Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de la Marck
This is the person
usually called Lamarck. He was born in 1744, before the
French Revolution. He became Professor at the famous
Jardin des Plantes
in Paris, where the museums contained a rich collection of
geological objects gathered from all over the world. He was
initially strongly opposed to the idea of evolution, but his
studies of these objects convinced him that the earth was
far older than people thought, and that the geological
evidence showed that species had changed. It was in 1800
that he delivered a lecture in which he championed his
theory of transformationism (transmutation), and in 1809 he
published his greatest work,
Philosophie Zoologique,
in which this theory was elaborated.
Lamarck’s
achievements are remarkable:
·
He was one of
the first to use the term ‘Biology’ to describe the subject.
He argued that living organisms had properties that were
unique but that these were the outcome (today we would say
emergent properties) of the physics and chemistry of matter.
He was a materialist, but one who realised that the
characteristic of living organisms was their organisation
and structure, not just their components.
· He thought
that all organisms had developed from tiny sea creatures. He
therefore had a version of the common ancestor idea.
· He saw that
there was a direction in the evolutionary process towards
greater complexity. This led him to the concept of ‘le
pouvoir de la vie’ (the force of life).
There were precursors
of Lamarck, just as Lamarck himself was a precursor of
Darwin. But Lamarck should be recognised as one of the key
scientists in the development of evolutionary biology.
Darwin fully recognised this status: “this justly celebrated
naturalist….who upholds the doctrine that all species,
including man, are descended from other species.” (Preface
to the 4th edition of
The Origin of Species, 1866).
Several developments
led to the blackening of his name.
· He championed,
but did not invent, the idea that acquired characteristics
could be inherited. That itself would have been fine. Darwin
also accepted this idea. The problem was that the subsequent
establishment of the Weismann barrier (isolation of the germ
line) and then the Central Dogma (isolation of the genome)
led to the idea being so completely ridiculed that Lamarck’s
reputation was ruined.
· ‘Le pouvoir de
la vie’ was often interpreted to mean belief in a special
‘vital force’. My reading of his work is that he certainly
did not intend this interpretation. He was a materialist,
not a vitalist.
· His great
rival, Georges Cuvier, opposed the idea of evolution and
wrote a devastating criticism of Lamarck, which was used at
his funeral.
http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/cuvier/cuvier_on_lamarck.htm
The historian of Science, Pietro Corsi, has created a superb
on-line resource on Lamarck:
I wrote an imagined letter from Lamarck:
http://musicoflife.website/pdfs/LetterfromLamarck.pdf
which expresses the reasons why I think he has been badly
treated.
These books by Eva
Jablonka and her co-authors/editors are also valuable
resources, particularly on the various mechanisms by which
‘lamarckian’ inheritance occurs:
Jablonka, E. and M.
Lamb (1995).
Epigenetic inheritance and evolution. The Lamarckian
dimension. Oxford, OUP.
Jablonka, E. and M.
Lamb (2005). Evolution
in Four Dimensions. Boston, MIT Press.
Gissis, S. B. and E.
Jablonka, Eds. (2011).
Transformations of Lamarckism. From Subtle Fluids to
Molecular Biology. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
| |
The MUSIC of Life: Biology Beyond the Genome ©Denis Noble |