Sometimes phrases used to describe Darwinian evolution express Lamarckian evolution. This is bad because it is confusing and objectively wrong.
Here are some examples…
Lamarckian - “Living things are trying to survive.”
Recommended Darwinian alternative – “Given their environmental circumstances, and to the extent possible, living things engage in ongoing operations. Their methods are influenced by inherited templates that propagate successful patterns of such operations (i.e., inherited egg cell and inherited sperm cell), and by inherited DNA that influences operations on all organizational levels.”
Comment – the Lamarckian phrase presumes that all living things have a cognitive awareness of their physical circumstances, an abstract model of themselves in relation to those circumstances, an awareness of the demands of their ongoing operations, that they have goals to continue operations, and that they have plans on how to achieve such goals. Although the Lamarckian phrase is snappy and short, it does not reflect objective reality.
Lamarckian – “If it is to survive, the species must adapt to changing environments.”
Recommended Darwinian alternative – “As environments change, individuals who survived to adulthood and reproduced may have been able to do so due to the possession of certain traits, or combination of traits that secured or improved their ability to maintain ongoing operations. Experiencing good luck also has its benefits.”
Comment – First, there is no “must” in basic biology. Either environmental conditions support operations – and operations continue, or they don’t – and operations slow down or halt. Except for humans (and possibly other higher mammals), individual living things are not goal oriented. They can neither predict the future nor weigh multiple alternative scenarios with the goal of implementing structural changes to ensure the best outcome for themselves. A little ground squirrel emerges from its burrow early in the morning. It’s not thinking, “Hey, I’m starving. Time to get breakfast.” Instead, physiological signals trigger behavior patterns (influenced by inheritance and experience) that lead to food discovery and consumption.
The fossil record is filled with the impressions left behind by millions of species that used to have living representatives on the planet but now are extinct. If Lamarckian evolution were true, there would be no extinctions. Although I love living things on this planet and I want them all to thrive, I accept that new traits that might improve their chances of survival might not arrive in time.
Lamarckian – “The goal of living things is to reproduce.”
Recommended Darwinian alternative – “Most living things are not goal-oriented. But by supporting their internal suite of ongoing operations, this CAN lead to milestones in development and behavior like sexual maturity, and reproductive contributions.”
Comment – Although Darwinian evolution can easily be characterized as a “numbers game,” that is not to say that the participants in this system are aware of the stakes or the possible outcomes. Remember, that by virtue of their inheritance, living individuals engage in actions that result in the persistence of ongoing operations – or don’t.
Lamarckian – “In the complex battle of life”
Recommended Darwinian alternative – “In the complex interactions of life”
Comment – Life is not a battle. So many things wrong with this statement. Implies that living things are engaged in ongoing hostilities with each other.
The maintenance of life-related operations is inherently stressful because of constant depletion of internal reserves by ongoing cellular operations. To the extent that reserves are replenished, operations continue. Patterns in anatomy, behavior, physiology, and development result in interactions with the surrounding environment that replenish reserves, or not.
Lamarckian – “…the evolutionary game of hide-and-seek.”
Recommended Darwinian alternative – “the ecological interactions between prey and predator.”
Comment – Evolution is not a game, it’s not even a process. Evolution is a statistical result. The actions of “life” fall under the category of ecology. And prey animals are not “trying to hide.” The concept of “hiding” is a complex abstraction that would require the prey animal to construct a model of its own existence in relation to the dynamic components of its surroundings and the predators that seek it.
Lamarckian – “This field is a battlefield, and this mouse is one of the tiniest soldiers.”
Recommended Darwinian alternative – “This field is an environmental setting patrolled by hawks, and this mouse is one of the tiniest prey mammals”
Comment – The planetary surface environment is not a battlefield. It is a physical setting occupied by self-persisting objects that consume the setting’s resources. As there is variety in the patterns of resource consumption, consumption operations in some individuals continue as a result of interrupting consumption operations in other individuals (predators eating prey).
Lamarck's model for evolution is heartfelt and hopeful, but it relies on too much thinking and too much magic. Image created by Tom Morris / PlanetaryBiology.com