On Monday afternoon, when I heard my deskmate say that “acquired inheritance is pseudoscience,” I wrote a paragraph to prove the correctness of acquired inheritance. The main content is as follows: I first introduced the concept from the compulsory biology textbook, stating that due to gene methylation modifications, environmentally acquired traits can also be inherited, but this is a gradual process that requires several generations of accumulation to manifest. Then, I began to discuss “labor creates humans,” from the upright walking of apes, freeing their hands, to how labor has changed humans’ hands, brain capacity, sensory organs, and language organs. Humans have evolved from being governed by natural selection to actively transforming nature and overcoming it. Finally, I argued that if acquired inheritance were wrong, then the series of trait changes from apes to humans, driven by natural selection, would not only sound absurd but also provide a theoretical basis for social Darwinism and serve the interests of the ruling class.
After I showed him this paragraph, he also wrote several passages to refute me. I summarized his main points:
-
The textbook does not mention that epigenetics can influence traits. It gives an example of smoking, showing that at the cellular level, it results in decreased vitality and lower quality, leading to reduced sperm motility in males. In descendants, it affects congenital sub-health rather than the inherited trait of smoking itself. Also, where does the textbook say that acquired inheritance or epigenetics is a gradual process?
-
According to the philosophy and history of science, philosophy is not a specific science. Its content cannot be linked to any particular science, and no philosophical concept should be used to interpret any specific science. Based on the philosophy and history of science, the world is deconstructed into several levels, each with its own specific sciences, whose research objects and development directions are incomparable. It’s like trying to answer a political science question from a biological perspective and then applying the conclusion to biology.
-
How do you conclude that the error of acquired inheritance equals the Marxist error? In primitive society, those with high labor ability, developed hands, and large brain capacity were retained, while others were eliminated. Explaining this with natural selection is also reasonable, isn’t it?
-
Are there relevant experimental practices or research papers? Does this violate Marxist philosophy?
Later, I repeatedly emphasized that Marxism is divided into three main modules: political economy, historical materialism, and dialectical materialism. I stressed that I was applying knowledge from historical materialism, which is not closely related to Marxist philosophy, and to avoid confusing the concepts. Marxism is not equal to Marxist philosophy. What made me angry was that when I tried to clarify this point, he responded quite casually, saying, “Okay, okay, whatever you say,” and “Alright, alright, you’re just using that historical whatever-ism.” Anyone who has studied Marxism would not make such a low-level, intolerable mistake, just as one would not mistake physics for mathematics, even though both are natural sciences. It seemed as if Marxist philosophy was just a trivial toy in his eyes, something he could manipulate at will without taking seriously. It was truly unbearable.
Then, I debated with him about the theory that “labor creates humans.” He claimed that his theory of natural selection did not deny this, that those with high labor ability were retained and those with low ability eliminated, and that ultimately, “labor creates humans.” He also said that my idea of acquired inheritance was just an inference without evidence. I didn’t know how to counter him, so I finally resorted to citing classics, showing him the article “The Role of Labor in the Transition from Ape to Human.” However, he still didn’t believe my explanation and searched Baidu, which said: When Engels wrote this article, Mendel’s laws of inheritance had not yet been recognized by the scientific community. Therefore, Engels’ inference was incorrect, and later it was falsified by modern mainstream science. But the scientific core message he wanted to convey remains correct. I insisted on my view but also didn’t know what suitable evidence to use to refute him.