Before I point out some of the differences, let me first point out the similarity between the two

theories

Unlike most other people at the time, Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck
(1744-1829) both thought that life had changed gradually over time and was still changing, that
living things change to be better suited and adapted to their environments, and that all organisms
are related.

Darwin and Lamarck also agreed that life evolved from fewer, simpler organisms into many, more
complex organisms.

On the face of it there is not too much dissimilarity between the theory proposed by Lamarck and
that of Darwin.

What does make a difference is that Darwin proposed a mechanism whereby such changes were
effected. Changes in species was due to procreation or breeding. Those species that spawned
changes which helped to adapt to the new conditions, survived, while those that didn’t eventually
died.

Lamarck's theory held that species underwent changes in response to changes in their
environment. One notable example quoted by him was the case as it might exist with respect to
Giraffes.

Lamarck contended that as trees began to grow taller, giraffes responded to the change by
growing longer necks so that they could continue to feed.

His second contention was that this change was permanent for as long as the new environmental
conditions continued to apply.

In other words, nature chose the best possible solution and, organisms (species), responded
accordingly.

Darwin's theory was one of natural selection and survival of the fittest. As the environment
underwent changes, the species affected by these changes underwent changes in response to
changes in the environment. So essentially, a mutation happened that caused a giraffe's ancestors
to grow longer necks, and because those ancestors had better access to food than ones with
shorter necks, they reproduced more, outnumbering and eventually replacing the short-neck
ones.
With this relatively rudimentary distinction between the two theories, the differences start to
become apparent. A further study of the two theories shows the following differences.

Lamarckism:

This theory states that there is an internal vital force in all organisms.

It considers that new needs or desire produce new structures and change habits of the organism.

According to this theory if an organ is constantly used it would be better developed whereas
disuse of organ results in its degeneration.

It does not consider struggle for existence.

All the acquired characters are inherited to the next generation.

Lamarckism does not believe in survival of the fittest.

Darwinism

This theroy does not believe in the internal vital force.

It contends that needs and/ or desires do not form part of Darwin’s natural selection theory.

An organ can develop further or degenerate only due to continuous variations.

Struggle for existence is very important in this theory.

Only useful variations are transferred to the next generation.

Darwin’s natural selection theory is based on survival of the fittest.