Selection is obviously king, but there seems to be room in the court for Lamarckism, too. Interestingly, it is easy to imagine how Lamarckian evolution could arise as a result of natural selection. This type of evolution has much subtler effects than selection for mutations, but it also works orders of magnitude faster. Maybe there was selective pressure on organisms to adapt quickly to changing environmental conditions. There's a mindfuck. Of course its also possible that the two are completely independent. One can dream.
Very interesting article! And perhaps Lamarckian effects (methylation of transposons) can then alter the mutation rate, and thus 'natural selection'. Thus, Darwinian evolution could be guided by Lamarckian evolution. There's another mindfuck.This type of evolution has much subtler effects than selection for mutations, but it also works orders of magnitude faster. Maybe there was selective pressure on organisms to adapt quickly to changing environmental conditions. There's a mindfuck.
Well said. However, regardless of whether Lamarck finds a home within evolutionary theory I think the Darwin quote you included in your article: sums up how we should feel about Lamarck. Limiting Lamarck's place in evolutionary history to first-year examples of how giraffes don't evolve does an injustice to his contribution to pre-Darwinian evolutionary thought.“Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801...he first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all changes in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition [1].”