Lamarck: A Misunderstood and Misinterpreted Shadow
Centuries have passed since Lamarck’s Philosophie Zoologique was published in the midst of a turbulent new era of social and scientific transformation. Attacked from all angles, appreciated by few, Lamarck surely was a pioneer of his time and even sheds a bit of light in our contemporary scientific understanding. Like all pioneers, he surely stumbled and experienced downfalls, and his deductions had their fair share of errors. Yet he also insisted on a materialist theory of science and the everchanging nature of the nature (and thus the human society).
One of the first modern theories of evolution, Lamarckian theory mainly focused on the spontaneity, progressivity and graduality of life. Unlike his successor Darwin, Lamarck generally refused (or minimized) the effect of extinction or elimination in his theory of life and its evolution. Acquired characteristics were hereditary and in his approach, evolution was determined by the external forces. Nevertheless he did not have an idealistic point of view, and he clearly sought a way to explain the inner forces and connections leading to the change. And we shall not forget the fact that scientific production and countless techniques and technologies present in the 20th and 21st century was no where near to the contemporary world during Lamarck’s era. Moreover, evolution was constantly being attacked politically and unlike his successors, Lamarck did not have the necessary building stones. Hence there is an apparent determinism in Lamarck, forcing its way to the theory and trying to materialize what was then an invisible, mysterious effect. One should not be criticized harshly for this since one can only move forward by pushing a very solid ground, and sometimes that ground must be formed. The strength of science comes from the courage to take action and theoretically it is only possible by building solid abstractions obtained from the real world (and thus experiments) and testing the abstractions again in the real world. But in Lamarck, unfortunately the abstractions were so concrete that they became a reality in his theory, the creator was the stimulating factor and therefore life spontaneously evolved from inorganic matter and the progressive tendency towards the better, more perfect organization succeeded. A living organism in the Lamarckian theory changed accordingly to the environmental effects since all of its body contained the necessary particles to adapt to the change and all of this information passed down to the new generation. Thus when we test the Lamarckian theory from todays point of view, everything about change is correct except how this change occurs. And the inheritance of the acquired characteristics we see in Lamarck is observable but not as a dominating, determining factor of the evolution.
Today’s technology and scientific research demonstrates the importance of a dynamic world view: The bacterial mechanism of Cas9 enzyme which led to the enormous potential of the CRISPR technology and the partially hereditary structure of epigenetics (the hereditary patterns of DNA binding molecules) enlightens a new approach, an approach that shows the effect of environmental changes on genetic mechanisms. It is true that genetic information (and in a later evolutionary step, sexual reproduction) is a stablizing force (and at the same time a force that is triggering variation). But life and our universe is complex and ever-changing and in the long run merciless towards any conservative structure. Apart from Lamarck’s deist tendencies, we must not forget the dynamic characteristics of the Lamarckian world. He saw a constant change and also hoped for a change and a better world. Whereas Darwin, though he was the formulator of another dynamic world view that is more complex and explanatory, better tested, provided the better results empirically, and also withstood againts time in a great fashion, focused too much on competition and relied too much on cutthroat social prejudices of Malthus and the capitalist free market and minimized the effect of cooperation and mutualistic relationships on evolution which was successfully and in a sort of a way zealously formulated and displayed experimentally by Lynn Margulis who on the contrary built her theory primarily on mutualism. Even though it may seem that Lamarckian theory has its limitations, we should not forget the fact that even the most steady and determining forces are influenced by the others. In the end, evolution is an adaptation to the environment which is also a dynamic and interconnected system. Thus it is always possible to and highly probable to shape the wind and change our fate. Explaining the social systems through a though process that focuses on immutable and one dimensional nature of genes is not only scientifically wrong but it is also a very political approach and prejudice, and not a scientific argument. In Lamarck’s own words: ‘’Nevertheless it may be inferred with still greater certainty that the thing most important for the improvement and happiness of man is to diminish as far as possible this enormous inequality, since it is the origin of most of the evils to which he is exposed.’’ Racism, patriarchal prejudices, genetic determinism and/or cultural supremacy are methods to reverse this relationship and show the different and oppressed people, women, the workers and the toiling masses as enemies. And now we shall ask ourselves this question: Should we choose the path of selection of people (as if a Roman emperor selects a winner in the Colosseum to show some slaves can achieve something and survive or as if eugenics supporters choose their standards of a better white race) to save supremacy theories that are only based on the fact that they legitimize the rule of the people who hold the socio-economical and political power or the selection of theories and elimination of the perilous ones to save the humanity and the living world from the powerful that is destined to drain them to a consumed and rotting pulp?
As the idealistic and religious people say, we are indeed the reflections of a higher power, but this higher power is the world that we have built and will build in the future. So, I must ask the reader this rhetorical question: Is science an innate, a noumenon, an independent, undetectable ding an sich or is it a human practice shaped through time and history? The answer to this question also leads to another question: If it is so, what is to be done about it? Cower at the shadow of its mighty mystery or take action? Questions lead to questions and answers lead to change.
