Talk:Lamarckism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lede image[edit]

This article needs an explanatory supporting image in the lede. Much use of Wikipedia never gets beyond the first few sentences and we need to convey the gist of an article as much to the casual reader as those who want an in depth view. Lumos3 (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but that applies to hundreds of thousands of articles; and what image would summarize this article correctly, I wonder? It certainly must not be a facile suggestion of high-school "Lamarckism" which as far as biology is concerned, isn't even wrong, and it was a view held by everyone from Aristotle to Darwin, with the exception, basically, of Lamarck. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having slept on it, I've had a go at an image which is at least based on something Lamarck actually did say. Perhaps it will serve the purpose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important discoveries in debate about theory of evolution in neo-Lamarckism vs. Darwinian natural selectionism ("Darwinism")[edit]

Some important scientists and researchers have came out in the field of genetics claiming to prove that the natural selection theory in Darwinism is highly flawed in areas where Lamarckian genetics has now been proven right. Would be important to mention and elaborate upon. Also the obvious connection to theories of eugenics coming from somewhere in this area of thought here rather than classical social darwinism often considered bunk science today by many as an explanation of eugenics. Seems like there needs to be a great expansion in this article highlighting the new modern understanding of neo-Lamarckism as highly biologically tenable with much scientific insight discovered greatly improving upon the theory of evolution for instance in the broader understanding of the scientific community, rather than mostly emphasizing claims throughout this article about how people couldn't prove or disprove the theory or aren't sure if evidence was valid or not in the distant past rather the present day understandings. Recent new discoveries mentioned need to be taught if they are relevant and useful for greatly improving the quality of the article beyond just a "good article". Some editing users seemed apprehensive about adding things because they are either "not useful" or "irrelevant" but it seems there's no real argument to base the accusation in. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, @184.71.97.170: but the reversion is not "vandalism". You need to seek consensus before changing the article. That's part of WP:BRD. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 20:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV issue matter right now then. How is what Chiswick Chap did not both arbitrary and contentious (WP:POV)? How is what you're doing defending him as not potentially doing something malicious not a fallacious argument (WP:POV)? You two are completely side-stepping the main point of the argument and refuse to address it. That's failure to engage in WP:BRD. If it's not vandalism you would join the actual dialectical discussion instead of making accusations and defending Chiswick Chap's arbitrary edit he can't sufficiently explain as of the current moment for you (WP:POV). His edit suggested maliciousness in the trolling tone of his RV edit comment about how my edit was "useless" especially with his sarcastic "thanks" (WP:POV). TLDR it's an important issue matter of WP:NPOV here for me. He sounded like a vandal troll seemingly trying to start an edit war which is explictly against protocol whereas WP:BRD is never absolutely necessary and merely optional but is often cited hypocritically by those that defend pointless edit warring. Don't forget WP:BRR, you're missing out on a big part of the editorial process here. Peep the last part of WP:BRD you're also ignoring, besides D being ignored only by asking me to gain consensus ALONE, it's just trying to talk down about making a bold edit despite citing WP:BRD. The last guideline rule of WP:BRD is this that you need to engage in with me:
(Bold again) "Let the other editor apply agreed-upon changes. If they don't want to, that's okay, but be sure to offer. The offer alone shows deference and respect. If that editor accepts, (1) the history will show who made the change and the other editor will have control over the precise wording (keeping you from applying a change different from the one agreed upon). And, (2) such a practice prevents you from falling afoul of the three-revert rule. Assume this revision will not be the final version. You do not have to get it all done in one edit. If you can find consensus on some parts, make those changes, and let them settle. This will give everyone a new point to build from. Having completed one successful cycle, you may also find it easier to get traction for further changes, or you may find you have reached a reasonable compromise and can stop." 184.71.97.170 (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, it's very hard to follow your statements because they are extremely verbose. See WP:TLDR. Anyway, I'm not engaging in a content dispute (partially because, again, your comments are extremely verbose), and frankly I don't care about the content, what I care about is that you made a bold edit, and Chiswick Chap, as is his right, reverted the edit; he is an editor in good standing who has been around for 16 years. Perhaps his edit summary was ill-advised and inflammatory, but you're also assuming that his comment was insincere, perhaps it wasn't; it's hard to tell over text. And while we're at it, accusing him of trying to spark an edit war is a form of casting aspersions. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should be able to argue something with someone if you requested WP:BRD standard protocol. There's like 7 short sentences at the start of this section to engage in what you asked me to do that you refuse to do and that would suggest you're potentially vandalizing the article for your apparent friend, which seems just as spiteful as his comment in his edit opposing me. If you're not willing to do this with me then we will have to proceed much differently following from now. Nobody is casting aspersions here except you by accusing me of doing so. I'm saying it seemed like he was eager for a fight. And you have admitted that he was being inflammatory. I've proposed good edits, they got removed, they refuse to discuss it and only accuse me of wrongdoing for pointing out their own blatantly obvious misbehaviour. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
184.71.97.170, I have no idea who the other editor is. My decision to revert your change was on its own merits. You are welcome to create an WP:RFC or similar, or you can wait until there is clear consensus to proceed with your proposed changes. You are not, however, allowed to bludgeon the conversation in an attempt to get your way. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the recent reverts, and I would have the following advice for the IP editor. First, find citations for what you are trying to add. Second, read WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTNEWS. It is my understanding that recent developments in epigenetics would seem to broaden previous notions of inheritance, but whether or not they literally revive Lamarck is a much more controversial statement. In other words, notions of inheritance that would have been (wrongly) dismissed previously as Lamarckism (as in insult) are now being taken more seriously. However, that doesn't mean that Lamarckism is actually right. It'd be a bit like saying revisions to the Theory of Relativity mean Newton was right. It's much more nuanced than that. Anyway, find a source before making the change.DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I mean what I read before not about Lamarckism but the neo-Lamarckian theory of evolution I wrote into the article. Neo-Lamarckism developed its own theory of evolution that contrasts with the way Darwinism views natural selection. Some scientists have published researched noting that Lamarckism had some thing right that Darwinism got wrong in their understandings of evolution in nature by processes they observed. Lamarckism itself has never been proven right or wrong but much of it has been proven right if not most of it. Basically we see it as mostly accurate today but it's something from the past several years that is why most people are interested in it now from scientific communities. In the distant past for quite a long time it was very hard to prove much of Lamarckism correct but we live in very different times. Often it is denigrated because the Soviets believed in it, since they may have used it improperly or misunderstood it. There is citations for all of that which had been mentioned that can be explained in detail I'm sure is quickly available but it can be troublesome and difficult finding exact specific sources when being asked for them, such as needing it being the direct one, like when it's required to be the actual sources from the scientific study rather than a science news journal reporting an analysis and summary on it or something of that brand topic even if it is really valid, because of wikipedia's policies. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you find mainstream scientific sources saying that Lamarckism is back, we will keep calling it obsolete. I have not seen anything here but empty rhetorics, starting with has never been proven right or wrong and ending with it is denigrated because the Soviets believed in it. And your edits in the article are just unsourced editorializing, that is, your opinion, and not helpful either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL well then this is an obsolete article you need to greatly revamp and provide much more sourcing for if you feel the need otherwise to scrub it "clean". The article itself says the same type of things if not itself THAT in several other places so you may as well scrub the entire article as you see fit however you wish considering much of this article is just "empty rhetorics" to you. It's not vandalism for you to "clean" this article, is it? Like okay friend well if you can't see the truth listed from the article because it's my opinion according to you then may as well go ahead and remove any mention to the Soviets and how this article shows how it is long spoken of Lamarckism itself as a theory never having been able to be proven wrong nor right officially in general within academic consensus for certain on here, and how the article itself mentions evidence proves it right. Just go ahead and the scrap the article the way you're suggesting you want to if it's such a big deal that these are my "opinions" based on the article research provided within the article about epigenetics. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More empty rhetorics. Suggest actual concrete improvements to the articles, bring reliable sources for your claims, or go away. This is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]