Nature versus natural selection : an essay on organic evolution /

This chapter explains how the phenomena of both organic evolution and cultural change can be accommodated within a single explanatory paradigm. It first argues that a model of variation under selection cannot fully grasp the generative dynamics of cultural change, and instead calls for an emphasis on the activities that give rise to artefacts, rather than on the final forms of such artefacts. It then discusses history as but one aspect of a total process of evolution that embraces the entire organic world; how biological organisms and cultural artefacts condition the development of other entities or beings to which they relate; and genotypes and phenotypes in relation to natural selection. It also describes the genealogical model in comparison with the relational model, with particular reference to their application to understanding the kinship of both human and nonhuman beings, and how the relational model can be applied not only to persons but also to the development and evolution of organisms. The chapter concludes by discussing the life-histories of artefacts in terms of replication and reproduction.

Download Full-text

Nature versus Natural Selection: an Essay on Organic Evolution.

The Philosophical Review ◽

10.2307/2175511 ◽

1896 ◽

Vol 5 (4) ◽

pp. 437

Author(s):

F. C. S. S. ◽

Charles Clement Coe

Keyword(s):

Natural Selection ◽

Organic Evolution

Download Full-text

Darwin’s Impact on the Medical Sciences

Integrating Evolutionary Biology into Medical Education ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198814153.003.0010 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 171-186

Author(s):

Fabio Zampieri

Keyword(s):

Natural Selection ◽

Charles Darwin ◽

Point Of View ◽

Medical Sciences ◽

Darwinian Revolution ◽

Theory Of Evolution ◽

Organic Evolution ◽

Medical Issues ◽

Nineteenth Century Medicine ◽

The Impact

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.

Download Full-text

Book Review:Nature Versus Natural Selection: An Essay on Organic Evolution. Charles Clement Coe

Ethics ◽

10.1086/205484 ◽

1896 ◽

Vol 7 (1) ◽

pp. 132

Author(s):

J. Arthur Thomas

Keyword(s):

Natural Selection ◽

Organic Evolution

Download Full-text

Size change in development and evolution

Journal of Paleontology ◽

10.1017/s0022336000061618 ◽

1968 ◽

Vol 42 (S2) ◽

pp. 1-15 ◽

Cited By ~ 19

Author(s):

John Tyler Bonner

Keyword(s):

Natural Selection ◽

Maximum Size ◽

Size Increase ◽

Size Change ◽

Genetic Changes ◽

Organic Evolution ◽

Fluctuating Environments ◽

Development And Evolution

Phylogeny is a succession of ontogenies, and the two have been compared by considering them in terms of rates of size change. In development, the larger the organism, the slower its rate of size increase. In evolution, the rates of size change can be put into three distinct categories: fast, medium, and slow. The fast changes occur over short periods of time (1–10 thousand years) and are as likely to show size decrease as increase. The medium changes occur over longer time spans (5–20 million years) and are predominantly or entirely instances of size increase. The slow changes occur over the entire span of organic evolution and represent the maximum size attained in various phyla, which again show an over-all increase.For ontogeny, a decrease in rate of size change is correlated with an increase in complexity, an increase in the number of gene actions. For evolution, it is correlated with an increase in the number of genetic changes required of the genome by natural selection in fluctuating environments.

Download Full-text

On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis

Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy ◽

10.53763/fag.2015.12.115 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

pp. 167-205

Author(s):

Mike Sutton

Keyword(s):

Natural Selection ◽

Knowledge Transfer ◽

Scientific Community ◽

Future Research ◽

Origin Of Species ◽

Prior Publication ◽

Organic Evolution ◽

History Of

Patrick Matthew’s (1831) prior-publication of the complete hypothesis of natural selection “anticipated” Darwin’s Origin of Species by 28 years and Darwin’s and Wallace’s (1858) Linnean papers on the same topic by 27. Founded on the premise that no naturalist read it before 1860, Darwin’s and Wallace’s claims of duel independent discovery of Matthew’s hypothesis have been accepted by the scientific community. However, the central premise upon which those claims have been accepted — that no naturalist read Matthew’s ideas before 1858 — is a proven fallacy, because the famous and hugely influential naturalist Loudon reviewed Matthew’s book in 1832, commenting that it appeared to have something original to say on “the origin of species”. The fact that Loudon was a naturalist has been totally ignored until now. Furthermore, it is newly discovered that after reviewing Matthew’s book he went on to edit the journal that published two of Blyth’s highly influential papers on organic evolution. Blyth was Darwin’s most prolific and helpful correspondent on the topic. Further new discoveries reveal that, besides Loudon, whose work was well known to Darwin and his associates, six other naturalists read Matthew’s book and then cited it years before 1858. One, Selby, sat on several scientific committees with Darwin, and was a friend of his father. Selby went on to edit Wallace’s famous Sarawak paper on organic evolution. Another, Robert Chambers, a correspondent of Darwin, who met with him, went on to write the influential Vestiges of Creation, which both Darwin and Wallace admitted was an influence on their work. Undeniable potential knowledge-transfer routes did exist before 1858, therefore, between those who read Matthew’s ideas and commented upon them in the literature, and Darwin and Wallace. In light of the fact that influential naturalists, known to both Darwin and Wallace, did read Matthew’s original ideas before 1858, veracity in the history of discovery requires now an investigation into the possibility of cryptomnesia or deliberate pre-1860 plagiarism by Darwin and Wallace. In that regard, the notion of “knowledge contamination” is proposed and presented in a three-fold typology of escalating culpability for replicators of prior published work with citation. Future research in this area should turn to the neglected correspondence and private journal archives of those naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace who read Matthew’s ideas before 1860.

Download Full-text

Evolution of chromosomes and viruses, derivation of structure

Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics ◽

10.1017/s0033583500000573 ◽

1968 ◽

Vol 1 (3) ◽

pp. 265-308 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

R. Kilkson

Keyword(s):

Natural Selection ◽

Origin Of Life ◽

Dynamic Process ◽

Genetic Mechanism ◽

Organic Evolution ◽

Evolutionary Changes ◽

History Of ◽

The Origin Of Life ◽

Shed Light ◽

Scientific Advances

Since the earliest intelligent history man has tried to understand the origin of life. Some remarkable scientific advances have been made. The concept of natural selection is firmly established as the basis of organic evolution. Advances in the genetic mechanism of inheritance have shed light on the processes and levels at which evolutionary changes occur. Evolution is understood to be a dynamic process, and the organisms present at any given time are those best suited to the environment by virtue of the history of their predecessors. But a deeper question arises: how free is evolution? Are the particular biomolecular structures and processes in existence now in any way uniquely predetermined, or are they the result of a sequence of accidental occurrences?

Download Full-text