Yeah, don’t understand the downvotes. It’s an interesting question, and the whole subject of Lamarckism is far from trivially obsolete. Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker contains a coherent and convincing argument why Lamarckism is actually wrong as an evolutionary explanation (in a nutshell, Lamarckism fundamentally cannot explain increase in complexity, as Darwinian evolution can, and it additionally doesn’t explain how adaptations of complex traits could possibly be acquired from scratch) – and this is a fundamental, epistemological objection which no amount of evidence could overturn. But few people refer to this reasoning when claiming that Lamarckism is “wrong”.