[klmr]

> These sorts of discoveries really push towards a re-evaluation of Lamarck's thought, frankly.

They fundamentally don’t. Lamarckism was an explanatory model for evolution, and even if these results turn out to be true, they are not evolution. They are transient changes, whereas genetic changes are permanent. You need permanence for adaptation. Lamarckism fundamentally cannot explain the acquisition of new traits, only the (relatively short-term) modulation of existing ones. A good explanation of the difference, and why Lamarckism definitely failed as an explanatory model for evolution, can be found in Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker.

Jablonka’s hypothesis is widely regarded as falsified (e.g. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/05...).