Talk:Jean-Baptiste Lamarck
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details.
The citation is in: Catherine Fox (June 10, 2005). "Big Brain, big bang". The Australian Financial Review. |
 |
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
This article duplicates Lamarck, but there is much more information there. I think we may suppress this one. --FvdP 23:14 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)
[edit] Page move
I think this page should be moved to his full name and title, to be of the same form as Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon. Comments? (There are a whole bunch of redirects to tidy up as well, but I wasn't going to start those before asking.) Noisy | Talk 12:55, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] horrible horrible article
Odd that this article should be about Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, when most of is an unstructured rambling mess mostly duplicating Lamarckism. — Dunc|☺ 16:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Extraordinary inaccuracies and misconceptions
It is not those who misunderstand the basic concept of "selection" that reject Lamarck. It is almost without exception that those who defend Lamarck have utterly no concept of selection or fitness. While I agree with the summary of selection given, to say that those who don't understand that definition reject Lamarkianism is the most absurd strawman I have read in quite some time. Also, the fact that memetics is Lamarkian is a case against memetics as a true parallel to evolutionary biology, not a point for Lamarkianism. Evopsycho 20:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
