(3 pt) What was the difference between Darwin and Lamarck?
Lamarck was able to explain evolution with evidence, something Darwin did not do.
The idea of mutations was understood by both, but Lamarck was able to prove it.
Darwin was able to explain evolution with evidence, something Lamarck did not do.
The idea of mutations was understood by both, but Darwin was able to prove it.
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
Darwin's argued that the evolution of the biological species takes place according to the natural selection, as the fittest one survives over others. That's called Darwinism. Lamarck, on the other hand, argued that when a particular feature of an organism is being used extensively, the next generation would favor to increase the efficiency of that particular feature in order to adapt to the environment better. In other words, according to Lamarck, the characteristics that were acquired in one particular generation would pass or inherit to the next generation. That is known as "inheritance of acquired characteristics", or Lamarckism. Darwinism is more accepted than Lamarckism by the present-day scientific community.