I'm not sure I understand the gist of your last post -- do you think that by discussing neo-Darwinism, you have shown evolution to be a lie? The solid basis here is that all of these scientists agree that evolution occurred. The debate has been about how.



If you are claiming (yet another) conspiracy here, then you need to give some evidence for it. No one claims that neo-Darwinism was ever 100% correct, and it has its critics today, but these are mainly people who reject the heavy emphasis on genetic determinism. A relatively recent branch of science, called epigenetics, has moved beyond this. It is the standpoint from which Bruce Lipton wrote his book, as it is his particular field of expertise.

I'm not sure about the case for resurrection of some of the ideas you've presented here though.

First, Lamarckism. I think it needs to be understood that this idea preceded the field of genetics. People weren't sure at that time how characteristics were inherited. We know now that DNA is a large factor. There has also been little science done in this field, and most of it is highly dubious, as in the case of Kammerer that one of your links described. At the moment I think it's a possibility that some acquired characteristics could be inherited, but I'd also like to see proper experiments done on this. I'm more intrigued by Sheldrake's morphic fields idea, which says that morphic fields carry the memory of a species and that they also change and grow as members of the species acquire important information and experiences. He's done several investigations into this and it seems that there "might be something to it." Lamarckism might be a factor in Sheldrake's ideas, but his ideas are not pure Lamarckism, and they also propose a mechanism which could work independently of genes (morphic fields).

I'm not sure why you seem to be making a case for Lysenko either. It's difficult if not impossible to separate the truth from the propaganda. Like your science blogger said, he was right about some things, but they turned out to be minor ideas that didn't work on a grand scale. He was responsible for crop failure and starvation in the USSR and in China.

Another of your links seems to be confused about what a species is. I'm not aware of one arbitrary definition, but most scientists would accept that if two organisms that reproduce sexually, are unable to mate with each other in natural conditions, you've got separate species. One of my favourite illustrations of this is the phenomenon of ring species, numerous examples of which are known to exist.



Not the case. I'm tentative about Lamarckism in some forms. I've never said I don't agree with Malthus. Human populations do have the potential to become unsustainably large, and this can happen in nature too. I just don't think that that's the one and only way that evolution has worked -- constant competition for scarce resources. It seems to me that species can reach an equilibrium with their environment and not chage for a long time so long as they remain adapted to the conditions. I also think that if part of the population becomes isolated from the rest, genetic drift will eventually result in new species, because of random mutations and differing environmental factors.



I don't think you've given evidence that anyone was "conned." The prevailing philosophies of science were products of their societies. As your science blogger stated, the former-USSR is more accepting now of the idea of competition, whereas Western society is more accepting of the idea of cooperation. I don't think either polarity is 100% correct. I think both can be true.