السلام عليكم و رحمة الله
This name (in the title) sounds like some commander or soldier from the past and you're right. Jean Baptiste Lamarck is a truly forgotten man of our time, in fact he's only known by the "long giraffe neck eating leaves from trees" man. Even Subboor, in his recent debate, mentioned that. But far from that, Lamarck was actually quite different from who we think he is or what our textbooks say about him.
Let me be frank, I can not speak French but I have read a bit of his translated work about his hypothesis and I noticed the obvious connection between Lamarck and Charles Darwin.
Lamarck was born on 1st August 1744, long before Darwin. Later in his life, Lamarck devised his hypothesis of how evolution occurred. His hypothesis was rejected despite his fame on the work on invertebrates (he coined that word - so blame him if you hated that word in your high school). It was rejected so much that he was rejected by people and he died blind with his 2 daughters serving him in his old age. He published his hypothesis in the month of "flowering"[1] but I guess he didn't get a flowery end.
Lamarck was born in a family that was devoted to military but Lamarck was sent, by his father, to Jesuit College for ecclesiastical (relating to church) career. He never liked it. After his father died, Jean left the Jesuit College and became a soldier to fight in the battle of Fissingshausen - but lost. His fellow officers were all killed. Later on he stopped engaging in war and went to Monaco (very little tiny place next to France where rich people live and pay no tax - so called "equality") and in Monaco, his comrade physically lifted Lamarck from his head! What a fool. His lymphatic glands (in the neck) caught inflammation and thus he was forced to leave his position as a lieutenant (which he had been promoted to). After this, due to his health not being good, he worked in a bank. He then took a course in medicine and met Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Lamarck preferred, in fact loved, botany than medicine and so he left medicine for it. Anyway, in 1781, Lamarck received a commission to visit botanical gardens and institutions in Germany, Hungary and Holland. He collected rare plants and made notes for Jardin du Roi botanical garden in Paris. Then, Museum d'Histoire Naturelle was founded. Lamarck was the chairman of zoology in Naturelle. As a chairman, he threw botany to one side and studied invertebrates and published 7 volumes on them in his Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans vertebres (1815-1822). He also published a book on meteorology but nothing important was in it and he published Philosophie Zoologique. With his meteorology book, which, according to the people at the time contained ridiculous speculation and so he was ridiculed at the time. But with his Zoologique book which is based on natural history, he went to the emperor Napoleon and handed him his book (perhaps Lamarck's motive in giving Napoleon his book was to get his fame back since he was ridiculed?). However Napoleon said:
"What is this? said the Emperor. "Is it your absurd Meteorologie with which you are disgracing your old age? Write on natural history, and I will receive your works with pleasure. This volume I only accept out of consideration for your grey hair. Here"[2] (Napoleon stated as he handed the book to someone else, perhaps his servant).
The book was about natural history but Lamarck didn't say that, he just cried.
Today Lamarck's hypothesis, is more or less forgotten, but it was much more than just inherited acquired characteristic, which simply means, whatever a person acquires during his life time, like, bigger muscles, this acquired characteristic is inherited to his descendants; thus the muscles of the children would improve. Or the famous giraffe neck. Giraffes stretch their necks, this characteristics is inherited to other giraffes and eventually over long period of time, giraffes have long necks.His hypothesis had two main principles: (1) inherent progress and (2) adaptation in environment. That is for life after it appearance. So where did life itself come from? Lamarck believed that it naturally appeared from molecules,
"Life and organisation are products of nature, and at the same time results of the powers conferred upon nature by the Supreme Author of all things and of the laws by which she herself is constituted: this can no longer be called in question. Life and organisation are thus purely natural phenomena, and their destruction in any individual is also a natural phenomenon, necessarily following from the first"[3]
Inherent progress
Lamarck believed that not only life is spontaneous (life from non-life) but after life's appearance, it naturally evolves, hence, inherent progress. Thus, because life is constantly evolving from non molecules, it means that there is no such thing as extinction since life according to Lamarck is like a ladder and there is always a creature evolving to the new stage. So imagine a ladder with 10 steps, and life steps on the first step and then another life appears spontaneously and also steps on the first step of the ladder but by the time the second life hits the first step, the first life is already on the second step of the ladder and so on. Thus each step is occupied and therefore no such thing as extinction occurs. So why do we have a clear cut distinction between, say mammals and birds? Such a big gap must not exist. Lamarck tried to solve this by pointing to the fact that we still haven't discovered or identified all creatures on Earth. But when we find them, then we can fill the gaps. But Lamarck didn't just blame the lack of discovery but he postulated an example which "proves" his hypothesis. He used the Ornithorhyncus (Platypus) as proof that here is a mammal with a characteristic of a bird. Lamarck called them (with Echidna) "Animals intermediate between birds and mammals"[4]
Adaptation in environment
Lamarck believed that animals can also change due to the environment they live in. The reason why a giraffe has a long neck he argued was due to the fact that trees are a little long, and so the giraffes must stretch their necks in order to reach the trees (couldn't the giraffe just eat from the ground?) and therefore this stretch is gradually increasing the length of the neck by the mechanics that he postulated and called inherent acquired characteristics. Due to the fact that the environment in which the animal resides in - the adaptation changes slowly too, it logically means that animals too change slowly,
"Not only is this the greatest marvel that the power of nature has attained, but it is besides a proof of the lapse of a considerable time; since nature has done nothing but by slow degrees"[5]
Depending where you live, that would, in a Lamarckian worldview, determine whether you will use certain body parts or not. This is where his "law of use and disuse" comes in. So if a fish lived in a cave which is dark, the fish won't use it's eyes, thus based on the law of use and disuse, the eyes will eventually disappear in the future generations since it's not using the eye. Which is why Lamarck said that environment (and therefore the mode of life) controls the body.[6] Lamarck used the eyes of the mole as an example. He said "Yet the mole, whose habits require a very small use of sight, has only minute and hardly visible eyes, because it uses that organ so little"[7]
Even though this is a very summarized explanation of Lamarck's hypothesis, you can, nevertheless see gradualism, adaptation and evolution in it, which is from where Charles Darwin got some of his ideas from. Of course Darwin got his ideas from others too but Lamarck's works no doubt influenced Darwin, especially when Darwin read Lamarck's work via Charles Lyell's critique of Lamarckism in Principles of Geology volume 2 and owning Philosophical Zoology.[8]
By comparing Lamarck's evolutionary ideas and Darwin's evolutionary ideas we see very clear cut similarities and the differences between them are fairly small. Both accepted gradualism (geology and biology), evolution, environmental adaptation and the law of use & disuse. The difference is that according to Lamarck, environmental adaptation is a force that is second to the inherent progress whilst Darwin postulated adaptation as the force itself that made all the diversity. Lamarck accepted inherent progress whilst Darwin accepted adaptation as the factor that causes evolution, so Darwin rejected inherent progress.
Summary
There is no doubt that Lamarck's ideas are very similar to Darwin's and therefore I conclude that Lamarck was one of the factors that influenced Darwin. Of course Robert Chambers & Erasmus Darwin and other evolutionists influenced Darwin as well but it seems clear that Lamarck influenced him a great deal.
Note: Yes Lamarck did use the giraffe as an example, that was not made up. Lamarck said,
"It is interesting to observe the result of habit in the peculiar shape and size of the giraffe (Camelo-pardalis): this animal, the largest of the mammals, is known to live in the interior of Africa in places where the soil is nearly always arid and barren, so that it is obliged to browse on the leaves of the trees and to make constant effort to reach them. From this habit long maintained in all its race, it has resulted that the animal's fore-legs have become longer than its hind legs, and that its neck lengthened to such a degree that the giraffe, without standing up on its hind legs, attains a height of six meters (nearly 20 feet)"[9]
That's the only time he spoke about giraffes. He spoke about adaptation much more, in fact a whole chapter is dedicated to it called "Of the influence of the environment on the activities and habits of animals", but giraffes are the only thing we know of his hypothesis. I guess Lamarck answered my question "couldn't the giraffe just eat from the ground?" when he said "it is obliged to browse on the leaves of the trees and to make constant effort to reach them" but what about the animals that don't have long necks? They still coexist with giraffes...
The cause of his blindness (for 10 years until he died) was suggested to be due to his hard work involving looking through the microscope too much - a legend that deserves respect.
و الله اعلم
References
[1] Stephen Jay Gould, 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Harvard, page 170 and Stephen Jay Gould, 2001, The Lying Stones of Marrakech. Vintage, page 115.
[2] Translation by Hugh Elliot of Lamarck's Philosophie Zoologique. Hugh Elliot, 1963, Zoological Philosophy: An exposition with regard to the natural history of animals, Hafner Publishing Company, page xxi.
[3] Ibid, page 236.
[4] Ibid, page 166.
[5] Ibid, page 50.
[6] Ibid, page 106.
[7] Ibid, page 116.
[8] Stephen Jay Gould, 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Harvard, page 195
[9] Hugh Elliot, 1963, Zoological Philosophy: An exposition with regard to the natural history of animals, Hafner Publishing Company, page 122
This name (in the title) sounds like some commander or soldier from the past and you're right. Jean Baptiste Lamarck is a truly forgotten man of our time, in fact he's only known by the "long giraffe neck eating leaves from trees" man. Even Subboor, in his recent debate, mentioned that. But far from that, Lamarck was actually quite different from who we think he is or what our textbooks say about him.
 |
| Jean Baptiste Lamarck |
Lamarck was born on 1st August 1744, long before Darwin. Later in his life, Lamarck devised his hypothesis of how evolution occurred. His hypothesis was rejected despite his fame on the work on invertebrates (he coined that word - so blame him if you hated that word in your high school). It was rejected so much that he was rejected by people and he died blind with his 2 daughters serving him in his old age. He published his hypothesis in the month of "flowering"[1] but I guess he didn't get a flowery end.
Lamarck was born in a family that was devoted to military but Lamarck was sent, by his father, to Jesuit College for ecclesiastical (relating to church) career. He never liked it. After his father died, Jean left the Jesuit College and became a soldier to fight in the battle of Fissingshausen - but lost. His fellow officers were all killed. Later on he stopped engaging in war and went to Monaco (very little tiny place next to France where rich people live and pay no tax - so called "equality") and in Monaco, his comrade physically lifted Lamarck from his head! What a fool. His lymphatic glands (in the neck) caught inflammation and thus he was forced to leave his position as a lieutenant (which he had been promoted to). After this, due to his health not being good, he worked in a bank. He then took a course in medicine and met Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Lamarck preferred, in fact loved, botany than medicine and so he left medicine for it. Anyway, in 1781, Lamarck received a commission to visit botanical gardens and institutions in Germany, Hungary and Holland. He collected rare plants and made notes for Jardin du Roi botanical garden in Paris. Then, Museum d'Histoire Naturelle was founded. Lamarck was the chairman of zoology in Naturelle. As a chairman, he threw botany to one side and studied invertebrates and published 7 volumes on them in his Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans vertebres (1815-1822). He also published a book on meteorology but nothing important was in it and he published Philosophie Zoologique. With his meteorology book, which, according to the people at the time contained ridiculous speculation and so he was ridiculed at the time. But with his Zoologique book which is based on natural history, he went to the emperor Napoleon and handed him his book (perhaps Lamarck's motive in giving Napoleon his book was to get his fame back since he was ridiculed?). However Napoleon said:
"What is this? said the Emperor. "Is it your absurd Meteorologie with which you are disgracing your old age? Write on natural history, and I will receive your works with pleasure. This volume I only accept out of consideration for your grey hair. Here"[2] (Napoleon stated as he handed the book to someone else, perhaps his servant).
The book was about natural history but Lamarck didn't say that, he just cried.
Today Lamarck's hypothesis, is more or less forgotten, but it was much more than just inherited acquired characteristic, which simply means, whatever a person acquires during his life time, like, bigger muscles, this acquired characteristic is inherited to his descendants; thus the muscles of the children would improve. Or the famous giraffe neck. Giraffes stretch their necks, this characteristics is inherited to other giraffes and eventually over long period of time, giraffes have long necks.His hypothesis had two main principles: (1) inherent progress and (2) adaptation in environment. That is for life after it appearance. So where did life itself come from? Lamarck believed that it naturally appeared from molecules,
"Life and organisation are products of nature, and at the same time results of the powers conferred upon nature by the Supreme Author of all things and of the laws by which she herself is constituted: this can no longer be called in question. Life and organisation are thus purely natural phenomena, and their destruction in any individual is also a natural phenomenon, necessarily following from the first"[3]
Inherent progress
 |
| Ornithorhyncus (or Platypus). An animal with "duck mouth"(a bird characteristic) with a body of a mammal but also lays eggs whilst mammals, like humans, don't lay eggs. Perfect creation, a wonder to ponder over. |
 |
| Echidna. Also a mammal but lays eggs. |
Adaptation in environment
Lamarck believed that animals can also change due to the environment they live in. The reason why a giraffe has a long neck he argued was due to the fact that trees are a little long, and so the giraffes must stretch their necks in order to reach the trees (couldn't the giraffe just eat from the ground?) and therefore this stretch is gradually increasing the length of the neck by the mechanics that he postulated and called inherent acquired characteristics. Due to the fact that the environment in which the animal resides in - the adaptation changes slowly too, it logically means that animals too change slowly,
"Not only is this the greatest marvel that the power of nature has attained, but it is besides a proof of the lapse of a considerable time; since nature has done nothing but by slow degrees"[5]
Depending where you live, that would, in a Lamarckian worldview, determine whether you will use certain body parts or not. This is where his "law of use and disuse" comes in. So if a fish lived in a cave which is dark, the fish won't use it's eyes, thus based on the law of use and disuse, the eyes will eventually disappear in the future generations since it's not using the eye. Which is why Lamarck said that environment (and therefore the mode of life) controls the body.[6] Lamarck used the eyes of the mole as an example. He said "Yet the mole, whose habits require a very small use of sight, has only minute and hardly visible eyes, because it uses that organ so little"[7]
Even though this is a very summarized explanation of Lamarck's hypothesis, you can, nevertheless see gradualism, adaptation and evolution in it, which is from where Charles Darwin got some of his ideas from. Of course Darwin got his ideas from others too but Lamarck's works no doubt influenced Darwin, especially when Darwin read Lamarck's work via Charles Lyell's critique of Lamarckism in Principles of Geology volume 2 and owning Philosophical Zoology.[8]
By comparing Lamarck's evolutionary ideas and Darwin's evolutionary ideas we see very clear cut similarities and the differences between them are fairly small. Both accepted gradualism (geology and biology), evolution, environmental adaptation and the law of use & disuse. The difference is that according to Lamarck, environmental adaptation is a force that is second to the inherent progress whilst Darwin postulated adaptation as the force itself that made all the diversity. Lamarck accepted inherent progress whilst Darwin accepted adaptation as the factor that causes evolution, so Darwin rejected inherent progress.
Summary
There is no doubt that Lamarck's ideas are very similar to Darwin's and therefore I conclude that Lamarck was one of the factors that influenced Darwin. Of course Robert Chambers & Erasmus Darwin and other evolutionists influenced Darwin as well but it seems clear that Lamarck influenced him a great deal.
Note: Yes Lamarck did use the giraffe as an example, that was not made up. Lamarck said,
"It is interesting to observe the result of habit in the peculiar shape and size of the giraffe (Camelo-pardalis): this animal, the largest of the mammals, is known to live in the interior of Africa in places where the soil is nearly always arid and barren, so that it is obliged to browse on the leaves of the trees and to make constant effort to reach them. From this habit long maintained in all its race, it has resulted that the animal's fore-legs have become longer than its hind legs, and that its neck lengthened to such a degree that the giraffe, without standing up on its hind legs, attains a height of six meters (nearly 20 feet)"[9]
That's the only time he spoke about giraffes. He spoke about adaptation much more, in fact a whole chapter is dedicated to it called "Of the influence of the environment on the activities and habits of animals", but giraffes are the only thing we know of his hypothesis. I guess Lamarck answered my question "couldn't the giraffe just eat from the ground?" when he said "it is obliged to browse on the leaves of the trees and to make constant effort to reach them" but what about the animals that don't have long necks? They still coexist with giraffes...
The cause of his blindness (for 10 years until he died) was suggested to be due to his hard work involving looking through the microscope too much - a legend that deserves respect.
و الله اعلم
References
[1] Stephen Jay Gould, 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Harvard, page 170 and Stephen Jay Gould, 2001, The Lying Stones of Marrakech. Vintage, page 115.
[2] Translation by Hugh Elliot of Lamarck's Philosophie Zoologique. Hugh Elliot, 1963, Zoological Philosophy: An exposition with regard to the natural history of animals, Hafner Publishing Company, page xxi.
[3] Ibid, page 236.
[4] Ibid, page 166.
[5] Ibid, page 50.
[6] Ibid, page 106.
[7] Ibid, page 116.
[8] Stephen Jay Gould, 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Harvard, page 195
[9] Hugh Elliot, 1963, Zoological Philosophy: An exposition with regard to the natural history of animals, Hafner Publishing Company, page 122
