浅谈生物课的复习

生物学研究涵盖了几十亿年的生命演化,涉及几百万种生命的形态,结构,生理,遗传,变异等方面的问题;微观领域深入到细胞,分子水平,宏观层次深入到生物个体和群体发展规律;生物学的研究和学习必需以一定的物理,化学等自然科学发展为基础,形成了包括形态,     

浅谈生物课的复习

生物学研究涵盖了几十亿年的生命演化,涉及几百万种生命的形态,结构,生理,遗传,变异等方面的问题;微观领域深入到细胞,分子水平,宏观层次深入到生物个体和群体发展规律;生物学的研究和学习必需以一定的物理,化学等自然科学发展为基础,形成了包括形态,     

细胞与分子进化开放研究实验室

进化生物学是生物科学综合的基础,进化的思想和方法论推动并促进了现代生物科学各分支学科的繁荣和发展。同时,在人类生产实践中一些重大问题的解决,如优良品种的选育、人类遗传病的基因诊断和治疗等,都离不开生物进化规律和进化论思想的指导。细胞与分子水平的进化研究,是当今进化生物学的新生长点这项工作的开展对理论和实践方面都有重要的意义。基于昆明动物研究所在原有细胞核起源与进化、动物核型进化以及理论生物学研究方面取得了一批有国内外影响的成就,并且是国内比较系统、完整地从事细胞与分子进化     

高中生物学新课程知识释疑——“遗传与进化”模块

在普通高中生物学新课标的“内容标准”部分指出,“遗传与进化”模块选取的减数分裂和受精作用、DNA分子结构及其遗传基本功能、遗传和变异的基本原理及应用等知识．主要是从细胞和分子水平阐述生命的延续性：选取的现代生物进化理论和物种形成等知识。主要是阐明生物进化的过程和原因。本文仅就该模块教学中产生的几个疑难问题,提出一些看法供老师们参考。     

现代综合进化论创始人——杜布赞斯基

T.杜布赞斯基(T.Dobzhansky)是当代享有盛誉的现代综合进化论大师和实验群体遗传学家,在现代生物学史上占有重要的地位。他1937年出版的《遗传学与物种起源》一书,创造性地实现了基因理论和达尔文的自然选择学说的科学综合,使经典达尔文主义进入到一个新的历史发展阶段。杜布赞斯基不仅对进化生物学做出了里程碑式的贡献,而且还自觉地把生物进化研究与人类的未来命运紧密地联系在一起。由于他的杰出的成就给生物科学带来的重     

遗传多样性上限假说所揭示的进化历程

作为生物进化的两个主流理论, 中性学说和现代达尔文进化理论相对系统地揭示了进化机理和历程, 但也都有缺陷, 比如对某些重大进化现象如遗传等距离和重叠位点(Overlap sites)的忽视, 对复杂性的视而不见, 对遗传多样性的片面解读, 以及与化石证据相悖等。遗传多样性上限假说(Maximum genetic diversity hypothesis, MGD)通过对遗传等距离现象的重新解读, 给出了复杂性的量化定义和可操作研究手段, 提出了重叠特征和遗传多样性具有上限等结论。它对人猿分类关系和现代人多地区起源的分子解读结论, 与独立的化石证据契合度较高, 重新肯定了中国在人类发展中的关键作用, 点出了流行分子结论的荒谬在于误用了极限距离。该理论同时对复杂性状和复杂疾病的遗传机制研究具有指导意义。文章对多种酵母、鱼类、灵长类的细胞色素c进行序列比对, 独立验证了MGD假说的部分论断, 并解释了重叠位点在遗传距离计算上的重要意义。MGD假说中的上限或最佳平衡概念, 与传统国学和中医阴阳中庸思想对宇宙基本规律的描述是一脉相承的。     

对我国分子生态学研究近期发展战略的一些思考

分子生态学是多学科交叉的整合性研究领域, 是运用进化生物学理论解决宏观生物学问题的科学。经过半个多世纪的发展, 本学科已日趋成熟, 它不仅已经广泛渗透到宏观生物学的众多学科领域, 而且已经成为连接和融合很多不同学科的桥梁, 是目前最具活力的研究领域之一。其研究的范畴, 从最基础的理论和方法技术, 到格局和模式的发现和描述, 到对过程和机制的深入探讨, 再到付诸于实践的行动和规划指导等各个层次。分子生态学的兴起给宏观生物学带来了若干飞跃性的变化, 使宏观生物学由传统的以观察、测量和推理为主的描述性研究转变为以从生物和种群的遗传构成的变化和历史演化背景上检验、证明科学假设及揭示机制和规律为主的机制性/解释性研究, 因而使得对具有普遍意义的科学规律、生态和进化过程及机制的探索成为可能。分子生态学已经进入组学研究时代, 这使得阐明复杂生态过程、生物地理过程和适应性演化过程的机制性研究由原来难以企及的梦想变成完全可以实现的探求; 它也带来了全新的挑战, 其中最有深远影响的将是对分子生态学研究至关重要的进化生物学基础理论方面的突破, 例如遗传变异理论、种群分化理论、表观遗传因素的作用, 乃至进化生物学的基本知识构架等等。这些方面的进展必将使宏观生物学迎来一场空前的革命, 并对生态学的所有分支学科产生重大影响, 甚至催生诸如生态表观组学这样的新分支学科。对于中国科学家来说, 分子生态学组学时代的开启, 更是一个千载难逢的机遇, 为提出和建立生命科学的新方法、新假说、新思想和新理论提供了莫大的探索空间——此前我们对宏观生物学方法、理论和思想的发展贡献很小。然而, 限制组学时代重大突破的关键因素是理论、概念、理念、实验方法或分析方法方面的创新和突破, 这正是我国分子生态学研究最薄弱的环节。我国教育部门应尽快调整生命科学本科生培养的理念和方法, 以培养具备突出创新潜力的年轻一代后备人才; 同时, 科研项目资助部门和研究人员不仅应清醒地认识本学科领域的发展态势, 更要及时调整思路, 树立新的项目管理理念和治学 理念。     

生物进化论发展史中的重大事件简述

从 19世纪初法国生物学家拉马克首次提出比较完整的进化理论 ,到新综合进化理论形成经历了近 2个世纪 ,这期间有许多杰出的科学家对生物进化理论的发展做出了重大贡献。本文就其中一些重要事件及其影响做一简述。1　 180 9年 ,法国博物学家拉马克 (J.B.Lamark)《动物学哲学》一书出版。历史上第 1次提出了全面的生物进化学说。他着重讨论环境对生物体形态及结构的直接影响和自然规律的统一主张 ,认为生物的进化是从低等到高等的渐进过程 ,是由于用进废退和获得性遗传所致。拉马克的卓越贡献 ,就是最先唤起人们注意生物界的一切改变 ,与非…     

花、基因、禾本科

进化发育生物学的一个重要任务就是揭示形态多样性的分子基础,该领域的研究包含形态、形态发育相关基因和形态所属类群等三个要素。花/花序是进化发育生物学研究的首要对象,系统发育重建和个体发育剖析的结合将促进认知花的形态进化。发育相关基因的进化表现为等位基因遗传或表观遗传的突变,基因家族生与死的进化,不同基因组拥有独特的基因。运用形态学或序列分析方法很大程度揭示了禾本科植物花进化过程中的基因进化。试从学科问题、思路方法以及具体例子介绍植物进化发育生物学。     

花、基因、禾本科

进化发育生物学的一个重要任务就是揭示形态多样性的分子基础, 该领域的研究包含形态、形态发育相关基因和形态所属类群等三个要素。花/花序是进化发育生物学研究的首要对象, 系统发育重建和个体发育剖析的结合将促进认知花的形态进化。发育相关基因的进化表现为等位基因遗传或表观遗传的突变, 基因家族生与死的进化, 不同基因组拥有独特的基因。运用形态学或序列分析方法很大程度揭示了禾本科植物花进化过程中的基因进化。试从学科问题、思路方法以及具体例子介绍植物进化发育生物学。     

The Theory of Evolution is Not an Explanation for the Origin of Life

The propagation of misconceptions about the theory of biological evolution must be addressed whenever and wherever they are encountered. The recent article by Paz-y-Mino and Espinoza in this journal contained several such misconceptions, including: that biological evolution explains the origin of life, confusion between biological and cosmological evolution, and the use of the term “Darwinism,” all of which we address here. We argue that science educators, and biology educators particularly, must be aware of these (and other) misconceptions and work to remove them from their classrooms.     

A bridge-builder: Wolf-Ernst Reif and the Darwinisation of German paleontology

Wolf-Ernst Reif was an outstanding German paleontologist, who, along with his empirical studies (biomechanics, functional and constructional morphology, etc.), paid significant attention to theoretical issues and the history of his discipline. Reif was a bridge-builder, skillfully synthesising history, theory and empirical studies within German-language paleontology. This paper briefly discusses sophisticated relationships between German paleontology and Darwinism based on the historical studies of Wolf-Ernst Reif. German paleontology did not fully embrace Darwinism until the 1970s. There are several reasons for this. First, alternative evolutionary theories (saltationism, neo-Lamarckism, orthogenesis) occupied a significant segment of the theoretical landscape in the German life sciences. Second, typological thinking persisted in German paleontology after the Second World War. Third, German paleontologists were relatively uninterested in discussing mechanisms of evolution, concentrating instead on reconstructing phylogenetic history.     

Thermodynamics and the conceptual structure of evolutionary theory

Thermodynamics and evolutionary theory have spent most of their shared history in adversarial relationship to one another. The point of this paper is to consider some qualitative ways in which thermodynamics can enrich both the theory and epistemology of evolution. The "autonomy of biology" posture in evolutionary theory hangs on the supposed uniqueness of why-questions in biology. With this posture, and with the general obstruction of constructive dialogue between evolution and the physical sciences it fosters, come the perennial accusations that Darwinism deals in adaptational teleology but not mechanisms. Thermodynamics provides for a two-tiered hierarchy of causation in nature in which the why-question is rendered not only legitimate materialistically, but essential to understanding the evolutionary process in its totality--from the emergence of life to the branching of lineages in speciation.     

Darwin without borders? Looking at ‘generalised Darwinism’ through the prism of the ‘hourglass model’

This article critically analyzes the arguments of the ‘generalized Darwinism’ recently proposed for the analysis of social-economical systems. We argue that ‘generalized Darwinism’ is both restrictive and empty. It is restrictive because it excludes alternative (non-selectionist) evolutionary mechanisms such as orthogenesis, saltationism and mutationism without any examination of their suitability for modeling socio-economic processes and ignoring their important roles in the development of contemporary evolutionary theory. It is empty, because it reduces Darwinism to an abstract triple-principle scheme (variation, selection and inheritance) thus ignoring the actual structure of Darwinism as a complex and dynamic theoretical structure inseparable from a very detailed system of theoretical constraints. Arguing against ‘generalised Darwinism’ we present our vision of the history of evolutionary biology with the help of the ‘hourglass model’ reflecting the internal dynamic of competing theories of evolution.     

DO WE NEED AN EXTENDED EVOLUTIONARY SYNTHESIS?

The Modern Synthesis (MS) is the current paradigm in evolutionary biology. It was actually built by expanding on the conceptual foundations laid out by its predecessors, Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. For sometime now there has been talk of a new Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES), and this article begins to outline why we may need such an extension, and how it may come about. As philosopher Karl Popper has noticed, the current evolutionary theory is a theory of genes, and we still lack a theory of forms. The field began, in fact, as a theory of forms in Darwin's days, and the major goal that an EES will aim for is a unification of our theories of genes and of forms. This may be achieved through an organic grafting of novel concepts onto the foundational structure of the MS, particularly evolvability, phenotypic plasticity, epigenetic inheritance, complexity theory, and the theory of evolution in highly dimensional adaptive landscapes.     

Charles Darwin,embryology, evolution and skeletal plasticity

Darwin provided us with the theory of evolutionary change through natural selection. Just as important to the science of biology was Darwin’s recognition that all organisms could be classified and were related to one another because they arose from a single common universal ancestor – what we know as the universal tree of life (UtoL). All the features of the skeletal biology of fish therefore can be explained, both in an evolutionary framework (ultimate causation) and in the framework of development, growth and physiology (proximate causation). Neither approach is complete without the other. I will outline the elements of Darwin’s theories on evolution and classification and, as importantly, discuss what was missing from Darwin’s theories. An important class of evidence for evolution used by Darwin came from embryology, both comparative embryology and the existence of vestiges and atavisms. After discussing this evidence I examine some fundamental features of skeletal development and evolution These include: the presence of four skeletal systems in all vertebrates; the existence of two skeletons, one based on cartilage, the other on bone and dentine; the modular nature of skeletal development and evolution; and the plasticity of the skeleton in response to either genetic or environmental changes.     

Merging Biological Metaphors. Creativity,Darwinism and Biosemiotics

Evolutionary adaptation has been suggested as the hallmark of life that best accounts for life’s creativity. However, current evolutionary approaches still fail to give an adequate account of it, even if they are able to explain both the origin of novelties and the proliferation of certain traits in a population. Although modern-synthesis Darwinism is today usually appraised as too narrow a position to cope with all the complexities of developmental and structural biology—not to say biosemiotic phenomena—, Darwinism need not be if we separate metaphor from reality in natural selection in order to show the axiological complexity of this concept. This can shed light on the relationship between biosemiotics and biological evolution.     

Two neo-Darwinisms

There are two extant theories of evolution, each of which deserves the honourific "neo-Darwinism": Modern Synthesis Replicator theory and a theory I shall call Developmental Darwinism. The principal difference concerns the canonical unit of biological organization. Modern Synthesis replicator theory explains the process of evolution by appeal to the activities of genes or replicators. Developmental Darwinism explains the process of evolution by appeal to the capacities of organisms. In particular, it is the plasticity of organisms, manifested most distinctly during development, that causes adaptive evolution. Despite the fact that each, in its own way, traces its origin to the theory outlined by Darwin, they are radically different. The objectives of this essay are twofold: to underscore the differences between these theories, and to argue that Developmental Darwinism, though nascent, is a viable alternative to Modern Synthesis replicator theory.     

Similarities and Varieties: A Brief Sketch on the Reception of Darwinism and Sociobiology in Japan

This paper discusses the reception of Darwinian evolutionary theory and sociobiology in Japan. Darwinism was introduced into Japan in the late 19th century and Japanese people readily accepted the concept of evolution because, lacking Christianity, there was no religious opposition. However, the theory of evolution was treated as a kind of social scientific tool, i.e., social Spencerism and eugenics. Although evolutionary biology was developed during the late 19th and the early 20th century, orthodox Darwinian theory was neglected for a long time. In the mid 1980s, sociobiology was introduced but it was ignored and criticized by a large part of the ecologist-evolutionist community in Japan. This hostile attitude was due to the absence of Darwinism among these scientists. Compared with the reception of sociobiology in English-speaking countries, there were both similarities and differences in Japan.     

On Darwin's palaeontology in The Origin of Species

I investigate the role of palaeontology within Darwin's works through an analysis of the two chapters of The Origin of Species most especially devoted to this science. Palaeontology may occupy several places within the structure of the argumentative logic of Darwinism, but these places have remained to some extent ancillary. Indeed, palaeontology could well document evolutionary patterns, showing the actual occurrence of evolution as a general “historical fact”, but it was poorly adapted to demonstrate the main point of Darwinism: the actual evolutionary process: natural selection acting among individuals. I also show, in agreement with Gould, that Darwin had great confidence in the ultimate ability of palaeontology to support his theory, and that in interpreting palaeontological evidence, he expressed a vision of natural selection much wider and more eclectic than that which has generally been ascribed to him.