Let's see if I can get this right (please correct me where I'm wrong in my summaries)...
Everywhere I've read about
Lamarckism, I read that it's been "discredited" or "isn't true." In trying to understand the biological bases for "innate behavior" and the steps a species goes through to aquire them, I'm not quite convinced.
Current theory on trait expression and aquisition are described by
Mendelian inheritance and
neodarwinism. Traits are propogated from generation to generation via Mendelian rules of inheritance. New traits are acquired by a population via mutation (changes to the traits in an individual) and natural selection (interaction of the trait with the environment, leading to propogation of the trait through the population ).
Part of this idea of inheritance and aquisition of new traits via random mutation and natural selection includes the
Baldwin effect. In the Baldwin Effect, traits which are NOT expressed in "normal" development, but only expressed in development within "abnormal" environments, if selected for,
can begin to express themselves within the course of normal development.
My question is, is the Baldwin effect really just Lamarkism in the case of selection pressure? I'll try and walk a bit through the steps. Can't basically all acquired characteristics be understood as simply characteristics developed in a "abnormal" environment? And can't aquisition be considered as "characteristics appearing in the standard developmental environment which previously did not"? If this is the case, then the only difference I see between Lamarkism and the Baldwin effect is selection pressure.
Thus, would it be accurate to say that the Baldwin effect shows Lamarkian inheritance in the case where there's selection pressure?
(Biological Evolution please)
™ Version 4.2