Interesting science philosophy question
You asked about a merger of two stages of development of a science, 150 years apart. That is a difficult one, certainly in this case. Lamarckism (evolution equals improval) got falsified by natural selection (evolution equals chance) , which was again confirmed by genetics. When would science maintain, or suddenly accept claims falsified by Darwin, 50 years and 150 years later ?
I would have put this answer, if I would have had the chance to do so. I could not.
Bad luck, there is a WB close reason
To be honest I didn't see many connections with WB either. There was a close reason. I did not vtc along, because I found the question interesting and I was curious if more answers would arrive. So I am a bad bad bad SE moderator.
Closures sometimes proceed very quickly
I wonder why this kind of question should be closed within the hour.. I would say leave things in peace for say 12 hours, we are not in some zero-sum game, where the rest of the forum "quality" would be damaged by this kind of questions. When the user has 1000ths of points (like Ichtis has) and the question has a certain standing, is that so difficult ?
Couldn't this be reformulated, in some way ?
My above argument is only valid on Earth. For WB, "changing proven rules of our world" instead of inventing new rules for a new world always sets you back.. there are several SE forums that would welcome your question like https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/
Now suppose you'd have a world where two advanced intelligent species adhere either paradigm "Lamarckism" or "Genetics", because (...) Maybe they'll have to find a compromise some day, for some reason (...) that has to do with the planet ? or the species ?