Who was Lamarck? And what did he think?

[@justsomenightowl7220]

Thank you for pointing out the inaccuracies that are so prevalent about Lamarck. Very informative!

[@Hands2HealNow]

Thank you for your clear, gentle, and inclusive explanation of Lamark.

[@LaaLaaLeevi]

Thanks for sharing Scott! Much appreciated!

[@SeanLawlorNelson]

Thank you. The main manner in which Darwinism and Lamarckism diverge is that Lamarck understood Darwinism implicitly but chose to focus on the more important, life affirming aspect of evolutionary biology. Darwinism and Lamarckism both occur in evolutionary in animals historically and in animals and humans every year of our lives; This is truth. MIT just proved it; and any further honest scientific studies will continue to prove it. Dr. Carl Sagan discovered that within an organism's lifetime, important Lamarckian changes advantageous changes occur in the genetics through what he and doctors call 'mutations.' They're not mutations; They are Lamarckian changes. Thanks for letting me transmit this original scientific information; Original in part of course, I stand on the shoulders of giants like Lamarck and Sagan.

[@davidfunge9848]

Excellent and well balanced examination of evolutionary theories.

[@macrotermiteman]

Thanks David! Appreciate the acknowledgement. Stay tuned for more to come. Best, Scott Turner

[@ntyhurst]

Incredible editing job

[@elumiomerk4013]

Hi Scott great video, I know it's been eight years since you posted this video, but I was hoping....... that you could point me towards some sources that discuss or propose how, driven by environmental and physiological factors, proteins or the body, influence DNA in the microbiological scale. I am not a biologist, I merely have very little knowledge in organic chemistry and an interest in the subject.

[@macrotermiteman]

Dear Elumio, Many thanks for the kind words. As for more, can I refer you to the book that I wrote that explored many of these issues? Purpose and Desire, published in 2017. Also, please have a look at my developing KZbin series on Evolution? The Biology's Second Law videos were the precursor to that larger video project and it goes into more depth than the four videos in Biology's Second Law,. Here's the link for that: kzbin.info/aero/PLyT7u-_dX7J0mNd1U5aYBaJonbjBdMWMo All best, Scott Turner

[@elumiomerk4013]

@@macrotermiteman Thank you, I'll be sure to take a look.

[@ridwanp7884]

this is a good explanation about theory of evolution. thanks to the maker of this video

[@michelsicard7755]

Excellent exposé sur les théories de l’évolution.Quel dommage que la traduction automatique soit aussi mauvaise !

[@snowy9764]

stupidity is an oppressive word, there is no such thing as stupidity only misunderstandings.

[@snowy9764]

i think they are both right

[@snowy9764]

personally

[@macrotermiteman]

Agreed, in this case, the word underscores the caricature of Lamarck's own thinking, which was more sophisticated than most people give him credit for.

[@geoffrygifari3377]

That generalized culture in a variety of organisms is interesting stuff! I have no idea how bacteria can have their own version of culture. I was thinking along the lines of groups of orcas in different regions of the sea passing on different hunting and survival tricks to their young.

[@Rico-Suave_]

Watched all of it, could watch it again

[@elumiomerk4013]

16:24 some reading or video viewing on embryonic development is due on my part, but I feel the topic will be very complicated.

[@gitboxer2000]

This was informative. Thanks!

[@josephweiss3931]

thank you for this video

[@AdrianHoffsten]

0:53 are you sure he became 105 years old? Wikipedia says 85 (1744)

[@vegitera8862]

Nice lecture👍👍👍👍

[@macrotermiteman]

Thank you! Tell your friends! All best, Scott Turner

[@geoffrygifari3377]

Btw, do you know how evolution on the molecular level is happening on asexually reproducing organisms (hydra? Budding plants?)? Does it occur slower due to absence of gene mixing?

[@youfreego]

16:02 16:41 01:08--- 02:37 03:17 04:36 08:03 08:16 17:09 17:41 18:27

[@scottherf]

is Lamarck pointing to a gene and the epigene as life stuff and adaptive stuff?

[@macrotermiteman]

Yes, the epigenetics revolution is opening the door again to a scientifically revitalized Lamarckism, including a coherent theory of adaptation. Thanks for the question! Scott Turner.

[@geoffrygifari3377]

The way you worded lamarck's theory in this one sounds suspiciously like evo-devo hmmm

[@kristinaplays2924]

I'm not sure I get it. Is this more of cultural traits passed on in populations and how that affect future generations? I'd like to counter then with a common cuckoo bird. The soon to be mother flies into a nest of another bird, lay the egg and fly away, never to see it again. The cuckooegg hatches before the other eggs and the chick pushes them out of the nest. It grows up, (being fed by a bird of another species) and if it's a female it does the same thing in another nest. The cycle repeats. It was never shown how to do this by its mother, yet it does it, both the fact that it pushes the other eggs out and then laying the egg in another nest are both things that are hardwired in the birds genetical code.

[@garundip.mcgrundy8311]

So, how is post-modern epigenetics any different from Lamarck? Doesn't epigenetics fulfill the ideas (prophecies) of Lamarck? And, if Lamarck, why not Lysenko? And, if Lysenko, why not Marx?

[@richardides2035]

+Garundi P. McGrundy lamarckism = communism darwinism = capitalism (survival of fittest)

[@garundip.mcgrundy8311]

Capitalism or a "true free market," today, doesn't exist anywhere in the world. We live in a regulated economy ("capitalism saved from itself"), according to your favorite candidate for president, Hillary Clinton. This is a direct quote. Did you see or hear (Fox News Radio) the "entire" Democrat debate, early October 015? Of course, Hillary is citing from R.P. Bootle's 2011 book; and, Bootle is citing Marx. Darwinism or "survival of the fittest," today, is nowhere to be accepted especially among liberals. Genuine capitalism, historically, is limited to a period of time long before adoption of Marxist-controlled capitalism, in the U.S. the rise of the central bank and the redistribution of real property to the counties during the Wilson era: as an example, in the modern U.S. no one owns real estate (not individuals, not corporations; property "holders" only have the right to pay "property" taxes, they do not hold or control or "own" property; counties hold, control or "own" property and therefore collect all property taxes on property. Darwinism is replaced by "Neo-Darwinism" or "punctuated equilibrium," also bound by its own problems--gaps in the fossil record more indicative of "abrupt appearance" of species as well as statistical problems regarding the necessary evolutionary time allotments for the appearance of species. It appears even the 4.5 billion years date for the age of the earth is not enough time for life to have appeared strictly by chance through evolutionary-uniformitarian means... but, the age of the universe is now trimmed back from 15B to a much lower period of time, say 12 to 14B. And none of these figures or evolutionism itself is absolute.

[@richardides2035]

+Garundi P. McGrundy There need to be a balance both have some good ideas. Clintons are vermin they bombed Serbs and create fake Kosovo! I don't watch USA policy much, but ,do you believe in 2 party system in USA provide some alternative to capitalism?

[@andreainzaghi7373]

actually, it is not true that Capitalism necessary equals Darwinism which implies, I understand, individualism as opposed to socialism. It is simply not true. John Nash was a liberal capitalist but his "game theory" put team work over individual accomplishment. Strictly speaking of naturalism, it has been recently discovered that Neanderthalians were not more stupid than Homo Sapiens. The difference is that Homo Sapiens worked in larged group and was good at differentiating their skills while Neanderthalians were even more intelligent but they live detached as single individual. So NEANDERTHALIANS seems a lot more corrispondent with the CAPITALIST ideal of success. In other worlds, "the fittest" does not necessary correspond with the CAPITALIST ideal of "the INDIVIDUAL" who happens to be more succesfull. Thank God, those Naturalists were a lot less intrigued with mean politics than many people think.

[@readynowforever3676]

@@andreainzaghi7373 Your comment was a non sequitur. Especially when you invoked the Homo sapiens’ construct of “god”.

[@Oguzalp97]

Lamarck 1724 of course not. 1744. Sorry for my pedantuc kind

[@readynowforever3676]

*pedantic. And I apologize as well.

[@jeremybenson5782]

This guy didn't give Darwin the idea, Darwin's Freemasonic grandfather did. Lamarck also had a belief in a god, openly professing his ideas on religion. Darwin did NOTHING but run around looking for evidence while complaining about the idea of a missing link was becoming more and more preposterous. This entire thing was cooked up by Freemasons I'm sure. And I'd love to know more about Lamarck's religion. This video says he kept his head. That means he was either not a loyalist, thus with the Freemasonic revolutionaries and traitors, deceived by Freemasonic traitors, or complacent to the entire event of revolution. Just trust in Jesus.

[@michelsicard7755]

Poor lost spirit !