In Darwin's theory, natural selection plays the key role, organisms vary through random mutations--slight changes from their parents. The environment determines which are most likely to survive.
In Lamarck's theory, changes in phenotype are inherited. This is now known to be (largely) incorrect.
is the mutation caused randomly or spontaneously and then selected ?
or
environment has a role to shape a particular species that means it induces mutation in or the mutation rate increses during stress condition to so that organism can accustom itself.
Mind you, this theory is a bit different from darwin's and may tend to neglect darwinism on some cases.
Yes, u r right, it is not possible to earmark only one of the theory as entirely correct, comparison and analysis will lead to many points of merit and demerit in both the theories.
I have come across a study in the field of epigenetics that have highlighted the possible inheritance of behavioral traits acquired by the previous generation.
Our article published in peer-reviewed Journal "Communicative & Integrative Biology". A few major points discussed in the paper:
(1) Brain is not the source of consciousness.
(2) Consciousness is ubiquitous in all living organisms, starting from bacteria to human beings.
(3) The individual cells in the multicellular organisms are also individually cognitive entities.
(4) Proposals like “artificial life”, “artificial intelligence”, “sentient machines” and so on are only fairytales because no designer can produce an artifact with the properties like internal teleology (Naturzweck) and formative force (bildende Kraft).
(5) The material origin of life and objective evolution are only misconceptions that biologists must overcome.