Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's not a paradox, it's an almost paradox, which is kind of like being almost pregnant from a logic perspective.

Lamarckian and Darwinian evolution were debated and Darwin won. Lamarck's Lemma, which is a term I made up, points out that, were a random walk to create a mechanism for Lamarckian evolution, Darwinian evolution might well keep it around, as it could offer fitness.

That's why I phrase it as a lemma on Darwin's theory: even if it proves true, as epigenetics suggests, it doesn't make Lamarckian thinking correct. If anything, the opposite: it shows that Lamarckian effects can be explained through natural selection.

Plants can of course move, the classic example being the sensitive plant. Whether or not non-human animals can "talk" depends, basically, on whether one means "signalling" or "language proper". The bee dance can give arbitrarily complex instructions in one particular domain: there is no 'one' bee dance, each performance is roughly as unique as a sentence or so of text.




> Whether or not non-human animals can "talk" depends,

there is at least one animal that we know is able to talk, at least in our definition of "talk" - this animal is humans, so the Evolution did produce a talking animal.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: