介绍达尔文主义

达尔文主义是一门研究生物界发展历史和进化规律的科学。这门科学的创始人是伟大的学者达尔文。苏联先进的米丘林科学是达尔文主义发展到最高的阶段,也就是创造性的达尔文主义。因此,要学习现代的米丘林科学,必须学习达尔文主义;达尔文主义是米丘林科学的基础。中央农业部主办的“米丘林农业植物选种及良种繁育讲习班”,在请苏联专家伊万诺夫主讲“米丘林遗传选种与良种繁育学”的同时,特地又邀请了刚来我国讲学的杜伯罗维娜专家讲授“达尔文主义”。杜伯罗维娜专家是北京师范大学和     

记达尔文主义展览会

元旦那天,我以学生家长的身份,参观了上海新沪中学的自然学科展览会.因为孩子和自己工作的关系,特别关心达尔文学说的一部分。参观之后,觉得收获很大,很有介绍的价值。大家都知道,达尔文主义是新的生物学的基础,是马克思列宁主义的生物学的基础,我们学习它是为了认识有机的自然界,为了掌握生物发展的规律,进而发展伟大祖国的生产力,改造我们的客观世界.但这也是一门最富有思想性、战斗性、综合性的课程,它把宏大如海的生命现象加以科学的、唯物的解释。在中等学校讲授这门功课,一般的都有一定的困难存在,青年同学学习这门功课,因为受旧教材的影响,很难深入了解生物历史发展的理论,更谈不到与生产实践相结合。     

进化论系列讲座（十七） 达尔文主义与新达尔文主义

正如前所述,赫胥黎、海克尔和斯宾塞三位"大咖"通过各自的学术活动捍卫和发展了达尔文进化论的核心思想,但是在他们活跃的学术生涯前期却并没有出现"达尔文主义"一词。直到达尔文逝世7年后,华莱士在1889年出版了《达尔文主义》一书,从此这个用语开始广为流传。华莱士写这本书的目的是希望借此推进一种"纯粹的"达尔文主义。它排除了达尔文的泛生论以及其他所有承认获得性状遗传的内容,华莱士在书中提到:"……我的所有工作力图展示出在新物种产生的过程中自然选择压倒性的重     

达尔文主义的新天地

1882年,达尔文临死前心满意足地看到了他的两个思想产儿之一——共同祖先学说已获得了生物学界的公认,已难以找到生物学家还会怀疑进化的事实。但是他更心爱的另一个思想产儿——自然选择学说却遭遇不同的命运,只吸引了少数追随者。它面临的一些科学难题在当时没有令人满意的解答,而它的思想含义——那种机械的、看上     

如何学习达尔文主义

许多中学教师同志们反映,达尔文主义这门科学并不难学,但是却不容易学得深入,不容易学得好。怎样才能纠正这种现象呢?作者试图把自己学习中的一些肤浅体会介绍出来,供同志们参考。达尔文主义是研究生物界历史发展的规律和控制类型形成方法的一门一般生物科学。如果说得更具体些:也就是研究生命的产生,生命类型发展的因素、动力和方向(物种形成和改变的规律)以及定向改变生命类型的科学。     

评达尔文主义基本原理上册

这本书是去年度出版的唯一的达尔文主义的大学用书在前言中,便有说明:“本书是在苏联专家参与下,由中国科学院遗传选种实验馆(现改名为遗传栽培研究室)与北京农业大学共同合作编译的。”但是,遍读这一本书,竟找不出这位苏联专家的名字。这本书只有编译者,而无原作者!     

达尔文主义的发展历程

(一)达尔文之前,进化思想的产生经历了两种宇宙观的斗争 在原始社会,生产力水平低下,人们对复杂的自然现象往往不能解释.当时存在宗教神话式宇宙观和朴素的唯物观念.     

达尔文主义基础绪论的教学法

在按本教学法讲授头几课时应特别注意,因为是否很好地进行头几课的教学工作,在许多方面决定了今后工作的成败.所以先进的教师们在讲授这几课时特别当心并不是徒劳的.现在我们可以引用莫斯科第382中学的教员A.C.卢明诺夫的教学经验作为成功地安排"达尔文主义基础"课程内绪论一章的范例.在第一堂课上进行很简要的讲解后,他在同一堂课的时间内通常总是带着学生去水池(往往到公园或学校附近的地方去看看)边游览.这次游览中,他使学生认识各种岸生和水生动植物区系的多样性,并且举例说     

孟德尔摩尔根主义与达尔文主义

一.达尔文建立了进化论,但他对于遗传和变异的实质了解不够达尔文在十九世纪五十年代总结了当时和过去的科学成就和选种成绩,竖立了生物进化论,推翻了形而上学世界观在科学上的统治,完成了拉马克和其他进化论者所未能完成的伟大任务.他在“物种起源”里不仅以无可辩驳的事实论证了生物不是由上帝创造出来的,是通过进化而来的,而且以令人信服的事实论证了自然选择是生物进化的主要方法.在分析生物的进化过程中,他正确地区别了变异的因素和选择的因素.他认为引起变异的和进行选择的都是生活条件,但引起变异的原因和进行选择的     

Darwinism and the Origin of Life

Historically, ideas on the origins of life have been mingled with evolutionary explanations. Darwin avoided discussing the origin of the very first species in public although he acknowledged the possibility that life originated by natural causes. Some of his followers adopted this materialistic position and advocated some sort of spontaneous generation in the distant past. Nevertheless, Pasteur??s experiments were a major obstacle for scientific acceptance of the sudden emergence of life. The scientific study of the origin of life, established in the 1920s, required abandoning the idea of a unique chance event and considering a view of life emerging as the result of a long evolutionary process. At the turn of the twentieth century, some authors adopted non-Darwinian views on the origin of life, exemplified in this paper by the neovitalism of some Catholic scientists. We propose that Darwinism represents a genuine example of an adaptive scientific framework. By recognizing the shift in the features characterizing Darwinism, we can understand its relationship with theories on the origin of life in a non-dogmatic line.     

Revisiting the eclipse of Darwinism

The article sums up a number of points made by the author concerning the response to Darwinism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and repeats the claim that a proper understanding of the theorys impact must take account of the extent to which what are now regarded as the key aspects of Darwins thinking were evaded by his immediate followers. Potential challenges to this position are described and responded to.     

Formal Darwinism

Two questions are raised for Grafen’s formal darwinism project of aligning evolutionary dynamics under natural selection with the optimization of phenotypes for individuals of a population. The first question concerns mean fitness maximization during frequency-dependent selection; in such selection regimes, not only is mean fitness typically not maximized but it is implausible that any parameter closely related to fitness is being maximized. The second question concerns whether natural selection on inclusive fitness differences can be regarded as individual selection or whether it leads to a departure from the central motivation that led to the formal darwinism project, viz., to show that “Darwinian” evolution through individual selection leads to “good design” or phenotypic adaptation through trait optimization.     

Darwinism and cultural change

Evolutionary models of cultural change have acquired an important role in attempts to explain the course of human evolution, especially our specialization in knowledge-gathering and intelligent control of environments. In both biological and cultural change, different patterns of explanation become relevant at different ‘grains’ of analysis and in contexts associated with different explanatory targets. Existing treatments of the evolutionary approach to culture, both positive and negative, underestimate the importance of these distinctions. Close attention to grain of analysis motivates distinctions between three possible modes of cultural evolution, each associated with different empirical assumptions and explanatory roles.     

Darwinism and cultural change

Evolutionary models of cultural change have acquired an important role in attempts to explain the course of human evolution, especially our specialization in knowledge-gathering and intelligent control of environments. In both biological and cultural change, different patterns of explanation become relevant at different 'grains' of analysis and in contexts associated with different explanatory targets. Existing treatments of the evolutionary approach to culture, both positive and negative, underestimate the importance of these distinctions. Close attention to grain of analysis motivates distinctions between three possible modes of cultural evolution, each associated with different empirical assumptions and explanatory roles.     

Cultural Darwinism and Language

This article examines the effect of cultural selection on the development of language in humans. First, it is claimed that directive and expressive types of speech acts are commonly found in many animal species. Representative speech acts, on the other hand, with the exception of animal "calls," are found primarily among humans. !t is argued that a cultural environment is a probable selective factor for the capacity to produce representative speech acts. Second, it is argued that representative speech acts, once they became part of language, acted as a selective factor for increased intelligence and associated greater brain size. And, finally, it is argued that the capacity to create representative speech acts selected for brains that could store great numbers of memory episodes and narratives, as well as plan for the future. [Key words: evolution, language, cultural selection, brain, intelligence, memory]