The prevailing theory of evolution prior to Darwin was that of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829). According to the once very popular, but later much ridiculed, Lamarckian theory, animals evolve by changing during their lifetimes, and passing on these changes to their offspring. His famous example was that of giraffes, which, he postulated, would, over countless generations, stretch their necks to reach ever higher branches, and pass on slightly longer necks to their progeny.
The theory of random mutation and natural selection overthrew all this. But, despite a century of being laughed at by those who thought they knew better, Lamarckianism has made a very quiet comeback, though the back door. It’s not called that any more, of course. They now call it epigenetics, which states that characteristics aquired during a lifetime can indeed be passed on to offspring.
Darwin would be turning in his grave… Or would he? Actually, in point of fact, Darwin never abandoned Lamarckian ideas, and they always played a part in his theory. It was only later, after about 1900, that naturual selection alone became the prevailing paradigm, until just recently.
I can understand that epigenetics tells us that acquired traits can be inherited. This is Lamarckism. The mechanism might not be what Lamarck suspected, but then, just like Darwin, he had no idea what the mechanism actually was.
It is all just one of the many games going on in the world. What is being stated as the natural principle is merely disguising what is really being used as an artificial principle, “We can do it this way and blame it on that…”.
So, the manifestation of the past through genetics dictates an organisms potential range of phenotype, but this range can be altered through acquired experience or mutation and go on to dictate a slightly different potential range of phenotype for the organism’s offspring?