sophisticated set of genes (which encode *knowledge*). * Lamarckism cannot possibly explain how the knowledge in the genes was created! * Consider the example: * We have a tiger suddenly placed in a new environment that makes it stand out *more* due to its stripes. * The tiger takes no action to change the color of its fur, nor would any change be inherited if the tiger willed this into existence. * That is because nothing in the tiger *knows* what the stripes are for. * So, no Lamarckian mechanism could have "known" that having fur that was a tiny bit less striped would improve the tigers food supply. * The fundamental error of Lamarckism is thus: > Lamarckism assumes that new knowledge (adaptations) is somehow already present in experience, or can be derived mechanically from experience. But the truth is that knowledge must be *first* **conjectured** and *then* **tested**. This is what Darwins theory says: first random mutations happen (they do not take account of what problem is being solved); then natural selection discards the variant genes that are less good at causing themselves to be present again in future generations. > > **Inductivism** is very similar. It assumes that new knowledge is somehow already present, where in this case new knowledge is *scientific theories*. --- Date: 20220610 Links to: [Beginning of Infinity](Beginning%20of%20Infinity.md) Tags: #review References: * []()