Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues

The really strange thing going on in this debate is that a lot of it is Lamarkian.



Lamark postulated that the motive force for evolution is acquired characteristics deriving from an animals' needs, e.g. that giraffes evolved gradually by stretching their necks to reach higher folliage - someone, I can't recall who, actually used that example in support of Darwin.



Others have supported Darwin by Lamarks' other postulates concerning the environment in which an animal lives, such as having open space leading to birds evolving to take advantage of it by gradually growing wings - which is the thesis simultaneously being debunked, or at least being said to be either redundant, or complementary with competition.



One person called me a sh*t and a mOron for simply saying that debate is ongoing and that Darwin hadn't been proved, but had previously used a Lamarkian notion of evolution coming about by taking advantage of the environment - something like that.



It got me thinking that actually there isn't a lot of difference between Lamark and Darwin, because he thought that finches were evolving into different species on account of living on different Galapagos islands but they weren't at all.



And of course Lamark was proved wrong by the Soviet Union which took him as doctrine and failed badly, by abandoning genetics - which came much later than Lamark and Darwin, though Mendel was more or less contemporary.



Strange debate indeed.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost