Cameron Tragesser

Dr. Gasior
January 19, 2015
Weekly Writing Assignment 1
It is impossible to discuss the fact of evolution without including
the much-studied topic of variation within and among species. Without
variation, evolution could not, and would not occur, according to our
current scientific understanding. However, though evolution has, for
quite some time, been accepted as fact within the scientific
community, it has been debated just what sort of role the variation of
species plays in it. Is variation an active response by nature to adapt
to its changing environment, or is it a random incident by which
natural selection is incited?
The first, or at least, first widely received explanation for
variation falls under the category of Lamarckism, named for scientist
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Lamarcks theory was that species actively
adapted to the world around them. For instance, if a species of
mammals found themselves to be suddenly thrust into a colder
environment, that species would then develop a thicker coat, so as to
better tolerate the harsher temperatures. Then, based on Lamarcks
theory, these newly inherited traits would be passed onto the animals
offspring and would now be a genetic normality, thus creating a new
species. As stated in chapter seven of Stephen Goulds The Pandas
Thumb, Lamarck argued that life is generated, continuously and
spontaneously, in very simple form. It then climbs a ladder of
complexity, motivated by a force that tends incessantly to complicate
organization (Gould, 76-84). In other words, life is constantly finding
ways to become more and more advanced.
Charles Darwin, however, did not agree with all of the tenants of
Lamarckism. He believed in a much less active approach to
evolution, which involved what he calls natural selection. Essentially,
organisms will reproduce and pass on genes that help them to survive
as a species. Unlike Lamarck, Darwin did not believe species were
continuously becoming more and more complex. In fact, as referenced
in The Pandas Thumb, we can observe how naked mole rats have lost
their eyesight (the eye being, arguably, one of the most complex
organs an animal can possess) because it does not benefit them in a
manner that helps them to survive under the earth. Darwin believed
that random variances were constantly occurring in species at random
and, sometimes, these variances actually gave an organism an
advantage over others of the same type. Because of this, that
organism is allowed more opportunities to reproduce, and thus, the
trait is propagated.

Presently, the scientific community largely accepts Darwins

theories to be the most logical, however, his theories were initially met
with quite a bit of criticism and doubt when they were first published.
One of the ideas that was addressed was the presence of variation in
species. While it was definitely observable, scientists believed that
variation only occurred in relatively non-essential aspects of an
organism. Therefore, the changes that we see in major organs could
not be caused by random variation, but by active adaptation.
However, Darwin states that Sir J. Lubbock has shown a degree of
variability in [the] main nerves in Coccus, which may almost be
compared to the irregular branching of the stem of a tree. Other
instances like this were observed, essentially disproving the notion that
wide degrees of variability could not occur in major parts of an
organism.
Another criticism in comparing Darwinism to Lamarckism is the
complexity of the processes. As described in chapter 7 of The Pandas
Thumb, In Lamarckism, the transfer is direct. An organism perceives
the environmental change, responds in the right way, and passes its
appropriate reaction directly to its offspring. Darwinism, on the other
hand, is a two- step process, with different forces responsible for
variation and direction. Darwins theory simply seemed as if there
were too many variables for success. This criticism, however, assumes
that species are perfectly suited for their environment, which we now
know is not the case.
Another argument may have had its roots in theology. While
evolution in and of itself is fairly controversial within the religious
community, the relationship between a divine creator and Lamarckism
could at least be justified. In accepting Darwinism, we must accept
that organisms are not inherently perfect, and are constantly evolving
because of mistakes. We can justify Lamarckism by stating that
animals are always actively changing to be perfect for the environment
they live in. However, in order to accept this, we would have to
completely ignore obvious mistakes in the structure of species,
whether it is the existence of a totally unnecessary appendix in
humans or the lack of a proper thumb in pandas. Species are not
made by an ideal engineer; they are jury-rigged from a limited set of
variable components. (Gould 20).
Jean Baptiste Lamarck may not have been completely off the
mark in reference to his theories on evolution. When observing how
the human nature has evolved throughout history, it is easy to see how
the idea of active evolution could have been easy to grasp onto.
Though biologically unsound, when applied to the psychological and

mental advancement of human thought, these principals hold firm. As

far as we know (not counting any sort of undiscovered life in some
distant planet), humans are the first intelligent beings to exist.
Because of this, our evolutionary tendencies could be far different then
those that occur in nature. Lamarckism describes species essentially
taking control of their own evolution. It could be argued that humans
have done exactly that. When we are presented with circumstances
outside of our control, we, as a species, actively change the way we
live to survive. For instance, rather than succumbing to a plethora of
diseases and allowing only those that are naturally immune to them to
survive, we have created vaccines that stop those diseases in its
tracks. Perhaps, because of this, humans will begin to evolve in a
manner that we have never observed before.