Darwin on Aristotle

Charles Darwin's famous 1882 letter, in response to a gift by his friend, William Ogle of Ogle's recent translation of Aristotle's Parts of Animals, in which Darwin remarks that his “two gods,” Linnaeus and Cuvier, were “mere school-boys to old Aristotle,” has been thought to be only an extravagantly worded gesture of politeness. However, a close examination of this and other Darwin letters, and of references to Aristotle in Darwin's earlier work, shows that the famous letter was written several weeks after a first, polite letter of thanks, and was carefully formulated and literally meant. Indeed, it reflected an authentic, and substantial, increase in Darwin's already high respect for Aristotle, as a result of a careful reading both of Ogle's Introduction and of more or less the portion of Ogle's translation which Darwin says he has read. Aristotle's promotion to the pantheon, as an examination of the basis for Darwin's admiration of Linnaeus and Cuvier suggests, was most likely the result specifically of Darwin's late discovery that the man he already knew as “one of the greatest ... observers that ever lived” (1879) was also the ancient equivalent both of the great modern systematist and of the great modern advocate of comparative functional explanation. It may also have reflected some real insight on Darwin's part into the teleological aspect of Aristotle's thought, indeed more insight than Ogle himself had achieved, as a portion of their correspondence reveals. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Darwin was a teleologist

It is often claimed that one of Darwin's chief accomplishments was to provide biology with a non-teleological explanation of adaptation. A number of Darwin's closest associates, however, and Darwin himself, did not see it that way. In order to assess whether Darwin's version of evolutionary theory does or does not employ teleological explanation, two of his botanical studies are examined. The result of this examination is that Darwin sees selection explanations of adaptations as teleological explanations. The confusion in the nineteenth century about Darwin's attitude to teleology is argued to be a result of Darwin's teleological explanations not conforming to either of the dominant philosophical justifications of teleology at that time. Darwin's explanatory practices conform well, however, to recent defenses of the teleological character of selection explanations.I would like to thank John Beatty, David Hull and one of this journal's readers for constructive comments on an earlier draft of this paper.     

Ontogeny and phylogeny: molecular signatures of selection, constraint, and temporal pleiotropy in the development ofDrosophila

Background  

Karl Ernst Von Baer noted that species tend to show greater morphological divergence in later stages of development when compared to earlier stages. Darwin originally interpreted these observations via a selectionist framework, suggesting that divergence should be greatest during ontogenic stages in which organisms experienced varying 'conditions of existence' and opportunity for differential selection. Modern hypotheses have focused on the notion that genes and structures involved in early development will be under stronger purifying selection due to the deleterious pleiotropic effects of mutations propagating over the course of ontogeny, also known as the developmental constraint hypothesis.     

Darwin's explanation of races by means of sexual selection

In Darwin's Sacred Cause, Adrian Desmond and James Moore contend that "Darwin would put his utmost into sexual selection because the subject intrigued him, no doubt, but also for a deeper reason: the theory vindicated his lifelong commitment to human brotherhood" (2009: p. 360). Without questioning Desmond and Moore's evidence, I will raise some puzzles for their view. I will show that attention to the structure of Darwin's arguments in the Descent of Man shows that they are far from straightforward. As Desmond and Moore note, Darwin seems to have intended sexual selection in non-human animals to serve as evidence for sexual selection in humans. However, Darwin's account of sexual selection in humans was different from the canonical cases that Darwin described at great length. If explaining the origin of human races was the main reason for introducing sexual selection, and if sexual selection was a key piece of Darwin's anti-slavery arguments, then it is puzzling why Darwin would have spent so much time discussing cases that did not really support his argument for the origin of human races, and it is also puzzling that his argument for the origin of human races would be so (atypically) poor.     

Darwin's artificial selection as an experiment

Darwin used artificial selection (ASN) extensively and variedly in his theorizing. Darwin used ASN as an analogy to natural selection; he compared artificial to natural varieties, hereditary variation in nature to that in the breeding farm; and he also compared the overall effectiveness of the two processes. Most historians and philosophers of biology have argued that ASN worked as an analogical field in Darwin's theorizing. I will argue rather that this provides a limited and somewhat muddled view of Darwinian science. I say "limited" because I will show that Darwin also used ASN as a complex experimental field. And I say "muddled" because, if we concentrate on the analogical role exclusively, we conceive Darwinian science as rather disconnected from contemporary conceptions of "good science". I will argue that ASN should be conceived as a multifaceted experiment. As a traditional experiment, ASN established the efficacy of Darwin's preferred cause: natural selection. As a non-traditional experiment, ASN disclosed the nature of a crucial element in Darwin's evolutionary mechanics: the nature of hereditary variation. Finally, I will argue that the experiment conception should help us make sense of Darwin's comments regarding the "monstrous" nature of domestic breeds traditionally considered to be problematic.     

Nietzsche's aesthetic critique of Darwin

Despite his position as one of the first philosophers to write in the "post-Darwinian" world, the critique of Darwin by Friedrich Nietzsche is often ignored for a host of unsatisfactory reasons. I argue that Nietzsche's critique of Darwin is important to the study of both Nietzsche's and Darwin's impact on philosophy. Further, I show that the central claims of Nietzsche's critique have been broadly misunderstood. I then present a new reading of Nietzsche's core criticism of Darwin. An important part of Nietzsche's response can best be understood as an aesthetic critique of Darwin, reacting to what he saw as Darwin having drained life of an essential component of objective aesthetic value. For Nietzsche, Darwin's theory is false because it is too intellectual, because it searches for rules, regulations, and uniformity in a realm where none of these are to be found - and, moreover, where they should not be found. Such a reading goes furthest toward making Nietzsche's criticism substantive and relevant. Finally, I attempt to relate this novel explanation of Nietzsche's critique to topics in contemporary philosophy of biology, particularly work on the evolutionary explanation of culture.     

Adaptation and the origin of species

As reflected in the title of his masterwork On the Origin of Species, Darwin proposed that adaptation is the primary mechanism of speciation. On this, Darwin was criticized for his neglect of reproductive isolation, his lack of appreciation for the role of geographic barriers, his failure to distinguish varieties from species, and his typological species concept. Two developments since Darwin, the biological species concept of Ernst Mayr and the methods of Coyne and Orr for estimating the contribution of different barriers to the total reproductive isolation, provide a framework for reconciling Darwin's view on the primacy of adaptation in speciation with later proposals that emphasize reproductive isolation. A review of the few studies that have estimated the contributions of multiple isolating barriers suggests that habitat isolation and other barriers that operate before hybrid formation are much stronger than intrinsic postzygotic isolation. In light of these data, I suggest that Darwin's focus on adaptation in the origin of species was essentially correct, a conclusion that calls for future studies that explore the links between adaptation and speciation, in particular, ecogeographic isolating barriers that result from adaptive divergence in habitat use. The recent revival in thinking about ecological factors and adaptive divergence in the origin of species echoes Darwin's much-criticized "principle of divergence" and suggests that the emerging views from today's naturalists are not so different from those espoused by Darwin some 150 years ago.     

Humboldt,Darwin, and population

Conclusions I have attempted to clarify some of the pathways in the development of Darwin's thinking. The foregoing examples of influence by no means include all that can be found by comparing Darwin's writings with Humboldt's. However, the above examples seem adequate to show the nature and extent of this influence. It now seems clear that Humboldt not only, as had been previously known, inspired Darwin to make a voyage of exploration, but also provided him with his basic orientation concerning how and what to observe and how to write about it. An important part of what Darwin assimilated from Humboldt was an appreciation of population analysis as a tool for assessing the state of societies and of the benefits and hardships which these societies can expect to receive from the living world around them.Darwin exhibited in his Journal of Researches a casual interest in the economic and political conditions of the countries he visited, but these considerations were much less important to him than to Humboldt. Instead, Darwin, with the assistance of Lyell's Principles of Geology, shifted from Humboldt's largely economic framework to a biological one built around the species question. This shift led Darwin away from a consideration of how the population biology of animals was related to man's economy to focus instead upon how population biology fitted into the economy of nature.Humboldt's Personal Narrative served very well as a model for Darwin's Journal of Researches, thereby helping Darwin gain scientific eminence. The Journal of Researches, like virtually all of Humboldt's writings, was a contribution to scientific orthodoxy. But Darwin had, along the way, acquired an urge to do more than just add his building blocks to the orthodox scientific edifice. He decided to rearrange those blocks of knowledge into a different structure, and for that task neither Humboldt's Personal Narrative nor any other of his works could serve as a model. Humboldt had lacked the confidence which Darwin needed that biogeography and the origin of species could be understood. Humboldt had not explored very far the possible connections between biology and geology. Nor had he provided a general synthetic account of population biology. Had he done so, he might have been more explicit about the extent of his endorsement of Malthus. But even if he had, Humboldt's strong orientation toward cooperation would probably have inhibited his recognition of the importance of competition in nature.Lyell, who had also benefited from reading Humboldt, gave Darwin insights that were lacking in Humboldt's Personal Narrative. Lyell admirably demonstrated how stratigraphy, paleontology, biogeography, and population biology could be interrelated, and his reasons for doing so were essentially the same as Darwin's. Lyell's understanding of biogeography and ecology came from the writings of Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle as much as from Humboldt's, and from the former Lyell derived an appreciation for the importance of competition and also a confidence that the mysteries of biogeography could be explained.¹¹⁷ Furthermore, Lyell's discussion of all these subjects and also of evolution in his Principles of Geology is a good synthetic argument that was the ideal model for Darwin's greatest book.Darwin, having become convinced that species change through time, was able to synthesize in his mind the contributions which he had derived from the writings of Humboldt and Lyell as they applied to the species question. When Darwin wrote his Journal of Researches there were two large gaps in his thinking about evolution that bothered him—the mechanism of evolution and the causes of extinction. It was only after reading Malthus in 1838 that he realized, as Lyell had more or less pointed out, how important was competition in nature. He now had the general outlines for his theory, and in the 1845 abridged edition of his Journal, now retitled The Voyage of the Beagle, he inserted a fuller discussion of competition in nature which showed his awareness of its importance as an ecological factor.¹¹⁸ An abridged version of this paper was presented at the meeting of the History of Science Society in Washington, D.C., on 29 December 1969.     

The genetics and evolution of female choice

Darwin based his theory of evolution on the central theme of 'the struggle for existence', 'the preservation of favoured races', 'the survival of the fittest'. In addition to this 'natural selection', he proposed a second type of selection, sexual selection. 'This depends, not on a struggle for existence, but on a struggle between males for possession of the females; the result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring. Males would compete for females, and females would choose between males. Since Darwin's work, many examples of natural selection have been observed in nature and in laboratory experiments, and knowledge of genetics has given natural selective theory a sound basis. The theory of sexual selection through male competition has also been widely accepted. However, the theory of sexual selection through female choice has had a much more chequered passage.     

The meaning of Darwin's 'abominable mystery'

Charles Darwin's "abominable mystery" has come to symbolize just about all aspects of the origin and early evolution of flowering plants. Yet, there has never been an analysis of precisely what Darwin thought was so abominably mysterious. Here I explicate Darwin's thoughts and frustrations with the fossil record of flowering plants as revealed in correspondence with Joseph Hooker, Gaston de Saporta, and Oswald Heer between 1875 and 1881. I also examine the essay by John Ball that prompted Darwin to write his "abominable mystery" letter to Hooker in July of 1879. Contrary to what is generally believed, Darwin's abominable mystery has little if anything to do with the fossil prehistory of angiosperms, identification of the closest relatives of flowering plants, questions of the homologies (and character transformations) of defining features of flowering plants, or the phylogeny of flowering plants themselves. Darwin's abominable mystery and his abiding interest in the radiation of angiosperms were never driven primarily by a need to understand the literal text of the evolutionary history of flowering plants. Rather, Darwin was deeply bothered by what he perceived to be an abrupt origin and highly accelerated rate of diversification of flowering plants in the mid-Cretaceous. This led Darwin to create speculative arguments for a long, gradual, and undiscovered pre-Cretaceous history of flowering plants on a lost island or continent. Darwin also took refuge in the possibility that a rapid diversification of flowering plants in the mid-Cretaceous might, if real, have a biological explanation involving coevolutionary interactions between pollinating insects and angiosperms. Nevertheless, although generations of plant biologists have seized upon Darwin's abominable mystery as a metaphor for their struggle to understand angiosperm history, the evidence strongly suggests that the abominable mystery is not about angiosperms per se. On the contrary, Darwin's abominable mystery is about his abhorrence that evolution could be both rapid and potentially even saltational. Throughout the last years of his life, it just so happens that flowering plants, among all groups of organisms, presented Darwin with the most extreme exception to his strongly held notion natura non facit saltum, nature does not make a leap.     

Étienne Geoffroy St.‐Hilaire: father of “evo‐devo”?

SUMMARY In the early decades of the nineteenth century, the most important disagreement among comparative anatomists was not evolution versus "special creation" but between advocates of "transcendental morphology" and those of teleological anatomy—form versus function. In France this dichotomy was represented by the 1830–1832 public debate between Geoffroy St.-Hilaire (form) and Cuvier (function). Geoffroy's aim was to establish links of homology (known to him as "analogies") between the four "embranchements" into which Cuvier had divided the animal kingdom. Despite the fanciful nature of some of his homologies, Geoffroy, who was guided by his " principe de connections ," set in motion a school of morphology, some of whose conclusions, notably the homology of the dorsal surface of segmented invertebrates with the ventral surface of vertebrates, has been corroborated by recent studies in developmental genetics.     

A new look at variation in Darwin's species of acorn barnacles

Darwin's studies on barnacles, begun to satisfy his curiosity about specimens from the Beagle , but later extended to the large collections of other naturalists, lasted for 8 years and produced a set of definitive monographs. Darwin was particularly troubled over the taxonomy of two groups of acorn barnacles, Balanus tintinnabulum and B. amphitrite , which he ultimately classified as clusters of wellmarked varieties. Recent studies, based on established taxonomic methods or on statistical treatment of morphometric data, suggest these are clusters of full species and that the 'intermediate' forms are just phenotypic variants. Darwin was also troubled by the small chthamalid intertidal barnacles, which he eventually grouped as varieties of a world-wide species, Chthamalus stellatur. Gel electrophoresis and morphometrics now show this to be a heterogenous assemblage of distinct species, some very different, others closer together, all with restricted geographical range, but all showing extreme variability in the characters normally used for classification.
Darwin's difficulties with the classification of the highly varying barnacles, and his anatomical studies on these peculiar animals, must have had considerable influence on the development of his theories about natural selection, more than is usually acknowledged by writers on evolution. These 'lost years' were in fact a period of intense zoological enquiry, and Darwin's change in attitude with regard to species and variation in nature underwent a big change, as can be seen from the letters and from the differences between the early drafts written before the barnacle work and the later Natural Selection and The Origin. Whether we regard the difficult groups of Balanus as clusters of species or clusters of varieties, they still draw attention to evolutionary processes as in Darwin's day.     

From Charles Darwin's botanical country-house studies to modern plant biology

As a student of theology at Cambridge University, Charles Darwin (1809–1882) attended the lectures of the botanist John S. Henslow (1796–1861). This instruction provided the basis for his life-long interest in plants as well as the species question. This was a major reason why in his book On the Origin of Species , which was published 150 years ago, Darwin explained his metaphorical phrase 'struggle for life' with respect to animals and plants. In this article, we review Darwin's botanical work with reference to the following topics: the struggle for existence in the vegetable kingdom with respect to the phytochrome-mediated shade avoidance response; the biology of flowers and Darwin's plant–insect co-evolution hypothesis; climbing plants and the discovery of action potentials; the power of movement in plants and Darwin's conflict with the German plant physiologist Julius Sachs; and light perception by growing grass coleoptiles with reference to the phototropins. Finally, we describe the establishment of the scientific discipline of Plant Biology that took place in the USA 80 years ago, and define this area of research with respect to Darwin's work on botany and the physiology of higher plants.     

Darwin's evolutionary philosophy: The laws of change

The philosophical or metaphysical architecture of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is analyzed and diflussed. It is argued that natural selection was for Darwin a paradigmatic case of a natural law of change — an exemplar of what Ghiselin (1969) has called selective retention laws. These selective retention laws lie at the basis of Darwin's revolutionary world view. In this essay special attention is paid to the consequences for Darwin's concept of species of his selective retention laws. Although Darwin himself explicity supported a variety of nominalism, implicit in the theory of natural selection is a solution to the dispute between nominalism and realism. It is argued that, although implicit, this view plays a very important role in Darwin's theory of natural selection as the means for the origin of species. It is in the context of these selective retention laws and their philosophical implications that Darwin's method is appraised in the light of recent criticisms, and the conclusion drawn that he successfully treated some philosophical problems by approaching them through natural history. Following this an outline of natural selection theory is presented in which all these philosophical issues are highlighted.     

Darwin's species category realism

Ever since Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published, the received view has been that Darwin literally thought of species as not extra-mentally real. In 1969 Michael Ghiselin upset the received view by interpreting Darwin to mean that species taxa are indeed real but not the species category. In 1985 John Beatty took Ghiselin's thesis a step further by providing a strategy theory to explain why Darwin would say one thing (his repeated nominalistic definition of species) and do another (hold that species taxa are real). In the present paper I attempt to take this line of interpretation to a new level. Guided by the principle of charity, I provide and analyze a considerable amount of evidence from Darwin's mature writings (both private and published) to show that (contra Ghiselin and Beatty) Darwin did not simply accept the species delimitations of his fellow naturalists but actually employed, repeatedly and consistently, a species concept in a thoroughly modern sense, albeit with an implicit definition, a concept uniquely his own and fully in accord with his theory of evolution by natural selection. This implicit concept and definition is carefully reconstructed in the present paper. A new strategy theory is then provided to account for why Darwin would define species (both taxa and category) nominalistically on the one hand but delimit species realistically on the other.     

Darwin and the origin of interspecific genetic incompatibilities

Darwin's Origin of Species is often criticized for having little to say about speciation. The complaint focuses in particular on Darwin's supposed failure to explain the evolution of the sterility and inviability of interspecific hybrids. But in his chapter on hybridism, Darwin, working without genetics, got as close to the modern understanding of the evolution of hybrid sterility and inviability as might reasonably be expected. In particular, after surveying what was then known about interspecific crosses and the resulting hybrids, he established two facts that, while now taken for granted, were at the time radical. First, the sterility barriers between species are neither specially endowed by a creator nor directly favored by natural selection but rather evolve as incidental by-products of interspecific divergence. Second, the sterility of species hybrids results when their development is "disturbed by two organizations having been compounded into one." Bateson, Dobzhansky, and Muller later put Mendelian detail to Darwin's inference that the species-specific factors controlling development (i.e., genes) are sometimes incompatible. In this article, I highlight the major developments in our understanding of these interspecific genetic incompatibilities--from Darwin to Muller to modern theory--and review comparative, genetic, and molecular rules that characterize the evolution of hybrid sterility and inviability.     

Atomism, transformism and the fossil record

The modern debate between exponents of classical evolutionary classification and of cladistic analysis of phylogenetic relationships mirrors to some extent the arguments that were put forward in the debate between Cuvier and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire in 1830. Put into a historical perspective the problems of comparative biology centre around two complementary traditions, atomism and transformism.     

Darwin and the linguists: the coevolution of mind and language, part 2. The language-thought relationship

This paper examines Charles Darwin's idea that language-use and humanity's unique cognitive abilities reinforced each other's evolutionary emergence-an idea Darwin sketched in his early notebooks, set forth in his Descent of man (1871), and qualified in Descent's second (1874) edition. Darwin understood this coevolution process in essentially Lockean terms, based on John Locke's hints about the way language shapes thinking itself. Ironically, the linguist Friedrich Max Müller attacked Darwin's human descent theory by invoking a similar thesis, the German romantic notion of an identity between language and thought. Although Darwin avoided outright contradiction, when he came to defend himself against Müller's attacks, he undercut some of his own argumentation in favor of the coevolution idea. That is, he found it difficult to counter Müller's argument while also making a case for coevolution. Darwin's efforts in this area were further complicated by British and American writers who held a naturalistic view of speech origins yet still taught that language had been invented by fully evolved homo sapiens, thus denying coevolution.     

Darwin and the Galápagos

Charles Darwin's historic visit to the Galápagos Islands in 1835 represents a landmark in the annals of science. But contrary to the legend long surrounding Darwin's famous Galápagos visit, he continued to believe that species were immutable for nearly a year and a half after leaving these islands. This delay in Darwin's evolutionary appreciation of the Galápagos evidence is largely owing to numerous misconceptions that he entertained about the islands, and their unique organic inhabitants, during the Beagle voyage. For example, Darwin mistakenly thought that the Galápagos tortoise–adult specimens of which he did not collect for scientific purposes–was not native to these islands. Hence he apparently interpreted reports of island-to-island differences among the tortoises as analogous to changes that are commonly undergone by species removed from their natural habitats. As for Darwin's finches, Darwin initially failed to recognize the closely related nature of the group, mistaking certain species for the forms that they appear, through adaptive radiation, to mimic. Moreover, what locality information he later published for his Galápagos finch specimens was derived almost entirely from the collections of three other Beagle shipmates, following his return to England. Even after he became an evolutionist, in March of 1837 (when he discussed his Galápagos birds with the eminent ornithologist John Gould), Darwin's theoretical understanding of evolution in the Galápagos continued to undergo significant developments for almost as many years as it took him to publish the Origin of Species (1859). The Darwin-Galápagos legend, with its romantic portrait of Darwin's 'eureka-like' insight into the Galápagos as a microcosmic 'laboratory of evolution', masks the complex nature of scientific discovery, and, thereby, the real nature of Darwin's genius.