Search

There's something strange about Freud's Civilization and its Discontents (1930). Biologically, Freud was a Neo-Lamarckian, who believed in both the modification of organisms through need and the inheritance of acquired characteristics. However, in Civilization, Freud argued that because human nature is immutable, society has dim odds of improving substantially. Lamarckians, of course, rejected that any species-nature is immutable, as species can always be transformed via the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In fact, many of Freud's Viennese contemporaries—such as Wilhelm Reich, Julius Tandler, and Paul Kammerer—took their Lamarckism to license precisely the sorts of radical social projects Freud deemed impossible. Thus the Freud of Civilization helped himself to a rigid view of human nature which, given his associated biological views, he seemingly ought to have rejected. In this paper, I explain this apparent inconsistency, and suggest Freud resolved it in the following way: Freud was not merely a Lamarckian, but also a strong and peculiar kind of recapitulationist, who believed stages of psychological development both recapitulate phylogeny, and "remain with us" throughout both individual lives and future species-history. I suggest Freud's recapitulationism supposed a certain inertia: what occurred in phylogenetic history cannot un-occur, and therefore there are aspects of our nature which we cannot un-acquire. In this way, Freud reached a rigid conception of human nature despite his Lamarckism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although random mutation is central to models of evolutionary change, a lack of clarity remains regarding the conceptual possibilities for thinking about the nature and role of mutation in evolution. We distinguish several claims at the intersection of mutation, evolution, and directionality and then characterize a previously unrecognized category: complex conditioned mutation. Empirical evidence in support of this category suggests that the historically famous fluctuation test should be revisited, and new experiments should be undertaken with emerging experimental techniques to facilitate detecting mutation rates within specific loci at an ultra‐high, individual base pair resolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An Evolving Theory: The Work of Erasmus Darwin Between Lamarckism and Darwinism The work of the English physician, botanist and poet Erasmus Darwin has repeatedly described as anticipating both Lamarckism and Darwinism. The present analysis is aimed to the analysis of the true contribution of E. Darwin, in order to appreciate its value independently of what has been included in subsequent theories.

"Linguistic discourse of Stalinism: Environment and heredity." The battlefield of linguistic policy in the 1920s to 1950s Soviet Union centred around two authoritarian figures: in Saint Petersburg the orientalist and active member of the Academy of Sciences Nikolai Marr, and in Moscow the dictator of the workers’ empire Joseph Stalin, an honorary member of the Academy of Sciences since 1939. Both spoke Georgian as their mother-tongue. Marr’s “new theory of language,” which was at times reminiscent of Medieval kabbalism (the descent of all languages from four original words, etc.), aspired to the status of the official linguistic doctrine of the Soviet Union between 1928 and 1950. Stalin initially gave it his endorsement. Marr explained the similarities between languages not through genetic relationships (language families), but by socioeconomic contact resulting in the intermingling or crossing of ethnic languages (“hybridization”), which gave rise to an explosion of new languages. The common features of languages derived also from the level of social development during which they emerged (the theory of stadialism). In Estonia, Marrism had an influence on linguistics in 1940–1941 (Marr’s ­disciple Kristjan Kure played an important role in this) and particularly during the heyday of the Marrist campaign in 1948–1950. Professor Paul Ariste of the University of Tartu suffered the most: he was forced to publicly promote Marrism in 1949 and then denounce it in 1950. Secondary school textbooks discussed Marrism above all in the context of the historical evolution of the meaning of words. The second stage of the linguistic discourse of Stalinism began in 1950, when Stalin personally disproved Marrism, essentially re-establishing the tenets of historical-comparative linguistics. Unlike Marr, Stalin did not conceive of language as a property of the ruling class, but as a tool common to all the social strata within a nationality – a tool immune to rapid changes in the social order. Although everyone was now required to cite Stalin’s “brilliant linguistic ideas,” a more or less normal work climate had thus been restored in linguistics – unlike in literature and the arts. The historical metanarrative behind this debate was the antagonism between heredity and the environment. Both Marrism and the “agrobiological” theory of Trofim Lysenko that had come to dominate agricultural science since 1948 challenged the emphasis on the genetic component in the cultivation of plants and livestock as well as human culture, regarding it as a racist and colonial mysticism of heredity. Lysenko drew on Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck’s theory of evolution, which posited that the characteristics acquired by an organism during its lifetime and through the environment can be passed on to its offspring. This originally bourgeois notion was meant to contest the hereditary privilege of the nobility. The rejection of heredity carried over to the socialist ideology, which contrasted racial uniformity with proletarian solidarity resulting from the social division of labour. Both Marrism and Lysenkoism wanted to liberate the society from “the bondage of genes,” believing that physical and mental development can be guided by changing the environmental conditions. The fact that Stalin decided at one point to defend the hereditary traits of language instead can be explained in a number of ways, for example with the desire of an autocrat to remain unpredictable.

The Modern Synthesis (MS) gene-centered population model of evolution is currently being challenged by the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (ESS) organism-centered developmental model of evolution. The predictions of the EES are here examined with respect to the arguments of Edward Drinker Cope (1840–1897) for an organism-centered evolutionary process in which organisms both shape and are shaped by their environments such that the activities of the organisms themselves play a role in their own evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Samuel Butler is usually remembered for Erewhon, widely considered among the best English satires. He also contributed to philosophical biology in works that collectively compose the nineteenth century's finest statement of the evolutionary argument associated with the name of Lamarck. In writing on evolution, Butler was not presenting science for a popular audience but deliberately intervening in the scientific argument about Darwinism. Surprised by the success of his first venture in philosophical biology, Life and Habit, Butler committed himself to the project of developing an alternative to Darwinism, which he did in three additional volumes, and these are the works canvassed in this "delayed book review." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is a widely held view that the inheritance of acquired characteristics plays an important role in Lamarck's ideas about evolution, and there are some counter-instances against it. As a result, his theory is called into question. This article explains that contrary to this view, the inheritance of acquired characteristics is a common ground between Lamarck and Darwin. And the contradictions could probably be resolved, as we shall see. The study shows that the main differences between the views of the two founders of evolutionary theory lie in their claims about the speed of evolution and the adoption of an individual or population approach to evolution and its purposiveness or randomness. In this commentary, we use these similarities and differences to discuss how not only is the quasi-scientific nature of Lamarck's theories unacceptable, but that maintaining Lamarck's explanatory framework is essential for a more accurate understanding of the evolutionary process. And it can in some ways complement the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian views of evolution. Therefore, using these two theoretical systems as complements will increase the explanatory power of evolutionary theories

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]

The main purpose of this work is to show the internal theoretical connections of the two fundamental paradigms that describe the evolution of the human species, that is, the Lamarckian paradigm and the Darwinian paradigm. In carrying out this task, I begin by presenting the two evolutionary concepts. Understanding the content of these paradigms allows us to focus on the argumentation proposed by modern evolutionary biologists on the issue of the evolution of Homo sapiens; more precisely, on the paraphrased concept of “genetic drive.” Employed so far in a narrow range of genetic phenomena, it was — thanks to Allan Wilson — transformed into the concept of “cultural drive” and used to explain innovations appearing in not only genetic but also cultural endowments of the human species. This type of application of the concept of cultural drive in the structure of the Homo sapiens theory of evolution has recently been proposed by Kevin Laland. Then I show what kind of deviations (expressed in the variability of biological endowments, that is, in the form of exaptations and spandrels) are produced by the cultural factors of the evolution of Homo sapiens and how they can not only be included in the mechanisms of species evolution (as interpreted on the basis of the Lamarckian paradigm), but also how they constitute the “material” on which civilization changes take place. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In his target article 'The Illusions of the Modern Synthesis', Denis Noble argues that the Modern Synthesis is undermined by the major findings of molecular biology. The supposed falsification of Weisman's Barrier and of standard interpretations of Francis Crick's Central Dogma has paved the way for Lamarckian forms of inheritance which are prohibited by that theory of evolution. I argue that August Weismann postulated two barriers against two kinds of Lamarckism. However, his second barrier was speculative. It was made more concrete through the articulation of Francis Crick's Central Dogma. These two barriers still preclude Lamarckism or Lamarckian forms of inheritance, as understood by Weismann. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Local search can be introduced into genetic algorithms to create a hybrid, but any improvement in performance is dependent on the learning mechanism. In the Lamarckian model, a candidate solution is replaced by a fitter neighbour if one is found by local search. In the Baldwinian model, the original solution is retained but with an upgraded fitness if a fitter solution is found in the local search space. The effectiveness of using either model or a variable proportion of the two within a hybrid genetic algorithm is affected by the topology of the fitness function and the details of the hybrid algorithm. This paper investigates an intelligent adaptive approach to decide on the learning mechanism to be used by an individual over the course of the search. Evolution is used to self-adapt both the frequency of a steepest-descent local search and the relative proportions of Lamarckian and Baldwinian inheritance. Experiments have shown that this form of adaptive learning can improve the ability to find high-quality solutions and can accelerate the hybrid search without the need to find optimal control parameters for the learning process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of NaUKMA Research Papers in Philosophy & Religious Studies is the property of National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Faculty of Humanities 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 central dogma enunciated by Francis Crick and the postulate that sequence defines protein structure and function put forth by Christian Anfinsen (also referred to as the Thermodynamics Hypothesis) are some of the most fundamental tenets of molecular biology that have had very profound influences and implications. They were formulated based on observations (evidence) that was obvious to the preceptors. However, as is well known, exception is the rule in biology and several works in the literature cite examples that appear to challenge these dogmas suggesting that being dogmatic can be perilous. In this perspective, using the Boscombe Valley Mystery from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fabled Sherlock Holmes stories as a paradigm, I ponder the necessity to revise the two dogmas in light of new evidence, especially concerning prions and intrinsically disordered proteins, much like the call for revising the Modern Synthesis to enunciate the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this article is to put the growing interest in epigenetics in the field of evolutionary theory into a historical context. First, I assess the view that epigenetic inheritance could be seen as vindicating a revival of (neo)Lamarckism. Drawing on Jablonka's and Lamb's considerable output, I identify several differences between modern epigenetics and what Lamarckism was in the history of science. Even if Lamarckism is not back, epigenetic inheritance might be appealing for evolutionary biologists because it could potentiate two neglected mechanisms: the Baldwin effect and genetic assimilation. Second, I go back to the first ideas about the Baldwin effect developed in the late nineteenth century to show that the efficiency of this mechanism was already linked with a form of non-genetic inheritance. The opposition to all forms of non-genetic inheritance that prevailed at the time of the rise of the Modern Synthesis helps to explain why the Baldwin effect was understood as an insignificant mechanism during the second half of the twentieth century. Based on this historical reconstruction, in §4, I examine what modern epigenetics can bring to the picture and under what conditions epigenetic inheritance might be seen as strengthening the causal relationship between adaptability and adaptation. Throughout I support the view that the Baldwin effect and genetic assimilation, even if they are quite close, should not be conflated, and that drawing a line between these concepts is helpful in order to better understand where epigenetic inheritance might endorse a new causal role. This article is part of the theme issue 'How does epigenetics influence the course of evolution?' [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Comprendre: Revista Catalana de Filosofía is the property of Herder Editorial S.L. 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.)

In the nineteenth century, farmers, doctors, and the wider public shared a family of questions and anxieties concerning heredity. Questions over whether injuries, mutilations, and bad habits could be transmitted to offspring had existed for centuries, but found renewed urgency in the popular and practical scientific press from the 1820s onwards. Sometimes referred to as "Lamarckism" or "the inheritance of acquired characteristics," the potential for transmitting both desirable and disastrous traits to offspring was one of the most pressing scientific questions of the nineteenth century. As I argue in this paper, Carpenter's religious commitments to abolition and the temperance movement shaped his understanding of heredity. But this also committed him to a body of evidence for the inheritance of acquired characteristics that was coming under criticism for being untrustworthy. Carpenter used his popular treatises on physiology to promote these older, familiar ideas about heredity because they provided vital means of arguing for the unity of mankind and the hereditary dangers of intemperance. While early nineteenth century physiology has been seen by some historians as a challenge to religious authority, given its potentially materialist accounts of the body and the actions of the soul, this paper demonstrates how the missionary and institutional activities of the Unitarian church were ideologically supported by Carpenter's publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When it comes to evolutionism, the common belief holds that Neo-Darwinism is still the best evolutionist explanation, because it contains the Darwinist explanation, improved through adjustments and additions provided by the current scientific research, which wouldn’t be but thorough, objective, and completely non-ideological. In fact, throughout its existence, Neo-Darwinism has failed in maintaining a clear line of thinking, oriented by pure facts. At some point, it became obvious that, by following its original paradigm, the problem of evolution could not be resolved; thus, during the second half of the 20th century, a few attempts were made in order to improve Neo-Darwinism, without the expected results. The failure can be explained through one of the current’s drawbacks: the inflexible and arrogant rejection of the Lamarckian position on the matter of evolution. Recent research, as well as logical deductions issued from the observation of what Nature produces urge the revision of paradigms and the repeal of any dogma. The gain would be that of the science and of the human knowledge.

Credința dominantă încă în materie de evoluționism este că neodarwinismul reprezintă cea mai bună explicație evoluționistă, întrucît o conține pe cea darwiniană, ameliorată prin ajustări și adaosuri furnizate de cercetarea științifică în desfășurare, asiduă, obiectivă și străină de vreo ideologie. În fapt, pe parcursul istoriei sale, neodarwinismul a eșuat în menținerea unei linii de gîndire clare și orientate de fapte. A devenit limpede că, urmîndu-i paradigma originară, nu se putea rezolva problema evoluției; astfel că, pe parcursul ultimei jumătăți a secolului trecut, s-au manifestat încercări de ameliorare a neodarwinismului, fără succesele scontate. Eșecul se explică prin una din tarele curentului: respingerea categorică și arogantă a poziției lamarckiene în chestiunea evoluției. Or, cercetările din deceniile recente și deducțiile logice pornite din observarea a ceea ce Natura produce impun revizuirea paradigmelor și anularea forței vreunei dogme. Cîștigul ar fi al științei și al cunoașterii umane.

In 1872 Butler published Erewhon , a novel set in a utopian land inspired by the New Zealand countryside. Erewhon parodied some of the main social issues of the Victorian era including political, economic, scientific and social ideas, offering its readers a critical overview not only of Britain and its inhabitants, but also of the cultural revolution triggered by Darwin's theory of natural selection. Leaving aside the utopian and satirical dimensions of the novel, this article focuses on the meaning of evolutionary science in Erewhon through a discussion of the three chapters called 'The Book of the Machines'. I suggest that the hypothesis of evolution advanced in 'The Book of the Machines' can only be fully understood in relation to Butler's scientific writings more generally. In 'The Book of the Machines', I will argue, Butler pioneered the idea of memory as heredity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Filozofia i Nauka is the property of Institute of Philosophy & Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences 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.)

Copyright of Diacronia is the property of Revista Diacronia 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.)

This essay examines the reception of Ivan Pavlov's work on conditioned reflexes in early to mid-twentieth century Britain. Recent work on the political interpretation of biology has shown that the nineteenth-century strategy of "making socialists" was undermined by August Weismann's attacks on the inheritance of acquired characters. I argue that Pavlov's research reinvigorated socialist hopes of transforming society and the people in it. I highlight the work of Pavlov's interpreters, notably the scientific journalist J. G. Crowther, the biologist Lancelot Hogben, and the science writer H. G. Wells, who made Pavlov's work accessible to a British audience and embraced the socialist implications of his research – especially the idea that people could be persuaded to become socialists through science writing for a nonspecialist audience and through use of a simplified language such as Basic English. They saw, in the followers of National Socialism, how Pavlovian conditioning could create a national movement, and believed that this could be used for their own more democratic form of socialism. In the final part of the essay, I suggest that this broad socio-cultural movement to reshape humanity proved controversial, especially in the post-war period and in light of Soviet use of brainwashing. The likes of Aldous Huxley and F. A. Hayek feared that conditioning could only lead to totalitarianism, while the historian E. P. Thompson put forward a socialist humanism that left room for human agency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Butler's idea of evolution was developed over the publication of four books, several articles and essays between 1863 and 1890. These publications, although never achieving the success expected by Butler, proposed a psychological elaboration of evolution (robustly enforced by Lamarck's philosophy), called 'unconscious memory'. This was strongly in contrast with the materialistic approach suggested by Darwin's natural selection. Starting with a historical introduction, this paper aspires to ascertain the logic, meaning and significance of Butler's idea of 'unconscious memory' in the post-Darwinian physiological and psychological Pan-European discussion. Particular attention is devoted to demonstrating that Butler was not only a populariser of science but also an active protagonist in the late Victorian psychological debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]