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.     

A Man of His Time: Thorstein Veblen and the University of Chicago Darwinists

The Darwinian economic theory that Thorstein Veblen proposed and refined while he served as a professor of Political Economy at the University of Chicago from 1891 to 1906 should be assessed in the context of the community of Darwinian scientists and social scientists with whom Veblen worked and lived at Chicago. It is important to identify Veblen as a member of this broad community of Darwinian-inclined philosophers, physiologists, geologists, astronomers, and biologists at Chicago because Veblen’s involvement with this circle suggests that the possible sources of his engagement with Darwinism extend beyond the pragmatists and Continental socialists to whom scholars have typically ascribed Veblen’s Darwinian roots. Additionally, that an extensive community continued to use Darwinian evolutionary theory to construct new models of scientific and social scientific analysis at the turn of the twentieth century, a period during which Darwinism was purportedly in decline, suggests that the “eclipse of Darwinism” narrative has been overstated in literature about Darwinism’s intellectual arc.     

At home among strangers: Alfred Russel Wallace in Russia

Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913) was an influential figure within Russian pre-Synthetic evolutionary biology, i.e. the time period before the Synthetic Theory of Evolution was established (ca. 1880–1930s). His major works were translated into Russian and his general ideas were read and discussed by both insiders and outsiders of scientific evolutionism. At the same time, Wallace played a controversial role in the growth of Darwinism in Russia, and Charles Robert Darwin (1809–1882) has eclipsed Wallace in his influence on Russian evolutionary thinking. In this paper we briefly outline Wallace’s impact on Russian pre-Synthetic scientific evolutionism and its general intellectual climate. We demonstrate that both Russian pro-Darwinian evolutionists and anti-Darwinians (scientific anti-Darwinians as well as creationists) were fully aware of Wallace’s contributions to the development of evolutionary theory. Yet, Wallace’s radical selectionism, as well as his controversial arguments for “design in nature”, predetermined his special place within the Russian intellectual landscape.     

生物进化研究的回顾与展望

生物进化是自然科学的永恒之迷。随着历史的发展和科学的进步,生物进化思想从早期的萌芽,到自然选择学说、新达尔文主义,从现代综合理论,到分子进化的中性学说。再到新灾变论和点断平衡论等。当前,由于生物学各分支学科的飞速发展．它们就各自的研究对象在宏观和微观上不断地拓展和深入,并在不同的层次上形成了广泛的交叉、渗透和融合,现代的进化生物学研究从宏观的表型到微观的分子,从群体遗传改变的微进化到成种事件以及地史上生物类群谱系演化的宏进化,从直接的化石证据到基于形态性状、分子证据和环境变迁的综合推理,从基于遗传基础的比较基因组学到演化机理的进化发育生物学等。可以预见,在新的世纪里,在哲学和具体方法论(如系统论、控制论和信息论)的指导下,在生命科学、其他自然科学乃至社会科学工作者的通力合作下,综合遗传、发育和进化等研究领域的各种理论成果,生物进化理论即将出现也一定会出现的一个新的大综合和新的大统一。     

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.     

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.     

Mort ou persistance du darwinisme ? Regard d’un épistémologue

The article examines why evolutionary biologists have been haunted by the question whether they are “Darwinian” or “non-Darwinian” ever since Darwin's Origin of species. Modern criticisms addressed to Darwinism are classified into two categories: those concerning Darwin's hypothesis of “descent with modification” and those addressed to the hypothesis of natural selection. In both cases, although the particular models that Darwin proposed for these two hypotheses have been significantly revised and expanded, Darwin's general framework has constrained and canalized evolutionary research, in the sense that it has settled an array of possible theoretical choices. Gould's changing attitudes regarding Darwinism is taken as a striking illustration of this interpretation.     

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.     

Chance as an explanatory factor in evolutionary biology.

Darwinian evolutionary biology has often been criticized for appealing to the notion of 'chance' in its explanations. According to some critics, such appeals exhibit the explanatory poverty of evolutionary theory. In response, defenders of Darwinism sometimes downplay the importance of 'chance' in evolution. I believe that both of these approaches are mistaken. The main thesis of this paper is that the term 'chance' encompasses a number of distinct concepts, and that at least some of these concepts serve essential explanatory functions in evolutionary biology. This claim is defended by way of an historical survey of the major concepts of 'chance' in the history of evolutionary biology, especially the concepts used by Jean Baptiste Lamarck, Charles Darwin, and Sewall Wright. An examination of their biologies shows how the concepts of 'chance' used cohere with their major scientific objectives and methods. These concepts survive and continue to function as important explanatory factors in contemporary evolutionary biology. Examples of such usage are given, and the explanatory status of 'chance' assessed.     

Formation of evolutionary approach as an explanatory principle for ecology

Although the connection of ecology with evolutionary idea and specifically with Darwinism was proclaimed for a long time it seems that Herbert Spencer's approach with its emphasize on natural equilibrium was much more often used as its real theoretical base. Elements of Darwinian approach appeared only in 1920-30s in works of those few researchers who studying the distribution and population dynamics of different species tried to understand general mechanisms providing their continuing existence. Later, in the middle of 1950s the first attempts were undertaken to consider the population life history (primarily the age specific schedule of death and reproduction) as a result of natural selection aimed to maintain the necessary level of fitness. A special attention in these studies that burgeoned in 1980-90s was paid to looking for various trade-offs between particular parameters of life history, e.g., between the survival of juveniles and fecundity of adults. The problem of life history optimization became central for the whole branch of science named "evolutionary ecology". Though traditionally this branch is connected with Darwinism, it is rooted rather in Spencer's ideas on moving equilibrium and deals more with static than dynamic. Disproportionately less attention was paid to the evolution of communities since these formations could be hardly interpreted as units of Darwinian selection. Moreover, the ecologists dealing with biosphere as a unified biogeochemical system began insist on "nondarwinian" nature of its evolution. The author considers this opinion as not sufficiently grounded. Darwin's ideas about unavoidable exponential growth, intrinsic for any population, consequent deficiency of resources, and differential survival and reproduction of individuals are still useful while studying the evolution of living organisms (phylogenetics) or the development of biosphere as a global ecosystem.     

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.     

Utopianism in the British evolutionary synthesis

In this paper I propose a new interpretation of the British evolutionary synthesis. The synthetic work of J. B. S. Haldane, R. A. Fisher and J. S. Huxley was characterized by both an integration of Mendelism and Darwinism and the unification of different biological subdisciplines within a coherent framework. But it must also be seen as a bold and synthetic Darwinian program in which the biosciences served as a utopian blueprint for the progress of civilization. Describing the futuristic visions of these three scientists in their synthetic heydays, I show that, despite a number of important divergences, their biopolitical ideals could be biased toward a controlled and regimented utopian society. Their common ideals entailed a social order where liberal and democratic principles were partially or totally suspended in favor of bioscientific control and planning for the future. Finally, I will argue that the original redefinition of Darwinism that modern synthesizers proposed is a significant historical example of how Darwinism has been used and adapted in different contexts. The lesson I draw from this account is a venerable one: that, whenever we wish to define Darwinism, we need to recognize not only its scientific content and achievements but expose the other traditions and ideologies it may have supported.     

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.     

The Creativity of Natural Selection? Part I: Darwin,Darwinism, and the Mutationists

This is the first of a two-part essay on the history of debates concerning the creativity of natural selection, from Darwin through the evolutionary synthesis and up to the present. Here I focus on the mid-late nineteenth century to the early twentieth, with special emphasis on early Darwinism and its critics, the self-styled “mutationists.” The second part focuses on the evolutionary synthesis and some of its critics, especially the “neutralists” and “neo-mutationists.” Like Stephen Gould, I consider the creativity of natural selection to be a key component of what has traditionally counted as “Darwinism.” I argue that the creativity of natural selection is best understood in terms of (1) selection initiating evolutionary change, and (2) selection being responsible for the presence of the variation it acts upon, for example by directing the course of variation. I consider the respects in which both of these claims sound non-Darwinian, even though they have long been understood by supporters and critics alike to be virtually constitutive of Darwinism.     

Is an archaeon the ancestor of eukaryotes?

The origin of complex cellular life is a key puzzle in evolutionary research, which has broad implications for various neighbouring scientific disciplines. Naturally, views on this topic vary widely depending on the world view and context from which this topic is approached. In the following, I will share my perspective about our current scientific knowledge on the origin of eukaryotic cells, that is, eukaryogenesis, from a biological point of view focusing on the question as to whether an archaeon was the ancestor of eukaryotes.     

Evolutionary psychology’s moral implications

In this paper, I critically summarize John Cartwrtight’s Evolution and Human Behavior and evaluate what he says about certain moral implications of Darwinian views of human behavior. He takes a Darwinism-doesn’t-rock-the-boat approach and argues that Darwinism, even if it is allied with evolutionary psychology, does not give us reason to be worried about the alterability of our behavior, nor does it give us reason to think that we may have to change our ordinary practices and views concerning free-will and moral responsibility. In response, I contend that Darwinism, when it is allied with evolutionary psychology, makes for a more potent cocktail than Cartwright suspects.     

T. R. R. Stebbing:A bibliography with biographic notes

T. R. R. Stebbing (1835–1926), a specialist on the systematics of amphipod Crustacea, was raised in London in a literary family and studied classics, law and history at Oxford. After his ordination as a priest in 1859 he was a schoolmaster, then, after he married, a private tutor at Torquay. About 1863 he read Darwin's Origin of species and was convinced by it; by 1868 he had become a naturalist and systematist. In 1877 he moved to Tunbridge Wells where he spent the rest of his life studying Crustacea, active in scientific societies, and writing essays and reviews.
Stebbing's Darwinism was not particularly original, though he marshalled some good examples from the invertebrates to indicate the importance of variation within and between species. He regarded natural selection as a directing force by which God's plan for organisms was being worked out, and credited it with the origin of language, morality and religion. In taxonomic practice, Stebbing advocated priority of names, simple rules of transliteration and gender, and publication of new names only in a few easily-accessible journals. After the publication of the Regies internationales de la nomenclature zoologique in 1905 his writings on taxonomic practice were confined to minor issues.
A bibliography of Stebbing's 242 publications concerned with carcinology, Darwinism, nomenclature and miscellaneous subjects has been compiled.     

An untold story in biology: the historical continuity of evolutionary ideas of Muslim scholars from the 8th century to Darwin’s time

Textbooks on the history of biology and evolutionary thought do not mention the evolutionary ideas of Muslim scholars before Darwin’s time. This is part of a trend in the West to minimise the contributions of non-Western scientists to biology, human anatomy and evolutionary biology. Therefore, this paper focuses on the contributions of pre-Darwinian Muslim scholars to the history of evolutionary thought. Our review of texts from a wide range of historical times, and written in various languages, reveals that there were in fact several Muslim scholars who postulated evolutionary ideas, some with remarkable similarities to Darwin’s theory. These ideas included the adaptation and survival of the fittest, a specific origin of humans from apes/monkeys, the notion of evolutionary constraints, the occurrence of extinctions within taxa and hereditary variability. Moreover, while both the scientific community and the broader public generally base their knowledge on Western textbooks, several parts of the Muslim world have indicated an overall rejection of biological–including human–evolution. Therefore, to improve historical accuracy and create a better understanding of scientific history, the world’s diverse civilisations and their philosophies, this untold story should be widely disseminated to the scientific community and the general public.     

Life,the universe and everything

The Formal Darwinism project probes the connections between the dynamics of natural selection and the design of organisms. Here, I explain why this work should be of interest to philosophers, arguing that it is the natural development in a long-running scholarly enquiry into the meaning of life. I then review some of my own work which has applied the tools of Formal Darwinism to address issues concerning the units of adaptation in social evolution, leading to a deeper understanding of the adaptation of individual organisms. Finally, I sketch some directions Formal Darwinism to explore beyond the biological sciences, with a focus upon cosmology.     

The Lamarckian Cradle of Scientific Ecology

Historians of science generally consider that Darwinism has played an important part in the birth of scientific ecology. Now most 19th century seminal works of the new discipline have been elaborated within a Lamarckian framework. The source of this paradox lies in the double-content of the adaptation concept, considered as a static phenomenon by the ecologists and as a dynamic process by the evolutionists. Although closely related nowadays, as shown by modern evolutionary ecology, the problematics of the fields of research at issue were initially separated. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.