Darwin’s Impact on the Medical Sciences

Author(s):  
Fabio Zampieri

In early nineteenth century medicine, the concepts of organic evolution and natural selection emerged in different contexts, partly anticipating Darwinian revolution. In particular, the anatomical concept of disease favored the perception that men and animals were very similar from a morphological, physiological and pathological point of view, and that this could indicate a certain degree of kinship between them. The debate around human races and human pathological heredity saw first formulations of the principle of natural selection, even if without a full appraisal of its evolutionary implications. Charles Darwin took many inspirations from these medical theories. The impact of the theory of evolution formulated by him in 1859 was only apparently slight in medicine. It is even possible to support that evolutionary concepts contributed in a significant way to the most important medical issues, debates and new discipline in the period between 1880 and 1940.

2021 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrich Berner

The science of religion, as a discipline distinct from theology emerging in the 19th century, from the beginning was closely related to the discourse on Darwinism. This article focusses on Max Müller, known as ‘The father of Comparative Religion’, who was involved in the Darwinian discourse, compared with Jane Ellen Harrison who emphasised the impact of the theory of evolution, approaching, however, the ‘scientific study of religion’ from a different viewpoint.Contribution: From a historical point of view, this article discusses the relationship between different strands in Religious Studies (Religionswissenschaft), and, also, touches upon the relationship between Religious Studies and Theology.


Author(s):  
Seán Hewitt

The development of evolutionary theory over the course of the 19th century was not confined to the theory of evolution by natural selection posited by Charles Darwin (b. 1809–d. 1882) and Alfred Russell Wallace (b. 1823–d. 1913). Encompassing the burgeoning science of geology, natural history, and biology and eventually being adapted into sociology, psychology, political theory, economics, and cultural anthropology, the theory of evolution quickly became both pervasive and divisive. Prior to Darwin’s intervention with the Origin of Species (1859), various theories of evolution were circulating, being accommodated within the field of natural theology or constituting a challenge to theories of intelligent design. Over the period, the interplay between literature and evolutionary theory was complex and pronounced: advances in science provoked new formal and thematic concerns for writers, and scientists used poetry and literary techniques to disseminate their arguments to wide readerships. During the period, the rise of natural historical study as a popular pursuit, and the Victorian emphasis on nature study as a moral, even religious, pursuit, meant that evolutionary ideas were adapted for various purposes and contested in both popular and specialist texts. Pre-Darwinian literature circulated evolutionary ideas mainly within the framework of natural theology (proving and discussing God’s existence through the study of Creation), but visions of harmony and beneficent design were challenged through the theory of natural selection, meaning that post-Darwinian literature more fully encompasses anthropological anxiety and the falling off of faith. Religious texts, and theological concerns, are thus central to the interplay between literature and science in the period. Toward the end of the century, the adaptation of Darwinism and evolutionary theory into various disciplines saw a proliferation of social Darwinism, branching off into eugenics, the impact of which would be felt most fully in the 20th century. This article focuses on writing and evolutionary theory in its immediate British and 19th-century contexts.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Luis Sánchez

Abstract In Descent of Man, Charles Darwin noted the impact of political institutions on natural selection. He thought that institutions such as asylums or hospitals may deter natural selection; however, he did not reach a decisive answer. Questions remain as to whether the selective impacts of political institutions, which in Darwin’s terms may be referred to as “artificial selection,” are compatible with natural selection, and if so, to what extent. This essay argues that currently there appears to be an essential mismatch between nature and political institutions. Unfitted institutions put exogenous and disproportionate pressures on living beings. This creates consequences for what is postulated as the condition of basic equivalence, which allows species and individuals to enjoy similar chances of survival under natural circumstances. Thus, contrary to Darwin’s expectations, it is sustained that assumed natural selection is not discouraged but becomes exacerbated by political institutions. In such conditions, selection becomes primarily artificial and perhaps mainly political, with consequences for species’ evolutionary future.


Author(s):  
Samir Okasha

In 1859 Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, in which he set out his theory of evolution. The book marked a turning point in our understanding of the natural world and revolutionized biology. ‘Evolution and natural selection’ outlines the theory of evolution by natural selection, explaining its unique status in biology and its philosophical significance. It considers how Darwin’s theory undermined the ‘argument from design’, a traditional philosophical argument for the existence of God; how the integration of Darwin’s theory with genetics, in the early 20th century, gave rise to neo-Darwinism; and why, despite evolutionary theory being a mainstay of modern biology, in society at large there is a marked reluctance to believe in evolution.


Author(s):  
Michael Ruse

The modern usage of the term Darwinism dates from the publication of On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, in which he argued for evolution through natural selection. Very soon after the appearance of the Origin (in 1859), Darwin’s great supporter Thomas Henry Huxley introduced the term Darwinism. The term—together with the related terms Darwinian and Darwinist—took root. The codiscoverer of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, used the term as the title of a book expounding evolution: Darwinism: An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection, with Some of Its Applications. Note that there seems to be a fuzziness about the term. Some identify Darwinism with evolution through natural selection. Others suggest that the essence of Darwinism is not selection per se but change or variation. Late in the 19th century, George Romanes coined the term neo-Darwinism to cover those for whom natural selection is basically the only significant cause of change. In 1930 Ronald A. Fisher, in his Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, argued that the newly developed theory of Mendelian genetics offered the required foundation for a perspective that made natural selection the central force of evolutionary change. Although the British were happy to call the Darwin-Mendel synthesis neo-Darwinism, in America the synthesis was known as the synthetic theory of evolution. This reflects that in the New World it was Sewall Wright who did the foundational work in bringing Mendelian genetics into the evolutionary picture and that he never thought of natural selection as being the force that Fisher took it to be. For Wright and his followers, especially Theodosius Dobzhansky, genetic drift was always a major component of the evolutionary picture, and as Fisher pointed out nonstop, this is about as non-Darwinian a notion as it is possible to have. By 1959 professional evolutionists (on both sides of the Atlantic) agreed that Darwin had been right about natural selection: it is the major cause of evolutionary change. Neo-Darwinism fell into disuse, as everyone now used the term Darwinism for evolution through natural selection. Mention should also be made of so-called social Darwinism, the application of Darwinism to persons and groups within society. The earliest use apparently was during Darwin’s own lifetime, by a historian discussing land tenure in Ireland. However, it was not a popular or general term, coming into widespread use only in the 1940s, with the publication of the American historian Richard Hofstadter’s book Social Darwinism in American Thought.


Philosophy ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 44 (170) ◽  
pp. 271-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. D. Barker

In this paper I want to examine a view of the Darwinian theory of evolution which was put forward fairly recently by A. R. Manser. His approach is of interest not only in itself, but also because it may be expanded to raise some fundamental questions about the nature of the science of biology in general. I shall not consider these further implications here, but shall concentrate on an examination of his thesis in the context in which it is raised. My paper falls into two sections. In the first I shall state Manser's thesis and some of the arguments with which he supports it, and shall try to show how a series of objections raised by A. G. N. Flew and K. Connolly may be answered. In the second I shall offer on my own account a positive argument to provide a possible basis for his point of view, with the aim of indicating why the theory should be of the kind he suggests, and what form the study of evolution must take.


Joseph Dalton Hooker was eight years the junior of Charles Darwin (1809-82) and lived twenty-nine years after Darwin’s death. He was, for a long period, the personal friend of Darwin and the frank critic of many of Darwin’s researches and of the botanical aspects of Darwinian theories. Hooker was a botanist and, since he had an extensive first-hand experience of many branches of botany, above all of plant taxonomy and phytogeography, it was naturally the botanical aspects of evolutionary problems which both interested him and concerning which he was best able to help Darwin. Such help was gratefully and fully acknowledged by Darwin, as is shown by published correspondence. Numerous letters passed between Darwin and Hooker and the latter visited his friend at Down and stayed there for periods of varying length. A considerable amount of living material was obviously supplied from Kew for the later botanical experiments Darwin carried out at Down. The assistance given by Hooker in the accumulation of facts and in criticism of theories preparatory to the publication of the Origin of species and later works of Darwin, his presenting (with Lyell) and reading Darwin’s communication to the Linnean Society of London on 1 July 1858 introducing the theory of natural selection, and his influence in gaining the speedy general acceptance of the theory of evolution are well known and it is not necessary to consider them here in much detail. It is proposed, instead, to outline very briefly the salient facts in the life of J.D. Hooker and then to devote the major part of this essay to a consideration of the development of his views on the problems of species, phytogeography, and evolution. In part at least, this means considering the influence of Darwin on Hooker but, from a wider viewpoint, it is possible to form some conception of the clarifying and unifying effects of the acceptance of the general theory of evolution on biological thought.


2008 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven A. Gelb

When Charles Darwin turned his attention to writing about human descent in 1871 he attempted to narrow the fossil gap between human beings and higher primates by presenting persons with intellectual disabilities — "idiots" in the language of the day — as evidence in support of the theory of evolution. This paper explores the four ways that Darwin used persons with intellectual disabilities in The Descent of Man: 1) as intermediate rung on the evolutionary ladder connecting humans and primates; 2) as exemplars of the inevitable waste and loss produced by natural selection acting upon variability; 3) as the floor of a scale representing the "lowest", most unfit variety of any species when individuals were rank ordered by intelligence; and 4) as atavistic reversions to extinct forms whose study would reveal the characteristics of earlier stages of human evolution. Darwin's strategic use of intellectual disability is brought to bear on the controversy regarding the mental state of Darwin's last child.


Author(s):  
Keith Stewart Thomson

All of science is fundamentally about cause. It is about explanations of the reasons things are the way they are and the mechanisms that produce them. It is now commonplace to observe that Charles Darwin brought evolution and all of organismal biology into line as a truly scientific subject by discussing evolutionary phenomena in terms of cause, and thus in the same testable, quantifiable frame of reference that applies to other science. Darwin's theory of natural selection as a causal agency for evolutionary change was only the beginning of our problems, not the end. For more than a hundred years, we have sought to find all the layers and intersecting lines of causality that produce natural selection as well as to discover other mechanisms for change that are nonselective in nature—genetic drift or neutral mutations, for example. Natural selection is basically a mechanism that involves two components: the introduction of variants into a system and the subsequent sorting of these variants (Vrba and Eldredge, 1984) so that, over generations, there is a differential contribution of these variants to higher levels such as populations and species. Up to the present time, most attention of evolutionists has concentrated upon two aspects of the problem: the genetic basis of phenotypic variation and the dynamic properties of populations containing the individual variants. The present book is concerned with the mechanisms affecting the expression of variation among individual phenotypes. It has been a surprisingly neglected subject. The New Synthetic theory of evolution and its later modifications have largely been pursued as if the intrinsic mechanisms by which variation is caused among individual organismal phenotypes are less important to the processes of evolution than the extrinsic mechanisms of sorting. If only by default, variation introduced at the level of the individual phenotypes is commonly treated as if it were a simple mapping of variation at the genetic level, or at least were only a very simple function of that. It has seemed not only necessary but sufficient to study genetics in order to understand phenotypic variation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document