User talk:Dissembly
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Questions, Comments, Complaints
[edit] Lamarckism
You're making big additions to the Lamarckism article, which is great. Thanks for adding the reference! (I have yet to read up on it.) I'm afraid a lot of these "correction" sentences you're adding leave me with questions -- eg. who was the founder of soft inheritance? (Assuming no particular founder can be cited, maybe you could reword it like "the concept of soft inheritance predated Lamarck"?) ... also, would be nice to get an elaboration on the "artifact of subsequent history of science teaching" ... I'd like to hear more about that history. Eg. State what the original definition was, and how (and why?) it changed. In my opinion it's not "wrong" to use the word with the "soft inheritance" definition, definitions evolve (it's been hellish trying to define epigenetics), and labeling the modern usage of the term as an artifact seems unnecessarily pejorative.
I noticed you referenced inheritance of acquired characters and soft inheritance as alternative definitions for Lamarckism, it seems like some article merger should maybe occur with these. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 04:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry that my alterations where a bit breif and didnt explain much, i've just been working on the Jean-Baptiste Lamarck article and i popped over to the Lamarckism one breifly - might have bitten off more than i could chew by doing that. I agree with your re-wording on soft inheritance - i dont know if there is any recorded founder. I also agree that Lamarckism should probably be collapsed into soft inheritance and inheritance of acquired characteristics.
- Regarding "artifact of subsequent history of science teaching" - i was hoping someone would run with that. I included the line based on the arguments of Stephen Jay Gould, G.G. Simpson and other biologists/science historians - calling it "Lamarckism" (as opposed to soft inheritance, or inheritance of acquired characteristics) links it to Lamarck, and the "subsequent history of science teaching" bit refers to the way "Lamarckism" was popularised in textbooks through the 20th century (and still is today) as soft inheritance, when soft inheritance was just common knowledge in Lamarck's day. I'm looking for a definitive quote from Gould at the moment so i can back that sentence up. - Dissembly 04:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
