Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not challenged by this research. All Darwin's original theory requires is that traits vary, are passed down to offspring, and affect the reproductive success of those children.<p>Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" before the scientific community had recognized that such things as "genes" really existed. So on the face of it, it's absurd to propose that the idea that genes (as in, specific sequences of DNA base pairs at specific locations on specific chromosomes) are not the entirety of the mechanism by which organisms acquire their traits challenges the mechanism by which those traits are filtered.<p>Not to mention that there's never been any question that environmental input affects gene expression. All this paper is basically saying is that the health and lifestyle of the parents is an environmental factor in embryo development. If you smoke crack while pregnant, that does cause predictable affects on gene expression in the child. This paper may extend that to smoking crack before you get pregnant, which, unsurprisingly, likely also affects the child.<p>The idea that this effect is anything like Lemarckianism or that the existence of epigenetic effects refutes Darwin so greatly misunderstands both Lemarck and Darwin that I don't know where to begin. If there are actual scientists out there making these claims in such bold terms, they are either deluded or they are BSing for political reasons.