Was Lamarck right?

Hi Quetzal,Are you trying to demonstrate that bacteria are not fully concerned by evolutionary principles debated by both Darwin and Lamark because of asexual & clone reproductive behaviors?
I know there are numerous problems concerning the systematic classification of bacteria. I wonder if easier to elaborate the phylogenetic resolution (designing common descent) more safe should be our investigation of a "potential unified mechanism".
Rules seem to be different for bacteria and metazoan.
If researchers finally solve the bacteria systematic, would this have an important impact on metazoan evolutionary theories?Denesha

Dear Quetzal,Lucky I am, you still are standing on a general (comprehensible) knowledge layer for your answering. I'm seeking for some Margulis's PDF papers.Your arguments gave me an idea.Briefly, perhaps the first metazoan was a viable hybridation of two different prokaryote species, formerly symbiotic and each specialized in two complementary inorganic recycling. For an unknown reason, genetic material was mixed (viruses, solar radiance?) and so the genetic discrepancy of this artificial hybrid was both (1) so important that not allowed any more further separate division and (2) rather than disintegrate (should have been expected) the duo multiplied itself with the same genetic alteration.Of course this is speculation. The main assumption is that both organisms had a very simple genetic material and each of them was together in a lucky period.However, I think that it will be quite interesting to dig more deeply in the "association" field. These phenomena probably played important (crucial) roles in evolution.
Still much to learn before receiving a "Prix Nobel". Humour.Denesha

Hi Quetzal,As suggested, I download a few (8) PDF files concerning Symbiosis and Bacteria. I some, there are hypothesis of heterogeneous constitutions of Archae + eubacteria!Must read them in detail.Denesha

We must speak with courtesy when evaluating our past scientists.
Replaced in he’s context, Lamark was a genius.
However at our days, he’s theories are not supported.Lamark was not wrong, he is wrong now.
Sounds better, indeed.Denesha

Dear all,This is an educational problem. Teachers must teach us "dogmatic/classic" facts and the desire to learn more about them by our own. Honestly, this is a hard task. Mostly, only facts are retained because we are too lazy to search for more.
This is not a fatality! I've learned more about Ernst Haeckel by myself. From this current forum discussion, I learned that JP Lamark accepted to change is mind without constraints.
I was not aware of that. It doesn't change my judgment on his colossal work but this underscore how I was tricked by education system. Navely, I thought there was nothing more to know about he's work.Denesha