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.     

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.     

Defining Darwinism

Evolutionary theory seems to lend itself to all sorts of misunderstanding. In this paper I strive to decrease such confusions, for example, between Darwinism and Darwinians, propositions and people, organisms and individuals, species as individuals versus species as classes, homologies and homoplasies, and finally essences versus histories.     

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.     

Native Language Teachers in a Struggle for Language and Cultural Survival

Language shift among New Mexico Pueblo Indians threatens the loss of their oral-based cultures. Language revival for many Pueblos has resulted in school programs in which students are easily accessible and teachers are accountable to tribes rather than the state. Finding "Pueblo space" for the Native language in school, where it was previously targeted for extinction, poses unique challenges. Personal histories and ethnographic interviews provide language teacher perspectives on teaching in four separate school programs.     

Fixed action patterns and neural Darwinism

Summary The stereotopy of the Fixed Action Pattern of classical ethology is customarily attributed to hard wiring. We submit that this explanation is akin to the 17th century use of the homunculus to explain development. We propose extendingEdelman's notions of neural Darwinism to explain the emergence of species-characteristic (innate) motor patterns.

---

Angeborene, Stereotype Verhaltensweisen und Neuraler Darwinismus

Zusammenfassung Die in der klassischen Ethologie beschriebenen angeborenen Verhaltensweisen (sensuLorenz &Tinbergen) wurden meist durch die Annahme erklärt, daß bestimmte genetisch bedingte Nervennetze die stereotypen Bewegungen in reflektorischer Weise bestimmen. Im Computerjargon heißt das hard wiring. Wir meinen, daß diese Formulierung eher einer modernen Form des Homunculus des 17. Jh. als einer echten Erklärung entspricht, weil sie nicht erklären kann, wie das exakt reproduzierbare Nervennetz entsteht. Außerdem ist bekannt, daß dasselbe Verhalten auch bei enormen Unterschieden in der Neuralanatomie auftreten kann; stereotype Bewegungen brauchen keine spezifischen Nervennetze.G. Edelmann hat bereits vorgeschlagen, daß Nervennetze für angeborene Auslösemechanismen durch eine darwinistische Auslese von Neuronen entstehen können. Wir schlagen vor, dieses Prinzip auch zur Erklärung der Entwicklung stereotyper, artspezifischer Verhaltensweisen heranzuziehen und dadurch die sogenannte hard wiring-Erklärung abzulösen.

     

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.