Search

The importance of naturalization—the establishment of species introduced into foreign places—to the early development of Darwin's theory of evolution deserves historical attention. Introduced and invasive European species presented Darwin with interpretive challenges during his service as naturalist on the HMS Beagle. Species naturalization and invasive species strained the geologist Charles Lyell's creationist view of the organic world, a view which Darwin adopted during the voyage of the Beagle but came to question afterward. I suggest that these phenomena primed Darwin to question the "stability of species." I then examine the role of introduced and invasive species in Darwin's early theorizing and negotiation with Lyell's ideas, recorded in his post-voyage "transmutation notebooks." Therein, the subject was an inflection point in his contention with Lyell's views and moreover, his theorizing on invasive species occasioned some of his earliest inklings of natural selection. Finally, I examine how naturalization was crucial to Lyell's own eventual conversion to evolutionism. I conclude with brief reflections on the implications of this narrative for our understanding of Darwin's reasoning, his intellectual relationship to Lyell, and the historical context that shaped his theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While studies have examined Charles Darwin's wide social and political impact, they have not adequately centred the combined influence of colonial systems of human differentiation and religion within them. To address this, I draw from Sylvia Wynter's critique concerning how religious and colonial discourses contribute to the shifting development of Man within the Western tradition. Specifically, I explore how Darwin focused his evolutionary gaze towards one of the unique foundations of what it meant to be human in his time: religion. Tracing the entangled religious and colonial filiations of Darwin's thought, I show that he established an evolutionary link between human and non-human animals by proposing both Indigenous peoples and dogs held superstitious beliefs. To illustrate this, I show that Darwin transposed Victorian anthropological conceptions of religion - as a quantifiable object of knowledge corresponding to the intellect and associated with phrenology, dream theory and the apparitional soul - into a bio-religious conception of evolution. Furthermore, I argue that Darwin's bio-evolutionism assumes Christianity is most closely associated with abstract reason. Finally, analyzing the role of race in Darwin's thought, I suggest that theology is not what was before modern scientific bio-evolutionary conceptions of race, but at its very core. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper revisits Fleeming Jenkin's anonymous review of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, published in the North British Review in June 1867. This review is usually revered for its impact on Darwin's theory of descent with modification. Its classical interpretation states that Jenkin, a Professor of Engineering at the University of Edinburgh, made a compelling case against natural selection based on the fact of "blending inheritance" and the "swamping" of advantageous variations. Those themes, however, are strikingly absent from Jenkin's text. They were later read into Jenkin's text by scholars trying to explain how Darwinian selection was reconciled with Mendelian genes and the birth of the Modern Synthesis. While many scholars have tried to measure Jenkin's effect on Darwin, the value of the 1867 review remains unclear. This paper re-examines its content and concludes that Jenkin's "able review" was in fact written by an engineer whose competencies in biology were very low. Focusing on the figure of the shipwrecked white sailor isolated on an island inhabited by Black people, this paper also underlines the racial assumptions behind Jenkin's review. "Blending inheritance" is thus a theme linked to theoretical reworkings on the question of race and skin colors, taking its root in Galton's typology of heredity. Darwin was probably mostly unimpressed by Jenkin's review. The problems raised by the review were not so much "blending inheritance" and "swamping" but a conundrum of problems related to the effects of intercrossing on variation and reversion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

René-Edouard Claparède was a ground-breaking Swiss naturalist specializing primarily in invertebrate embryology and the study of Protista and Annelida. While a student in Berlin he was encouraged by Christian Ehrenberg to use the latest microscopes and became renowned as a skilful observer and illustrator of the smallest organisms then known and of tiny anatomical details. A popular lecturer in zoology and comparative anatomy in his home town of Geneva, he nonetheless encountered difficulties in that city, still considered the "Protestant Rome", due to his strong support for Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. His involvement in the first French translation of On the origin of species (Darwin 1862) proved problematic too, although his remark, "It is better to be an improved ape than a degenerate Adam," became a catchphrase in discussions of this contentious debate. Premature death meant that Claparède's work was quickly surpassed in many areas, but the diversity of his many publications, given here in the most complete bibliography compiled to date, is a testament to a widely respected, although overshadowed, naturalist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to explain why, while Charles Darwin was well recognized as a scientific leader of his time, Claude Bernard never really regarded Darwinism as a scientific theory. The lukewarm reception of Darwin at the Académie des Sciences of Paris and his nomination to a chair only after 8 years contrasts with his prominence, and Bernard's attitude towards Darwin's theory of species evolution belongs to this French context. Yet we argue that Bernard rejects the scientific value of Darwinian principles mainly for epistemological reasons. Like Darwin, Bernard was interested in hereditary processes, and planned to conduct experiments on these processes that could lead to species transformation. But the potential creation of new forms of life would not vindicate Darwinism since biologists can only explain the origin of morphotypes and morphological laws by the means of untestable analogies. Because it can be the object neither of experiments nor of any empirical observation, phylogeny remains out of science's scope. Around 1878 Bernard foresaw a new general physiology based on the study of protoplasm, which he saw as the agent of all basic living phenomena. We will analyze why Bernard regarded Darwinism as part of metaphysics, yet still referred to Darwinians in his latter works in 1878. Basically, the absence of a scientific reception of Darwinism in Bernard's work should not obscure its philosophical reception, which highlights the main principles of Bernard's epistemology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Near East University Islamic Research Center / Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi İslam Tetkikleri Merkezi Dergisi is the property of Journal of Near East University Islamic Research Center and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The contemporary creation–evolution debate has become so polarized (over the issue of either Genesis or evolutionary science) as to obscure the more nuanced questions that have arisen in the historical and theological reception of Darwinism. Edinburgh's New College has been the academic home to some prominent scientists and theologians who have grappled with these questions since the early days of evolutionary science in the first half of the nineteenth century. Most obviously, this activity was focused on the decision to create a Chair in Natural Science in 1845, which would be occupied by a recognized scientist. The Chair became "extinct" in the 1930s, but in between times, its holders made important theological assessments of evolution along the way. This article outlines the contributions made by the individuals who occupied this Chair, as well as more recent figures in the evolution of science and theology at New College. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fritz Müller is known for explaining the evolutionary consequences of what is now called Müllerian mimicry, but his scientific contributions encompass a wide range of organisms and both ecological and evolutionary processes. His originality is seen in aspects as different as the discovery of the mutualistic nature of ant–fungus symbiosis, pioneering research in evolutionary developmental biology and the first mathematical treatment in a Darwinian framework. From his intimate knowledge of the natural history of Brazil and original observations of morphology and development, Müller provided evidence supporting natural selection. From the 20th century onwards, however, his scientific legacy has been re-examined only for single topics. To celebrate the bicentenary of his birth in 2022, this article briefly discusses his importance for current ecological and evolutionary knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Philosophy & History of Biology / Filosofia e História da Biologia is the property of Associacao Brasileira de Filosofia e Historia da Biologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Edward Dinker Cope (1840-1897) was one of the most influential naturalists of the nineteenth century, who led the development of American paleontology and the popularization of Lamarck's theory of evolution. One of the overlooked threads in his biography is his philosophical views. According to Cope, theology should be reformed with the introduction of new philosophical assumptions in line with the emerging theory of evolution. Cope proposed the formulation of a new "theology" based on his own theory of evolution. This article examines Cope's philosophical views and shows how he reinterpreted the mechanism of natural selection by incorporating it into his own teleological account of evolution. According to Cope free will enables man to control evolution, but there is no guarantee that man will survive. According to Cope, this is a theological thesis as he considers maladaptation as equivalent to sin, which in turn was eliminated by natural selection. As a result, belief in God becomes the only way to guarantee survival. However, this conclusion also led Cope to rationalize racism as he saw in the exploitation of other races the effects of their degeneration. Cope's views reflect problems in contemporary sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Bulletin de la Societe Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles is the property of Societe Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Four years after the death of Charles Darwin, his research associate, George Romanes, invoked a mysterious process—"physiological selection"—that could often have secured reproductive isolation independently of, and prior to, natural selection, so leading to an origin of species. This postulate of two sequential selection modes can now be regarded as leading to modern "chromosomal," as opposed to "genic," speciation theories. Romanes' abstractions—which confounded many, but not all, of his contemporaries—equate with divergences in parental DNA sequences that impede meiotic pairing in their hybrid offspring, so rendering that offspring sterile. Unlike Darwin, Romanes saw hybrid sterility as a parental, rather than offspring, phenotype that would, within a species, reproductively isolate certain parents from each other while not impeding their crossing with other parents. This group selection would have empowered natural selection to act more advantageously than in its absence. Given suitable conditions, there could then be divergence from one species into two. The present essay introduces Romanes' "Physiological Selection; an Additional Suggestion on the Origin of Species" (published in the Journal of the Linnean Society of London: Zoology (1886) 19:337–411; available as supplementary material in the online version of this essay) for the journal's "Classics in Biological Theory" collection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The question regarding the origin of man is one of the oldest ones. But it came again at the surface of wondering with the anthropological revolution caused by Charles Darwin in the 19th century with his evolutionary theory about natural selection. Nowadays, after more than one century, after the scientific crisis, after the Intelligent design debate, on calmer water, the truth about creationism, evolutionism and their relationship seem clearer. But before assuming a certain position concerning those two it is needed a process of understanding the roots of such visions, their intentions, and their consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to Michael Polanyi's theory of emergent evolution, the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection is not the fundamental driving force of evolution, merely its primary lower-level condition. It follows that Polanyi does not reject Darwin's theory at all, it is part of his theory of emergent evolution too, he merely rejects the neo-Darwinian theory which denies even the possibility of higher-level principles in evolution. In Polanyi's view, according to the logic of emergence, both lower-level conditions (natural selection) and higher-level principles (mainly the ordering principle of life and evolution) determines the process of evolution, but the fundamental driving force of evolution is the living beings themselves that realize the ascending evolutionary achievements. This means that the essence of evolutionary emergence is nothing more but the emergence of (tacit) knowledge through the successive generations of living beings. If Polanyians do not accept his theory of emergent evolution and reject neo-Darwinism, which, unfortunately, they usually do not do, then his theory of tacit and personal knowledge will lose its meaning utterly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the fundamental assumptions of mainstream economics is that competing agents maximising individual utility comprise the near totality of economic activity. However, this assumption attracts criticism because there is little experimental evidence to suggest that the competitive model is the only form of economic activity. Therefore, searches for other plausible theoretical foundations for economic activity, such as cooperation and mutual aid, are still relevant. In this connection our inquiry reintroduces a debate which occurred in Russia in the 19th and early 20thcenturies. Responses to Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection ..." (1859) are considered, especially critiques that stress Darwin’s emphasis upon competition and struggle in natural selection that can be traced to his reliance upon ideas taken directly from Thomas Robert Malthus, and that appear integrated into “Origins … “ as Chapter Three “Struggle for Existence”. The historical basis of the similarity between both these British scientists’ views are analysed. We consider challenging contributions made by Russian scholars about the role of cooperation and mutual aid in evolution as an alternative and additional principle to competition and it is shown that this approach has been dominant among Russian researchers, regardless of their political views and preferences. We place special emphasis upon Peter Kropotkin’s focus upon cooperation and mutual aid in natural selection and evolution in his book "Mutual Aid. A Factor of Evolution" (1902). We show the relevance and prospects of this approach of Russian evolutionists. It is confirmed by the latest developments of evolutionary game theory which show the long-term instability of the individualistic Zero-determinant strategy. In conclusion, Thorstein Veblen ’s connections to Peter Kropotkin are considered and the similarity in their approaches to the role of cooperation in social evolution is demonstrated.

The interests of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in natural history and evolution took them to remote parts of the globe on hazardous, multi-sensory journeys that were ultimately about collecting. This paper introduces a methodology for exploring these complex experiences in more detail, informed by historical geography, anthropology, textual analysis and the geo-humanities. It involves looking for evidence of the richly stimulating and often challenging sensory dynamics within which they collected and connected data, observations, images, specimens, memories and ideas. Darwin's exploits in Tierra del Fuego are examined as a case study, with a particular focus on the collection of 'Fuegian' body paints in 1833. This type of analysis provides a fresh insight into the multi-sensory entanglement of encounter with people and place involved in the collecting process. It helps us to understand better the experiences that shaped what was collected and brought back to Britain, and the personal observations associated with these collections that sowed the seeds for Darwin's work on the origin of species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evolution lies at the heart of the life sciences, and Charles Darwin is a towering historical figure within evolutionary science. One testimony to his lasting influence is that declaring Darwin to have been wrong all along remains a provocative way to command attention. The present paper discusses various strands of 'Darwin was wrong' partisans and their divergent views and motives: some are looking to Darwin to justify or condemn the political ideologies that they support or reject; others are concerned with the corrupting influence that the bleak cosmic outlook of evolution is deemed to exert on the moral or religious rectitude of impressionable minds, or regard Darwinism as a direct assault on religion; philosophers question the very coherence of the entire enterprise; and certain biologists aspire to go down in history as even greater than Darwin. It is sobering to reflect that this diverse group is united only by their poor grasp of Darwin's theory of natural selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents the impact of diverse aspects of Darwin's works on the practices of mammal paleontology in different moments of nineteenth-century Argentina. Starting with Darwin through the publications of Florentino Ameghino, it shows the extraordinary complexity of systematic paleontology that characterized the second half of the nineteenth century. Neither “natural selection” nor “struggle for life” seemed to have shaped the practices of vertebrate paleontology in Argentina. Darwin's earlier work as a voyageur and geologist together with later concerns about intermediate forms and variation allow for an assessment of the impact of Darwin's work on the practice of paleontology in Argentina. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our inquiry considers the origins of Evolutionary Economics by reintroducing a debate that took place in Russia in the 19th and early 20th century. Responses to Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species are considered, especially critiques stressing Darwin's emphasis upon competition and struggle in natural selection, that can be traced directly to Thomas Robert Malthus. Considering challenging contributions made by several Russian scholars, we place special emphasis upon Peter Kropotkin's focus on cooperation and "mutual aid" in natural selection and evolution. We then speculate upon the commonality found in the evolutionary views advanced by Kropotkin and his American contemporary, Thorstein Veblen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I argue that verbal models should be included in a philosophical account of the scientific practice of modelling. Weisberg (2013) has directly opposed this thesis on the grounds that verbal structures, if they are used in science, only merely describe models. I look at examples from Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) of verbally constructed narratives that I claim model the general phenomenon of evolution by natural selection. In each of the cases I look at, a particular scenario is described that involves at least some fictitious elements but represents the salient causal components of natural selection. I pronounce the importance of prioritising observation of scientific practice for the philosophy of modelling and I suggest that there are other likely model types that are excluded from philosophical accounts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines six main elements in the modern story of the impact of Alfred Russel Wallace's 1855 Sarawak Law paper, particularly in the many accounts of Charles Darwin's life and work. These elements are: 1 It was Wallace's first avowal of evolution. 2 Wallace laid out the theory of evolution minus only a “mechanism”. 3 Darwin failed to see how close Wallace was approaching. 4 Lyell did see how close Wallace was approaching. 5 Lyell urged Darwin to publish because of Wallace. 6 Darwin wrote to Wallace to warn him off his patch. Each of these are very frequently repeated as straightforward facts in the popular and scholarly literature. It is here argued that each of these is erroneous and that the role of the Sarawak Law paper in the historiography of Darwin and Wallace needs to be revised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A rough draft of Alfred Russel Wallace's famous 'Sarawak law' paper (1855) has been discovered. A full transcript is provided comparing it to the published text. The implications for Wallace's scientific writing practices for this and, by implication, his historic Ternate essay (1858) are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Darwin's theory of natural selection and the idea of a spontaneous order share a fundamental feature: the claim that apparent design or order do not necessarily imply a designer or rational planning. But they also present important differences, which touch upon central questions such as the evolution of morality, the role of human agency in social evolution, the existence (or not) of directionality in undesigned processes, and the presence (nor not) of a providential element in evolutionary accounts. In this article, I explore these themes and probe the relationship between the notion of a spontaneous order and the theory of evolution by natural selection. The reflections of Nobel laureate in economics, F.A. von Hayek, provide the beginning and endpoint in this voyage, for they constitute the most pronounced effort to develop a full-fledged theory combining evolution and economics in recent times. But along the way, I also investigate the influence of classical political economy on Darwin's thought, primarily that of Adam Smith, and consider the reasons for which Darwin did not refer to Smith when discussing the principle of natural selection in The Origin of Species . I conclude that the spontaneous order, as understood by Hayek, and evolution by natural selection constitute two disparate concepts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Teleology—what Aristotle called “final cause”—is trying to understand things in terms of the future, as when we ask about the plates on the back of the dinosaur, stegosaurus, and suggest that they might sometime be used to control the internal temperature of the brute. Recently the philosopher Thomas Nagel has argued for a wholesale embrace of teleological thinking in the sciences, particularly the life sciences. I argue that Nagel's thinking is shoddy and ill-informed, but that in some sense biologists do (with reason) seem drawn to teleological understanding, and so the correct response is not outright rejection of the very idea but a more informed and sympathetic approach to those aspects of nature that seem to call for final cause thinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Natural, artificial, and sexual selection played different roles in Darwin's theoretical system and his arguments. Natural selection explained adaptation without recourse to teleology. Artificial selection provided a plausibility argument for selection in general. Sexual selection provided a critical test of selection and showed that it may lead to maladaptation. Sexual selection in evolutionary theory resembles rent-seeking in economic theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Atti della Società dei Naturalisti e Matematici di Modena is the property of Societa dei Naturalisti e Matematici di Modena and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)