Updating Darwin: biologists are returning to an older theory to explain anomalies in evolution
Skip to content
The English biologist’s On the Origin of the Species (1859) may need to be amended.<br>Derek Croucher
https://theconversation.com/updating-darwin-biologists-are-returning-to-an-older-theory-to-explain-anomalies-in-evolution-276549
https://theconversation.com/updating-darwin-biologists-are-returning-to-an-older-theory-to-explain-anomalies-in-evolution-276549
Link copied
Share article
Share article
Kopier Link
Blauer Himmel
Messenger
X (Twitter)
Print article
Evolution is a fact of life. So much so that even the theory of evolution is evolving. Lately, a centuries-old discredited idea has been making a strong comeback. It helps us explain scientific observations that according to standard evolutionary theory should be impossible.
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.<br>Wikimedia, CC BY-SA
I’m referring to Lamarckism, named after theoretical proposals from French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in 1809. Lamarckism stands for the hypothesis that parents of a given organism may acquire or improve certain characteristics during their lifetimes in response to the demands of their environment. And they then somehow transmit those characteristics to their offspring, making those better able to cope with the same demands too.
Lamarck sought to explain why organisms and their environments fit so well together, and how organisms change over time, as observed in the fossil record. Of course, an alternative explanation was provided by Charles Darwin (and others) half a century later. Darwin’s ideas were built around natural selection, which says that some individuals within a species are born with differences that lead them to perform better and therefore reproduce more than others.
Darwin argued that if these differences can be passed from parent to offspring, the next generation will contain relatively more of these higher performing individuals. In other words, the next generation will have a greater fit with their environment.
Over time, Lamarck’s idea was discredited. A key moment was an experiment performed by Germany’s August Weismann in 1904. He surgically removed the tails of adult rats before allowing them to reproduce, expecting to see this change inherited by their offspring. But it never happened, despite him removing the tails of many generations of rats. Lamarckism as understood then would have predicted that the offspring should have been born with no tails, so for many years biology textbooks presented his theory as a firmly refuted hypothesis.
Where Darwinism falls short
Lamarck’s ideas weren’t entirely wrong, however. Take, for example, the small worm C. elegans. When an adult worm is exposed to external stimuli such as viral or bacterial infections, starvation, or stressful temperatures, it can adapt to cope better over time. And, surprisingly, its subsequent offspring also cope better from the moment they are born – as do successive generations.
It turns out that this occurs via the inheritance of DNA-like molecules called small RNAs (ribonucleic acids). When adult worms experience stress, they produce these RNAs to fine-tune the activity of their genes to mount an effective response. When the worms reproduce, specific proteins transfer these small RNAs to their eggs, meaning the offspring are born with the benefits they provide.
The 1mm long C. elegans is one of many creatures with traits that don’t easily fit Darwinism.<br>Sander van den Heuvel et al, CC BY
This is like a person receiving a vaccine against flu or measles, developing immunity in response, and then all their newly born children and even grandchildren being immune too. It was previously thought that these kinds of epigenetic molecular marks were always erased during reproduction, meaning offspring have to start their own response from scratch. The fact that acquired traits can actually be inherited is clearly Lamarckism in practice.
It’s also far from unique. There are now dozens if not hundreds of studies showing similar effects in all sorts of species, from bacteria and plants to animals. When rice plants are exposed to cold, for instance, they develop a seemingly permanent resistance by adding chemical tags to their genes. This has enabled them to spread northward from their tropical origins.
Rice plants are an example of Lamarckism in action.<br>M Stocker
Beyond epigenetics, the passing down of learned skills from one generation to another is also a form of Lamarckism. When killer whale mothers acquire the skill to hunt a different type of prey – for example, seals instead of salmon – this skill is copied by their offspring. This has been so reliable across generations and so profound that it even seems to have caused the formation of different species of killer whale.
Does this mean Darwinism is wrong? No, it doesn´t. Natural selection still accurately explains evolutionary...