Darwin on woman

In his 1871 book The Descent of Man, Darwin exposed the idea of sexual selection as a major principle of human evolution. His main hypothesis, which was already briefly presented in The Origin of Species, is that there exists, besides “natural selection”, another form of selection, milder in its effect, but no less efficient. This selection is operated by females to mate and reproduce with some partners that are gifted with more qualities than others, and more to their taste. At more evolved stages, sexual selection was exerted by men who became able to choose the women most attractive to their taste. However, Darwin insists, sexual selection in the human species is limited by a certain number of cultural practices. If Darwin's demonstration sometimes carried the prejudices of his times regarding gender differences he was the first who took into account the importance of sexual choices in his view on evolution, and who insisted on the evolutionary role of women at the dawn of humanity. Thus, he opened the space for a rich reflection, which after him was widely developed and discussed in anthropological and gender studies.     

Darwin,Wallace, and Huxley,and Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation

Conclusion Publication of the Vestiges and the rather primitive theory of evolution it expounded thus played a significant role in the careers of Darwin and Wallace. In addition, in spite of his poor opinion of the Vestiges, it presented Huxley with a convenient topic for critical discussion and the opportunity to focus more attention on the subject of evolution. The dynamic interactions among these leading figures of nineteenth-century natural science helped spur the development of more sophisticated models of evolution.Darwin had a proper appreciation of Chambers's contribution to evolutionary thought, although he fully recognized the shortcomings of this work. He understood the importance of allowing fresh ideas about organic change to be ventilated. However, he was primarily concerned with his own theory and viewed all developments in evolutionary biology from this perspective. If he did not give full consideration to Chambers and his book early on, it was due mainly to his feeling that the concepts in the Vestiges were very different from his own; he was therefore reluctant to embrace them as the forerunners of his own theory. As a scholar, he was also troubled by the scientific errors in the book. However, the record demonstrates that he attempted to make amends for any oversight on his part. His generous letter to Chambers's daughter, and his gracious treatment of Chambers during the brief time the latter lived in London, are ample proof of that.The attacks of Huxley, Sedgwick, and other prominent natural historians and geologists at the time, the problems inherent in Chambers's evolutionary theory, and the publication of the Origin, are the major reasons why the Vestiges became a neglected work. Nevertheless, Chambers's contribution will always stand out because, together with those of other late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century predecessors of Darwin, it laid the foundations of modern evolutionary thought and, more importantly, helped prepare the scientific community for the more fully developed ideas of Darwin and Wallace.     

Darwin and Dostoyevsky: twins

The Russian poet Fyodor Dostoyevsky published an insightful treatise on human nature in his novel ‘The Brothers Karamazov'' in 1880. His account of humanity may offer as much insight into human nature for scientists as Darwin''s The Descent of Man.Late in the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–1881) published accounts of their investigation of humankind. Darwin did so in 1871 in his book The Descent of Man, Dostoyevsky in 1880 in the parable of The Grand Inquisitor in his book The Brothers Karamazov. Last year we celebrated Darwin''s anniversary; for biologists, 2010—the 130th anniversary of Dostoyevsky''s book—might have been the year of Dostoyevsky.Dostoyevsky was familiar with Darwin''s doctrine and he was willing to admit “man''s descent from the ape”. An orthodox Christian, he put this sentiment in religious terms: “It does not really matter what man''s origins are, the Bible does not explain how God moulded him out of clay or carved him out of stone. Yet, he saw a difference between humans and animals: humans have a soul.The philosopher Nikolay Berdyayev noticed: “[Dostoyevsky] concealed nothing, and that''s why he could make astonishing discoveries. In the fate of his heroes he relates his own destiny, in their doubts he reveals his vacillations, in their ambiguity his self-splitting, in their criminal experience the secret crimes of his spirit.”The Grand Inquisitor can be read as Dostoyevsky''s treatise on human nature. In the tale, Jesus Christ revisits Earth during the period of the Inquisition and is arrested by the Church and sentenced to death. The Grand Inquisitor comes to visit Jesus in his prison cell to argue with him about their conceptions of human nature. He explains that humankind needs to be ruled to be happy and that the true freedom Jesus offered doomed humanity to suffering and unhappiness. Dostoyevsky''s superposition of these two points of view on humankind reminds us of the principle of complementarity, by which the physicist Niels Bohr attempted to account for the particle-wave duality of quantum physics.Dostoyevsky conceives of humans as complex, contradictory and inconsistent creatures. Humans perceive personal liberty as a burden and are willing to barter for it, as the Grand Inquisitor explained to Christ, for “miracle, mystery, and authority”. In addition, “the mystery of human being does not only rest in the desire to live, but in the problem: for what should one live at all?” We might say that these faculties make Homo sapiens a religious species. Not in the sense of believing in gods or a god, but in the sense of the Latin word religare, which means to bind, connect or enfold. Humans are mythophilic animals, driven by a need to find a complete explanation for events in terms of intentions and purposes.Research into the neurological bases of imagination, transcendence, metaphorability, art and religion, as well as moral behaviour and judgement (Trimble, 2007) is consistent with Dostoyevsky''s views. It has identified areas of the brain that have been labelled as the ‘god module'' or ‘god spot'' (Alper, 2001). These areas represent a new stratum of evolutionary complexity, an emergence specific to the human species. Their mental translations might be tentatively designated as the Darwinian soul, anchored in the material substrate and neither immortal nor cosmic. As consciousness and volition have become legitimate subjects of neuroscience (Baars, 2003), the Darwinian soul, and with it spirituality, seems to be ripe for scientific inquiry: the quest for meaning, creation and perception of metaphors, the experience of the trinity of Truth, Good and Beauty, the capacity for complex feelings that Immanuel Kant called sublimity, the thrill of humour and play, the power of empathy and the follies of boundless love or hate. Secularization does not erase the superstructure of spirituality: it is reflected, however queer it might seem, in the hypertrophy of the entertainment industry and also, more gloomily, in spiritual conflicts on a global scale.Dostoyevsky''s views on the human soul might be closer to those of Alfred Russel Wallace, who believed that an unknown force directed evolution towards an advanced organization. We can identify this ‘force'' as the second law of thermodynamics (Sharma & Annila, 2007). By moving evolving systems ever farther away from equilibrium, the second law eventually became the Creator of the ‘Neuronal God''.Christ, in the parable of the Grand Inquisitor, might be conceived of as a symbol of the truth outside the human world. Christ was listening to the assertions and questions of his interlocutor, but did not say a single word. His silence is essential to the parable.Similarly, the cosmos, to which humanity has been addressing its questions and predications, remains silent. By science, we increase knowledge only by tiny increments. The ‘god modules'' of our brains, unsatisfied and impatient, have hastily provided the full truth, deposited in the Holy Scripture. There are at least three books claiming to contain the revealed and hence unquestionable truth: the Judaic Torah, Christian Bible and Muslim Qur''an. A dogma of genocentrism in biology might offer an additional Scripture: the sequence of DNA in the genomes.Dostoyevsky''s legacy may suggest an amendment to the UN Charter. We, united humankind, solemnly declare: No truth has ever been revealed to us; we respect and tolerate each other in our independent searching and erring.     

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.     

Darwin was astonished

Darwin did not approach the Galápagos with the same enthusiasm and energy as he showed at earlier places visited by the Beagle. Notwithstanding, he looked back on the five weeks the Beagle spent in the Galápagos as a time when he made observations important for the development of his evolutionary ideas. In retrospect, he was astonished at what he saw there.     

Darwin and sexual selection: One hundred years of misunderstanding

Darwin's book on the Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871) is often viewed as the continuation of TheOrigin of Species published 12 years earlier (1859), both because of the implicit parallelism between natural selection and sexual selection, and because Darwin himself presents the book as developing a subject (man) which he intentionally omitted in the Origin. But the Descent can also be viewed as the continuation of his book on Variation published three years earlier (1868). Firstly because Darwin's hypothesis of pangenesis links the selection process to the origin of variation through use and disuse, an idea underlying his speculations on the origin of moral sense in humans. Second because like the action of the horticulturist on his domestic crops, sexual selection exerted by one sex on the other sex can develop fancy traits that are not easily accounted for by their utility to the selected organism itself, such as artistic taste, pride, courage, and the morphological differences between human populations. These traits are difficult to reconcile with pangenesis. They add up to other contradictions of the book possibly resulting from Darwin's erroneous inference about the mechanism of inheritance, like those on the determination of sex-ratio, or the confusion between individual adaptation and the advantage to the species. These inconsistencies inaugurate a weakening of the Darwinian message, which will last 50 years after his death. They contributed to the neglect of sexual selection for a century. Darwin however maintained a logical distinction between evolutionary mechanisms and hereditary mechanisms, and an epistemological distinction between evolutionary theory and Pangenesis hypothesis. In the modern context of Mendelian genetics, Darwin's sexual selection retrospectively appears as luminous an idea in its pure principle as natural selection, even though the mechanisms governing the evolution of sexual choice in animals remain largely unresolved.     

Darwin diagnosed?

While waiting in lodgings to join H.M.S. Beagle just before Christmas 1831, Charles Darwin suffered chest pain and heart palpitations. On his return to England he began to suffer from a range of gut problems and systemic symptoms around the body, which were to plague him for the rest of his life. At least 40 conditions have been proposed to explain Darwin's illness, which left him disabled, sometimes for weeks on end. Here we show that lactose and food intolerance is the only condition that explains all his symptoms. Furthermore, there is now a molecular basis to account for these, based on metabolic toxins produced by microbes in the intestine. This mechanism has important implications in several other diseases, including diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, Parkinson's disease and some cancers. Lactose intolerance also has fascinating things to tell us about molecular evolution – the origin of lactose, the unique sugar in milk; why white humans were able to invade the plains of Europe after the last ice thaw, some 10 000 years ago; and one of the most intriguing problems in evolution – the origin of a new enzyme such as lactase, the enzyme responsible for cleaving lactose into its constituents monosaccharides, galactose and glucose.     

Evolution of ageing since Darwin

In the late 19th century, the evolutionary approach to the problem of ageing was initiated by August Weismann, who argued that natural selection was more important for ageing than any physiological mechanism. In the mid-twentieth century, J. B. S. Haldane, P. B. Medawar and G. C. Williams informally argued that the force of natural selection falls with adult age. In 1966, W. D. Hamilton published formal equations that showed mathematically that two’ forces of natural selection’ do indeed decline with age, though his analysis was not genetically explicit. Brian Charlesworth then developed the required mathematical population genetics for the evolution of ageing in the 1970’s. In the 1980’s, experiments using Drosophila showed that the rate of ageing evolves as predicted by Hamilton’s’ forces of natural selection’. The discovery of the cessation of ageing late in life in the 1990’s was followed by its explanation in terms of evolutionary theory based on Hamilton’s forces. Recently, it has been shown that the cessation of ageing can also be manipulated experimentally using Hamilton’s’ forces of natural selection’. Despite the success of evolutionary research on ageing, mainstream gerontological research has largely ignored both this work and the opportunity that it provides for effective intervention in ageing.     

Deconstructing Darwin: Evolutionary theory in context

The topic of this paper is external versus internal explanations, first, of the genesis of evolutionary theory and, second, its reception. Victorian England was highly competitive and individualistic. So was the view of society promulgated by Malthus and the theory of evolution set out by Charles Darwin and A.R. Wallace. The fact that Darwin and Wallace independently produced a theory of evolution that was just as competitive and individualistic as the society in which they lived is taken as evidence for the impact that society has on science. The same conclusion is reached with respect to the reception of evolutionary theory. Because Darwins contemporaries lived in such a competitive and individualistic society, they were prone to accept a theory that exhibited these same characteristics. The trouble is that Darwin and Wallace did not live in anything like the same society and did not formulate the same theory. Although the character of Victorian society may have influenced the acceptance of evolutionary theory, it was not the competitive, individualistic theory that Darwin and Wallace set out but a warmer, more comforting theory.     

Studies of animal populations from Lamarck to Darwin

Summary and conclusions Darwin's theory of evolution brought to an end the static view of nature. It was no longer possible to think of species as immortal, with secure places in nature. Fluctuation of population could no longer be thought of as occurring within definite limits which had been set at the time of creation. Nor was it any longer possible to generalize from the differential reproductive potentials, or from a few cases of mutualism between species, that everything in nature was fitted to produce general ends, and reciprocal uses. ¹³⁴ The appeal to design could no longer be substituted for answers to questions concerning animal demography. Instead, the dynamics of a population had to be viewed as the outcome of species' struggle against animate and inanimate factors in the environment. Both the members of a species and the environmental factors tend to vary randomly, and therefore neither evolution nor population dynamics could be fully understood alone. For this reason Darwin's linking of the two subjects was inevitable and not merely an historical accident. Since Darwin had shown that no automatic equilibrium existed, he demonstrated the importance of closer study of the causes of population dynamics and extinction. He also indicated that an understanding of population depends upon the development of a broad knowledge in ecology.Viewed from another direction, Darwin's work ended the early modern era of population studies by clarifying three interrelated problems which were important for understanding population: extinction, distribution, and the nature of species. The components of his answer had been discussed in the eighteenth century, but there had not existed enough evidence for the completion of the revolution in thought which had then begun. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Playfair found the evidence for extinction conclusive, and, in spite of Lamarck, Curvier convinced the scientific world that there could no longer be any doubt about it. This was a step the importance of which, with his limited knowledge of biogeography and population, Cuvier could not have fully realized. Lamarck attempted, with his evolutionary theory, to circumvent the necessity for admitting extinction, but he overestimated the adaptability of organisms and in doing so he underestimated the importance of competition and the whole field of ecology. On the other hand, he was not willing to let questions such as the origin of species remain taboo to science. The origin of species was a biogeographical as well as a paleontological question. Humboldt correlated environment with the distribution of species and conveyed the impression that plant communities are subject to change. De Candolle, following the lead of Linnaeus and Humboldt, emphasized the ecological aspects of biogeography, not only the importance of habitat and range, clearly showing the ecological effects of competition. The entomologists Kirby and Spence took a faltering step toward understanding the relationship between population and ecological role, but they fell short of any significant new conclusions. Neither they nor Swainson could fully comprehend the new perspective of De Candolle.Lyell was able to bring together the evidence from these three lines of investigation and weave them into an important synthesis that almost accomplished that Darwin later did. Although opposing Lamarck's theory of evolution, Lyell had a dynamic view of ecology. He realized that population dynamics offered an important key to the understanding of biogeography. Since he knew that species become extinct, he investigated closely the factors which could either preserve or extinguish species. While explaining these factors, he described the interrelationships of species in greater detail than had ever been done before. Forbes continued to develop Lyell's ecological concepts, and his first-hand field experience enabled him to describe biotic communities more concretely than Lyell had.Having the advantages of Lyell's understanding and his own experience from a global voyage, Darwin could take the final step from the static to the dynamic concept of life. He had seen populations fluctuating and also fossil species in South America, and on the Galapagos Islands he had encountered a biogeographical problem that could not be credibly solved without the idea of evolution. However, the bare idea of evolution did not fully answer his questions. He sought physiological causes of extinction before he read Malthus and realized that De Candolle and Lyell had correctly emphasized the importance of competition. Darwin found that, in order to understand evolution, he needed to improve his understanding of ecology. He wanted to know when populations were most easily decimated, how extensive were competition and cooperation, what effects parasites have upon populations, and what changes occur in biotic communities when a species is either added or subtracted. He contributed to some extent to answering these questions. Though there remained much for others to do, there was now a new and more secure theoretical framework within which later studies could be interpreted. As Ernst Mayr has observed, Darwin's consistent thinking in terms of population has had an impact on biological theory and practice which is second only to his sponsorship of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution. ¹³⁵     

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.     

Charles Darwin,evolutionary physiology,and origin of life

In the first half of the 19th century investigations began in the field of comparative and ontogenetic physiology, and the publication of On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin became a further stimulus for the development of problems of evolutionary physiology. The term evolutionary physiology was coined by A.N. Severtzov in 1914, in the early 1930s the USSR created laboratories for the development of problems of evolutionary physiology. In 1956 L.A. Orbeli organized the Sechenov Institute of Evolutionary Physiology (Academy of Sciences of the USSR) in Leningrad. This paper discusses the problems of physiological paleontology, principles of the evolution of functions, regularities in functional evolution, and physiologic approaches to the origin of cell and life.     

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.     

How Charles Darwin received Wallace's Ternate paper 15 days earlier than he claimed: a comment on van Wyhe and Rookmaaker (2012)

Van Wyhe and Rookmaaker (2012) postulate a set of events to support their claim that Wallace's ‘evolution’ letter, posted at Ternate in the Moluccas in the spring of 1858, arrived at Darwin's home on 18 June 1858. If their claim were to be proven, then evidence that Darwin probably received Wallace's letter 2 weeks earlier than he ever admitted would clearly be erroneous, and any charges that he plagiarized the ideas of Wallace from that letter would be shown to be wrong. Here, evidence against this interpretation is presented and it is argued that the letter did indeed arrive in the port of Southampton on 2 June 1858 and would have been at Darwin's home near London the following day. If this were true, then the 66 new pages of material on aspects of Divergence that Darwin entered into his ‘big’ species book in the weeks before admitting he had received the letter could be interpreted as an attempt to present Wallace's ideas as his own. © 2012 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2012, 105 , 472–477.     

Darwin,the amphibians,and the natural selection

A critical review of Darwin's publications shows that he did not dissert much about amphibians, in comparison with the other tetrapods. However, in “A Naturalist's Voyage round the World”, Darwin described for the first time several amphibian species and was surprised by their peculiar way of life, terrestrial or euryhaline. These amphibian observations around the world led Darwin to discuss evolutionnary notions, like developmental heterochronies or evolving convergences, and later to illustrate his famous natural selection theory. This is confirmed, for example, by the publication of “On the Origin of Species” where Darwin ironically questioned creation theory, trying to explain the absence of amphibians on oceanic islands. Lamarck also considered amphibians as relevant material to illustrate his theory of acquired character heredity. These historical uses of lissamphibians as evolutionary models have been mostly realized before any amphibian fossil discovery, i.e. out of a palaeontological context.     

Evolutionary ethics from Darwin to Moore

Evolutionary ethics has a long history, dating all the way back to Charles Darwin. Almost immediately after the publication of the Origin, an immense interest arose in the moral implications of Darwinism and whether the truth of Darwinism would undermine traditional ethics. Though the biological thesis was certainly exciting, nobody suspected that the impact of the Origin would be confined to the scientific arena. As one historian wrote, 'whether or not ancient populations of armadillos were transformed into the species that currently inhabit the new world was certainly a topic about which zoologists could disagree. But it was in discussing the broader implications of the theory...that tempers flared and statements were made which could transform what otherwise would have been a quiet scholarly meeting into a social scandal' (Farber 1994, 22). Some resistance to the biological thesis of Darwinism sprung from the thought that it was incompatible with traditional morality and, since one of them had to go, many thought that Darwinism should be rejected. However, some people did realize that a secular ethics was possible so, even if Darwinism did undermine traditional religious beliefs, it need not have any effects on moral thought. Before I begin my discussion of evolutionary ethics from Darwin to Moore, I would like to make some more general remarks about its development. There are three key events during this history of evolutionary ethics. First, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of the Species (Darwin 1859). Since one did not have a fully developed theory of evolution until 1859, there exists little work on evolutionary ethics until then. Shortly thereafter, Herbert Spencer (1898) penned the first systematic theory of evolutionary ethics, which was promptly attacked by T.H. Huxley (Huxley 1894). Second, at about the turn of the century, moral philosophers entered the fray and attempted to demonstrate logical errors in Spencer's work; such errors were alluded to but never fully brought to the fore by Huxley. These philosophers were the well known moralists from Cambridge: Henry Sidgwick (Sidgwick 1902, 1907) and G.E. Moore (Moore 1903), though their ideas hearkened back to David Hume (Hume 1960). These criticisms were so strong that the industry of evolutionary ethics was largely abandoned (though with some exceptions) for many years. Third, E.O. Wilson, a Harvard entomologist, published Sociobiology: The New Synthesis in 1975 (Wilson E.O. 1975), which sparked renewed interest in evolutionary ethics and offered new directions of investigation. These events suggest the following stages for the history of evolutionary ethics: development, criticism and abandonment, revival. In this paper, I shall focus on the first two stages, since those are the ones on which the philosophical merits have already been largely decided. The revival stage is still in progress and we shall eventually find out whether it was a success.     

The Darwin of pangenesis

The Darwin of pangenesis is very much another Darwin. Pangenesis is Darwin's comprehensive theory of generation, his theory about all sexual and asexual modes of reproduction and growth. He never explicitly integrated pangenesis with his theory of natural selection. He first formulated pangenesis in the 1840s and integrated it with the physiology, including the cytology, of that era. It was, therefore, not consilient with the newer cytology of the 1860s when he published it in 1868. By reflecting on the role of pangenesis in Darwin's life and work, we can learn to take a wider view of his most general theorising about animal and plant life.     

Darwin and political economy: The connection reconsidered

Conclusion It seems to me that no substantial support can be provided for the thesis that the Darwinian theory of evolution drew significantly upon ideas in contemporary Political Economy. What Darwin may have derived from Malthus was not an integral part of the theory of population that the classical economists, including Malthus, put forward. He did not know the literature of Political Economy; and if he had been acquainted with it, he would not have been able to derive anything from it that was important for the theory of natural selection. The judgment that with Darwin's theory there was a real transfer of knowledge from political economy to biology (Pancaldi 1985:262) cannot be sustained.     

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.