WI Lamarckism instead of Darwinism

[sulliver]

So one day i had this idea, what if Lamarckism was more popular among the masses than Darvins theories?
As Lamarck believed species change because they want to change( ex: giraffes have such long necks because they wanted to eat from higher trees not because the giraffes who had larger necks survived and gave theyr genes to their descendants) maybe his ideas would be more understandable,
first butterflies what i have in mind because of this are Nietzche and Nazis, maybe then Nietzche Übermensch would be people would be some kind of gods and also i think that because of this the Nazis would not start killing people, maybe they start instead to psychologicly work with people who arent from aryan race, they would not decline jews to marry germans, they would just constantly work with their minds so that they would want to become aryans, also Mendel-like scientists would instead of injecting paint to eyes, cut brains and manipulate humans and they would not kill jews and romas then.
But without killing jews and romas the nazis will not make themselves bad enough to be forbidden as an ideology, so that they would survive until 21st century
so what are your thoughts about it?

PS: i put it in the post1900 because most butterflies would start working at 20th century

 

[Beedok]

Larmarckism wasn't popular because it didn't work. Biology would be significantly retarded by following Lamarckism.

 

[sulliver]

you are right yes but so was eugenics and the teories that explained that whites are better than blacks, maybe the scientists would never start to believe in it, but hey, Hitler and nazis were madmans, they could believe in it i think

 

[Johnrankins]

It is hard to see Lamarckism lasting to WWII. Darwinism was accepted because it was proven to be more correct. This is like what would happen if Newtonian physics wouldn't have been accepted. Newtonian physics was accepted because it accurately described the world under normal Earth conditions. Even today most engineering is based on Newtonian physics at is accurate enough for most engineering and is easier to work with than Einstein's or Heisenberg's .

 

[Johnrankins]

you are right yes but so was eugenics and the teories that explained that whites are better than blacks, maybe the scientists would never start to believe in it, but hey, Hitler and nazis were madmans, they could believe in it i think

If you are talking it being more popular in Nazi Germany than that is a definite possibility. Stalin was pushing for a form of that as he saw it as more Socialist. Apparently he thought the physical universe gave a damn about human political theories.

 

[Andrew Hudson]

If you are talking it being more popular in Nazi Germany than that is a definite possibility. Stalin was pushing for a form of that as he saw it as more Socialist. Apparently he thought the physical universe gave a damn about human political theories.

It was official policy under Lysenko and a considerable amount of damage was done to Soviet agriculture owing to its rejection of genetics. Lysenko is now discredited in Russia. There elements on the far left who hold similar dotty views regarding genetics i.e heredity has no role everything is caused by the environment.

Lamarcism accepted? No GM crops and increases in crop yields wouldn't have taken place. I imagine Lamarcism would have been as unpopular with religious fundamentalists as Darwin was and still is

 

[ColeMercury]

Lamarckism fell by the wayside in the first place because it didn't work in real life. Scientific theories aren't like political ideologies where it's all a matter of opinion -- they need to be supported by fact.

 

[Baruch]

The problem is Lamarkism is more popular than Darwin. When idiots from either side discuss evolution, they argue lamark. You go on any message board where folks discuss evolution, most of the time it is variations on lamark that the more idiotic posters will argue over.

It makes you weep sometimes.

Soviet biology badly suffered because Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev all confused the concepts. Even in college I had several liberal arts professors explain Lamark's theories as Darwinism.


Which would probably annoy Chuck no end, as the first 1/4 of Origin of Species is explaining why Lamark is wrong.

 

[Johnrankins]

Lamarckism fell by the wayside in the first place because it didn't work in real life. Scientific theories aren't like political ideologies where it's all a matter of opinion -- they need to be supported by fact.

As a truly scientific theory you are right, it can't last but as a pseudoscientific theory supported by the state it can. It did under Stalin as mentioned. Would you argue with Stalin? Only if you were tired of life!

 

[Marja]

The problem is Lamarkism is more popular than Darwin. When idiots from either side discuss evolution, they argue lamark. You go on any message board where folks discuss evolution, most of the time it is variations on lamark that the more idiotic posters will argue over.

It makes you weep sometimes.

True.

For example, many people impose a narrative of progress onto any discussion of evolution. It's maddening. I'm more patient when people introduce or seem to introduce teleology. English, and probably most languages, make it easier to discuss things as if they were purposeful actions, and also explain why they aren't, and also explain pre-adaptations and step-by-step adaptations, than to discuss things without that original metaphor.

 

[MattII]

Lamarckism might be making a slight comeback with recent research into epigenetics.

 

[Samm]

So why was Lamarckism considered socialist? Was it because it would have made the creation of a New Soviet Man easier or what?

 

[Devolved]

So one day i had this idea, what if Lamarckism was more popular among the masses than Darvins theories?
As Lamarck believed species change because they want to change( ex: giraffes have such long necks because they wanted to eat from higher trees not because the giraffes who had larger necks survived and gave theyr genes to their descendants) maybe his ideas would be more understandable,
first butterflies what i have in mind because of this are Nietzche and Nazis, maybe then Nietzche Übermensch would be people would be some kind of gods and also i think that because of this the Nazis would not start killing people, maybe they start instead to psychologicly work with people who arent from aryan race, they would not decline jews to marry germans, they would just constantly work with their minds so that they would want to become aryans, also Mendel-like scientists would instead of injecting paint to eyes, cut brains and manipulate humans and they would not kill jews and romas then.
But without killing jews and romas the nazis will not make themselves bad enough to be forbidden as an ideology, so that they would survive until 21st century

What are you talking about!?

You are linking Darwin with Hitler. Why? No connection whatever.

Hatred of Jews had nothing to do with Darwinism. Nazi science was a half made up corruption of every scientific and religious idea humans had ever come up with. Hitler knew nothing about science, hence his belief in astrology, hollow earth, blood and destiny etc.

Nazis believed that Aryans came from Atlantis not from apes.

Neither Darwinism or Lamarckism was 'popular' among the masses. The masses believed and still believe that god (or aliens) made them.

Most people on this planet wouldn't understand science if it punched them in the face every morning and explained its concepts in baby talk.

Darwin NEVER talked about inferior and superior creatures. Natural selection is not about the best or worst but the best suited to the prevailing conditions. Hence 'natural' selection.

Darwinism won out among the scientific community because it has more evidence to back it up than every other theory put forward. Lamarckism looks like some made up rubbish by a person who didn't understand how nature works.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

And BTW, there is a 'leftwing' form of Darwinism, based on the events (many) of nature showing that cooperation often work better than competition.

 

[radaron]

As others have said, Lamarckism wouldn't survive the advent of genetics. If it become fashionable (more likely for political, rather than scientific reasons), it would seriously retard biology, though the effects may not have been felt until the mid-20th century.

I'm always skeptical when it comes to people linking Darwin to Hitler (or his ilk), I think ethnic cleansing has more to do with nationalism and politics than biology.