You've mentioned Lamarck, and he's usually who we cite as the first person to really propose what we would call a "modern, scientific" theory of evolution in the Western context. That is, Lamarck was making the argument that species were fluid, that there was a mechanism (acquired characteristics) for how this worked, and that you could codify how this worked pretty precisely (as opposed to just a vague idea). This was nearly a century before Darwin. What is interesting about Lamarck is that while we mostly teach about how wrong he was, he actually did get the scientific community to engage with his ideas in a major way (even if, outside of France, they were largely rejected), and his approach had a huge popular impact (influencing, for example, the popular Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation), all of which meant that Lamarck and Lamarckianism was a major point of engagement that Darwin had to deal with in his time (he had to show why he was both better than Lamarck, and different than Lamarck, which a lot of people didn't immediately appreciate).

Can you go back further than Lamarck? I mean, sort of. There are "loose" and often informal evolutionary views that can be traced back to Ancient times. When one reads a Darwin biography, for example, it is common to note that his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, advocated sort of proto-evolutionary ideas in his poetry. Is this the same thing as someone like Lamarck, who tried to formulate really systematic "rules" of evolution and be taken seriously as a scientific thinker on it? I don't think so, personally. But you can trace these ideas of ideas back. If you really want to do a deep dive in this, a book like Peter Bowler's Evolution: The History of an Idea does this kind of work.

But I just want to warn that this kind of approach, in searching for antecedents to an idea now considered "correct," easily leads to bad history of science. It leads to looking for "echoes" of a later formulation of an idea, trying to see a bit of modernity out of a lot of non-modernity, to put it one way. The vast number of thinkers, even in Darwin's time, were not evolutionary thinkers. That does not mean they were Creationists in the sense we'd think of them today — it means the ideas that motivated them in thinking about the vast wonder of the biological world were really different than we do today, often in really striking ways. Reconstructing the larger thinking, including those dominant but "wrong" ideas, is often more rewarding in understanding the development (and reception) of the later "right" ideas.

What is interesting about the history of evolutionary thinking, to me, is that while there were some echoes of it around prior to the 18th century, it really is a pretty minor component of how people thought about the world. In part, this is because, on the timescale of human lives, the biological world doesn't look like it is changing. (In fact, one of the great ways to "disprove" Lamarck was to dig up the mummified corpses of animals from the oldest source of them known at the time: Ancient Egyptian pyramids. And their cats, dogs, egrets, etc., are clearly the same species as the 18th century ones — because evolution doesn't really do that much work on a scale of thousands of years, usually.) For someone like Darwin to be convincing, you need a lot of developments: a sense of "deep time" (the world is much older than human history), fossils (worlds before ours), extinction (the concept that a species can become totally depleted was foreign to even learned people until the early 19th century), ecology (seeing the world as distinct biological/environmental systems, something largely worked out by Alexander von Humboldt in the generation before Darwin), much less an appreciation of heredity (which Darwin had a poor sense of), population dynamics, interspecies dynamics, and so on.

So this is a much richer line of historical inquiry than just narrowly focusing on whether some Ancient Greek author had a line in a larger argument (often taken out of context) that might, if read in the right way, sound kind of like evolution today. Bowler does a pretty good job of balancing these two impulses (too narrow a focus on evolution, to wide a focus on everything else), if you are looking for something that seriously covers this.