Somewhere between Darwin and Baldwin lies... Lamark?

Baldwin Effect - not much to go on at your link:
Baldwin effect - Wikipedia In other words {learned\invented} behavior that is communicated within a population can increase the survival ability of that population with no change at the biological level?Like the Japanese Macaques
Blue Planet Biomes - Japanese MacaqueSimilarly weight-lifting monkeys (developing extra muscle mass, a typical Lamarkian type feature that is not inherited) increases survival of a band of monkeys that then learn to do weight lifting as part of their "culture"Similarly human development ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Yes it is. The gist that I see though, is not that the features are "lamarkian" but naturally occuring (mutation etc), and that this is more about fixation within the population beyond the period of natural selection operation (the drought has ended, still selecting for camel-backs)... "we started going down this canal and we're going to stay the course"To me "lamarkian" features are individually aquired characteristics (built up muscles, etc) that are not inheritable (not linked to genes at all, ... well other than having the ability to do it ...)I do see, however, that purely behavioral changes (such as washing potatoes in salt water to add salt taste) can lead to selection of characteristics that improve ability to do {altered behavior} such as an afinity for water, being able to swim, become the "aquatic ape" ...This would be "intentional selection" where the species intentionally selects for characteristics that it {desires/values} but that are unrelated specifically to survival or reproduction. A little different from sexual selection. Very Human?I'm just coming at it from a different perspective.This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*18*2005 06:29 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

or did nipple swelling become part of the genome after nest building because it was not a problem then?this would be in the baldwin area?This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*19*2005 07:07 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Let me rephrase the question:Did the part of the rat genome that allows {her nipples to swell and touch the ground so they get cold / irritated} become part of the rat genome after {nest building behavior} because it was not a problem then?ie - not all mammals build nests ergo ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Right, and my point was that once a certain behavior became ingrown in a species that genetic drift could occur to change a feature that wouldn't have without the behavioral change, perhaps it allowed rat legs to get shorter to make getting into holes for food easier.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.