Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lamarckian inheritance (i.e., inheritance of acquired character) and Richard Golschmidt's concept of "systemic mutations" and their role in macroevolution have been two of the most controversial topics in the history of evolutionary biology. The concept of Lamarckian inheritance was put to rest first by Weismann's germplasm theory and experiment and later by the discovery of Mendelian inheritance. Goldschmidt's theory of macroevolution by systemic mutations was put to rest by the discovery of DNA's structure and subsequent demonstration showing allelic variation as the basis for genetic and phenotypic differences observed among organisms. Some authors are using recent demonstrations of epigenetic inheritance in higher organisms to support Lamarckian inheritance and Golschmidt's theory of macroevolution by systemic mutations. In this paper, I show that the recent discoveries related to mutations, such as the so called "directed" mutations in bacteria, and epigenetic inheritance in higher organisms are basically an extension of the notion of "mutation" and thus of the concept of "heritable variation" required for evolution. While the new discoveries of the laws of developmental transformations are enriching our knowledge of the intricate relationship between genotype and phenotype, the findings of epigenetic inheritance do not challenge the basic tenets of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, as other than producing new variation no new processes of evolutionary change have been added to the ones we already know — mutation, migration, selection, and drift.Key words: neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, epigenetics, Lamarckian inheritance, systemic mutations, speciation, macroevolution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.030 | 0.037 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".