> This implies that we should expect limited Lamarckian evolution anywhere it leads to greater fitness than Darwinian. Not necessarily... evolution is good at

> This implies that we should expect limited Lamarckian evolution anywhere it leads to greater fitness than Darwinian. Not necessarily... evolution is good at finding local maxima, but not necessarily global ones if there's a deep valley in between. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is hard to evolve (compared to more Darwinian/DNA sequence-based evolution, it requires extra mechanistic steps and typically the effect size is small), so most of the time it isn't employed. If you look at enough cases where Lamarckian evolution might be advantageous, you'll find a few where it's employed to a limited degree, but in any given situation, it probably won't be.