Search

Es un hecho sorprendente que para la mayor parte de la biología evolutiva, rara vez hemos estudiado cómo se desarrolla típicamente la evolución en la naturaleza, en ambientes ecológicos cambiantes, en el espacio y el tiempo. Si bien la ecología desempeñó un papel importante en la eventual aceptación del punto de vista de la evolución genética de poblaciones en la síntesis moderna (alrededor de 1918-1950), desempeñó un papel menor en el desarrollo de la teoría evolutiva hasta la década de 1980, cuando comenzamos a estudiar sistemáticamente la teoría de la evolución. dinámica evolutiva de las poblaciones naturales en el espacio y el tiempo. Como resultado, la teoría evolutiva se construyó inicialmente en un vacío abstracto que no era representativo de la evolución en la naturaleza. Desde entonces, la biología evolutiva ha sufrido un cambio profundo en el pensamiento sobre la evolución impulsado por su reciente síntesis con la ecología. El conocimiento ecológico ha revelado cómo la selección natural varía en fuerza, dirección, forma y, más sorprendentemente, el nivel de organización biológica, todo dependiendo de las condiciones ecológicas. El novedoso concepto de capacidad de evolución juega un papel organizador a lo largo de esta tesis, ya que su reciente ascenso a la popularidad proporciona algunas de las mejores pruebas de cómo los biólogos han descuidado persistentemente la evolución en el espacio y el tiempo. La capacidad de evolución, como una adaptación emergente de las poblaciones cuya manifestación es impulsada por cambios ecológicos, finalmente se reveló dentro de una biología evolutiva que abarcaba la evolución en el espacio y el tiempo. Cómo un proceso tan central como la capacidad de evolución puede pasar relativamente desapercibido en la teoría hasta tiempos recientes destaca las áreas de la biología que justifican un progreso urgente, así como la ciencia en general. En esta tesis, ofrezco una reconstrucción histórica de las fuerzas filosóficas, tecnológicas y naturales que condujeron a la Segunda Síntesis de la biología, con la esperanza de reconocer los avances significativos que han alcanzado a la biología en la última generación. Luego ofrezco mis recomendaciones normativas, prescribiendo una teoría pluralista de la selección natural que puede explicar fenómenos emergentes complejos (como la capacidad de evolución) para finalmente resolver la paradoja de la variación adaptativa. Lo hago construyendo un puente entre la gran biología y la historia/filosofía de la biología, enfocando los principales logros de los historiadores y filósofos durante la última generación y cómo estos avances pueden modernizar el pensamiento biológico. It is a surprising fact that for the majority of evolutionary biology, we have rarely studied how evolution typically unfolds in nature, in changing ecological environments, over space and time. While ecology played a major role in the eventual acceptance of the population genetic viewpoint of evolution in the Modern Synthesis (circa 1918-1950), it held a lesser role in the development of evolutionary theory until the 1980s, when we began to systematically study the evolutionary dynamics of natural populations in space and time. As a result, evolutionary theory was initially constructed in an abstract vacuum that was unrepresentative of evolution in nature.Evolutionary biology has since undergone a profound shift in thinking about evolution spurred by its recent synthesis with ecology. Ecological insight has revealed how natural selection varies in strength, direction, form, and more surprisingly level of biological organization, all dependent on ecological conditions. The novel concept of evolvability plays an organizing role throughout this thesis, since its recent rise to popularity provides some of the best evidence of how biologists have persistently neglected evolution in space and time. Evolvability, as an emergent adaptation of populations whose manifestation is prompted by ecological changes, thus finally became revealed within an evolutionary biology that embraced evolution in space and time. How such a central process as evolvability can go relatively unnoticed in theory until recent times thus highlights the areas of biology that warrant urgent progress, as well as science more generally. In this thesis, I offer an historical reconstruction of the philosophical, technological, and natural forces that led to the Second Synthesis of biology, in hopes of recognizing the significant advancements that have overtaken biology in the past generation. I then offer my normative recommendations, prescribing a pluralistic theory of natural selection that can explain complex emergent phenomena (like evolvability) to finally resolve the paradox of adaptive variation. I do so by building a bridge between greater biology and the history/philosophy of biology, bringing into focus the primary achievements made by historians and philosophers over the past generation and how these advancements can modernize biological thought.

A partir de discussões teóricas sobre a importância de um ensino de Biologia que explicite os processos de construção histórica dos conceitos a serem ensinados e, ao mesmo tempo, considere o uso social que os estudantes farão destes fora da escola, esta pesquisa teve como objetivo entender como a História e a Filosofia da Ciência se relacionam com o ensino de Biologia e como a relação forma e conteúdo é articulada nas práticas pedagógicas que orientam esse ensino na Educação Básica. Trata-se de uma pesquisa do tipo estado do conhecimento, realizada por meio da técnica de revisão sistemática. A matriz empírica desta pesquisa são as teses e dissertações levantadas a partir de dois bancos de dados (Catálogo de Teses e Dissertações da CAPES e CEDOC/Unicamp). A coleta inicial foi composta por todas as teses e dissertações que apresentam a temática História e Filosofia da Ciência (2.278 trabalhos), e, a partir de critérios de exclusão, o levantamento foi verticalizado para a área da Biologia na relação com seu ensino. Foram selecionados 17 trabalhos que discutem esse ensino na Educação Básica. A amostra final foi composta por 13 dissertações e 4 teses, sendo a maioria produzida em instituições públicas (15 trabalhos) entre 2000 e 2016. A respeito das grandes teorias e conceitos biológicos, encontramos uma centralidade nas discussões relacionadas às teorias da evolução e da herança. Os trabalhos foram desenvolvidos majoritariamente no Ensino Médio e problematizam essencialmente a história da Ciência/Biologia, considerando pouco os aspectos filosóficos do conhecimento. Na relação entre História e Filosofia da Ciência (HFC) e o ensino, cinco trabalhos apostam em seu uso enquanto abordagem (externalista e internalista). Se considerarmos a perspectiva pedagógica na relação conteúdo e forma que fundamenta (implícita ou explicitamente) esses trabalhos, grande parte dicotomiza forma e conteúdo. Finalmente, embora se possa afirmar o aumento de um ensino de Biologia fundamentado em aspectos históricos e filosóficos da Ciência, falta uma perspectiva pedagógica que fundamente criticamente esse ensino, considerando forma e conteúdo, processo e produto. Assim, consideramos que a Pedagogia Histórico-Crítica (PHC) pode desempenhar esse papel, e finalizamos com uma síntese teórica das ideias entre a HFC e PHC. From theoretical discussions about the importance of a Biology teaching that explicit the processes of historical construction of the concepts to be taught and, at the same time, consider the social use that students will make of these out of school, this research aimed to understand how History and Philosophy of Science relate to the teaching of Biology and how the relation form and content is articulated in the pedagogical practices that guide this teaching in Basic Education. This is a state-of-the-art research conducted through the systematic review technique. The empirical matrix of this research are the theses and dissertations raised from two databases (CAPES Catalog of Theses and Dissertations and CEDOC/Unicamp). The initial collection consisted of all theses and dissertations that present the theme History and Philosophy of Science (2,278 works), and, based on exclusion criteria, the survey was verticalized to the area of Biology in relation to its teaching. The 17 papers that discuss this teaching in Basic Education were selected. The final sample consisted of 13 dissertations and 4 theses, most of them produced in public institutions (15 papers) between 2000 and 2016. Regarding the great theories and biological concepts, we find a centrality in the discussions related to theories of evolution and inheritance theories. The works were mostly developed in high school and essentially problematize the history of Science/Biology, considering little the philosophical aspects of knowledge. In the relationship between History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) and teaching, five papers focus on its use as an approach (externalist and internalist). If we consider the pedagogical perspective in the relation content and form that underlies (implicitly or explicitly) these works, much of them dichotomize form and content. Finally, although it is possible to affirm the increase of a Biology teaching based on historical and philosophical aspects of Science, there is a lack of a pedagogical perspective that critically grounds this teaching, considering form and content, process and product. Thus, we consider that the Historical-Critical Pedagogy (HCP) can play this role, and we conclude with a theoretical synthesis of ideas between HPS and HCP. Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES

Descartes is usually taken to be a strict reductionist, and he frequently describes his work in reductionist terms. This dissertation, however, makes the case that he is a nonreductionist in certain areas of his philosophy and natural philosophy (biology and the mind–body union in particular). This might seem like simple inconsistency, or a mismatch between Descartes's ambitions and his achievements. I argue that here it is more than that: nonreductionism is compatible with his wider commitments, and allowing for irreducibles increases the explanatory power of his system. Moreover, Descartes depends on nonreductionist knowledge and on irreducibles in order to maintain his epistemology and metaphysics. That is, there is more in the Cartesian world than mind, matter, and God.

In this paper I explore Aristotle’s views on natural kinds and the compatibility of pluralism and realism, a topic that has generated considerable interest among contemporary philosophers. I argue that, when it came to zoology, Aristotle denied that there is only one way of organizing the diversity of the living world into natural kinds that will yield a single, unified system of classification. Instead, living things can be grouped and regrouped into various cross-cutting kinds on the basis of objective similarities and differences in ways that subserve the explanatory context. Since the explanatory aims of zoology are diverse and variegated, the kinds it recognizes must be equally diverse and variegated. At the same time, there are certain constraints on which kinds can be selected. And those constraints derive more from the causal structure of the world than from the proclivities of the classifier (hence the realism). This distinguishes Aristotle’s version of pluralistic realism from those contemporary versions (like Dupré’s “promiscuous realism”) that treat all or most classifications of a given domain as equally legitimate and not just a sub-set of kinds recognized by the science that studies it. By contrast, Aristotle privileges scientifically important kinds on the basis of their role in causal investigations. On this picture natural kinds are those kinds with the sort of causal structure that allows them to enter into scientific explanations. In the final section I argue that Aristotle’s zoology should remain of interest to philosophers and biologists alike insofar as it combines a pluralistic form of realism with a rank-free approach to classification.

The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis relegated the ontogenetic development to a “black box”. In this article, we argue that the absence of ontogenetic development in the Evolutionary Synthesis was due its strong foundation in transmission genetics. We discuss three research strategies of transmission genetics that created an incompatibility with the ontogenetic development: (i) particulate inheritance model; (ii) population as locus for genetics research; (iii) and experimental tools that have been applied to remove “non-heritable fluctuations” from ontogenetic and environmental effects. These practices have contributed to the strength of the genetic inheritance, but also excluded the ontogenetic development from the explanation of heredity and evolution. This distinction has been perpetuated in the Evolutionary Synthesis. A Síntese Moderna da Evolução tratou o desenvolvimento ontogenético como uma “caixa preta”. Neste artigo pretendemos defender que a ausência do desenvolvimento ontogenético na Síntese Moderna se deveu, em grande medida, à forte fundação dessa disciplina na genética da transmissão. São discutidas três estratégias de pesquisa da genética da transmissão que estiveram diretamente envolvidas com a omissão do desenvolvimento ontogenético na Síntese Moderna: (i) o modelo de herança de partículas; (ii) a população como locus de pesquisa; (iii) e a adoção de ferramentas experimentais que procuraram remover “flutuações não hereditárias” de origem ambiental e ontogenética. Essas práticas contribuíram para a solidez da herança genética, mas também excluíram o desenvolvimento ontogenético da explicação causal da hereditariedade e evolução dos seres vivos. Procuramos argumentar que essa perspectiva foi central na Síntese Moderna, sendo importante para manter o poder explicativo da disciplina.

Historically embryogenesis has been among the most philosophically intriguing phenomena. In this paper I focus on one aspect of biological development that was particularly perplexing to the ancients: self-organisation. For many ancients, the fact that an organism determines the important features of its own development required a special model for understanding how this was possible. This was especially true for Aristotle, Alexander, and Simplicius, who all looked to contemporary technology to supply that model. However, they did not all agree on what kind of device should be used. In this paper I explore the way these ancients made use of technology as a model for the developing embryo. I argue that their di ff erent choices of device reveal fundamental di ff erences in the way each thinker understood the nature of biological development itself. In the fi nal section of the paper I challenge the traditional view (dating back to Alexander's interpretation of Aristotle) that the use of automata in GA can simply be read o ff from their use in the de motu.

This paper traces the emergence and rejection of evolutionary thinking in antiquity. It examines Empedocles' original theory of evolution and why his ideas failed to gain traction among his predecessors.

In this paper I examine the role of optimality reasoning in Aristotle’s natural science. By “optimality reasoning” I mean reasoning that appeals to some conception of “what is best” in order to explain why things are the way they are. We are first introduced to this pattern of reasoning in the famous passage at Phaedo 97b8-98a2, where (Plato’s) Socrates invokes “what is best” as a cause (aitia) of things in nature. This passage can be seen as the intellectual ancestor of Aristotle’s own principle, expressed by the famous dictum “nature does nothing in vain but always what is best for the substance from among the possibilities concerning each kind of animal” (Progression of Animals II, 704b12-18). The paper is focused around exploring three questions that arise in connection with Aristotle’s use of this optimality principle: (1) How do we understand the concept of “the best” at work in the principle? (2) How does Aristotle conceive of “the range of possibilities”? And, finally, (3) what role does optimality reasoning play in Aristotle’s natural science? Is it a special form of demonstration in which the optimality principle functions as one of its premises, or is it a heuristic device that helps uncover those causally relevant features of a natural substances that ultimately serve as middle terms in demonstrations? In the final section I return to the comparison between Plato and Aristotle and argue that, while both see the natural world as the product of an optimizing agent and while both see this assumption as licensing a pattern of reasoning that appeals to a certain conception of “the best”, they disagree fundamentally over what the optimization agent is and how it operates. Thus, despite their general agreement, it would be a mistake to think that Aristotle simply took over Plato’s use of optimality reasoning without significant modifications.

In this paper I explore Aristotle’s views on natural kinds and the compatibility of pluralism and realism, a topic that has generated considerable interest among contemporary philosophers. I argue that, when it came to zoology, Aristotle denied that there is only one way of organizing the diversity of the living world into natural kinds that will yield a single, unified system of classification. Instead, living things can be grouped and regrouped into various cross-cutting kinds on the basis of objective similarities and differences in ways that subserve the explanatory context. Since the explanatory aims of zoology are diverse and variegated, the kinds it recognizes must be equally diverse and variegated. At the same time, there are certain constraints on which kinds can be selected. And those constraints derive more from the causal structure of the world than from the proclivities of the classifier (hence the realism). This distinguishes Aristotle’s version of pluralistic realism from those contemporary versions (like Dupré’s “promiscuous realism”) that treat all or most classifications of a given domain as equally legitimate and not just a sub-set of kinds recognized by the science that studies it. By contrast, Aristotle privileges scientifically important kinds on the basis of their role in causal investigations. On this picture natural kinds are those kinds with the sort of causal structure that allows them to enter into scientific explanations. In the final section I argue that Aristotle’s zoology should remain of interest to philosophers and biologists alike insofar as it combines a pluralistic form of realism with a rank-free approach to classification.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-03-02T12:58:07Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2011. Added 1 bitstream(s) on 2016-03-02T13:12:18Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 ISSN1518-8795-2011-16-02-223-243.pdf: 195782 bytes, checksum: dd96114e7c5bf06cdbe8c8728558939e (MD5) São analisados os Documentos Curriculares Nacionais do Ensino Médio (PCNEM) no que diz respeito aos aspectos ontológicos, epistemológicos, histórico-sociais e conceituais da Biologia. Tal estudo visa trazer indicações e reflexões sobre a inserção da história e filosofia da Biologia para o ensino médio e também para a formação docente. Foi realizada uma análise dos PCNEM, PCNEM+ e das Orientações Curriculares, em seu conjunto, a partir de categorias estabelecidas. Os resultados indicam uma predominância da visão ontológica mecanicista sobre a Biologia. Epistemologicamente, embora uma questão reconhecida, o método científico é pouco discutido. A abordagem histórica e social da atividade científica e do conhecimento científico é reconhecida pelos documentos, porém predomina uma visão instrumental. Os aspectos conceituais são abrangentes e dão conta das teorias estruturantes da Biologia. Uma discussão filosófica sobre a Biologia é ausente nos parâmetros, indicando-se a necessidade da inserção de questões relacionadas às ideias de determinismo, acaso e teleologia. We analyzed the National Curriculum for Secondary Schools with respect to the ontological, epistemological, historical, social and conceptual biology. This study aims to bring information and thinking about the inclusion of history and philosophy of biology for secondary education and for teacher training. We performed an analysis of PCNEM, PCNEM+ and Curriculum Guidelines as a whole from established categories. The results indicate a predominance of the ontological view of mechanistic biology. Epistemologically, although acknowledged, the question of scientific method is rarely discussed. The historical approach and social scientific activity and scientific knowledge are recognized by the documents, but an instrumental view prevails. The conceptual aspects are comprehensive and take into account the theories of structural biology. A philosophical discussion on the biology is missing in the parameters, indicating the need for the inclusion of issues related to ideas of determinism, chance and teleology. Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho, Faculdade de Arquitetura, Artes e Comunicação de Bauru, Bauru, R. Edmundo Coube, 14-01, Jd. Vargem Limpa, CEP 17033-360, SP, Brasil Universidade Federal de Lavras. Caixa Postal 3037 - CEP 37200-000 - Lavras MG Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho, Faculdade de Arquitetura, Artes e Comunicação de Bauru, Bauru, R. Edmundo Coube, 14-01, Jd. Vargem Limpa, CEP 17033-360, SP, Brasil

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:31:41Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2010-07-30Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T20:47:17Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 nascimentojunior_af_dr_bauru.pdf: 2460497 bytes, checksum: 549f45d882c87fc34611cdfbd0645976 (MD5) A tese foi desenvolvida buscando identificar os elementos necessários para uma compreensão da visão biológica sobre a natureza, numa perspectiva histórica e filosófica. Foi realizado um estudo teórico fundamentado no pensamento materialista dialético, visando identificar as principais questões que sustentam a biologia, considerando a sua história de construção e o olhar da filosofia da ciência sobre ela. Fez-se um levantamento documental principalmente nas fontes secundárias sobre a história e filosofia da biologia, também em algumas fontes primárias. Tendo realizada esta etapa, fez-se uma análise do conteúdo disciplinar dos Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais do Ensino Médio (PCNEM), PCNEM+ e as Orientações Curriculares. O estudo foi direcionado por três questões: Quais são os elementos que caracterizam a biologia como tal ao longo da sua construção? Como estes elementos se caracterizam e se articulam? Os documentos curriculares oficiais consideram estes elementos na sua formulação? Como resultado, é trazida a história das ideias sobre os seres vivos na Antiguidade à Idade Média, sendo possível identificar algumas das questões que a biologia veio a se debruçar nos séculos seguintes. Em seguida, enfatiza-se a mudança ocorrida na visão de mundo na Idade Moderna que se opôs a Escolástica e suas implicações na organizaçãoda ciência que culminou na Revolução Científica. O século XIX marca o surgimento da biologia enquanto ciência. No início do século alguns ramos já se configuravam, porém ainda vinculados com a filosofia da natureza. Constitui-se a partir daí um olhar específico sobre a natureza considerando-se três teorias principais: teoria celular, teoria do equilíbrio interno e a teoria da seleção natural e origens das espécies. Duas perspectivas centrais se estruturaram, uma Mecanicista e outra Histórica, as quais sustentaram... The thesis was developed in order to identify the elements necessary for an understanding of biological vision about the nature, historical and philosophical perspective. We conducted a theoretical study based on dialectical materialist thought, to identify the key issues underpinning biology, considering its history of construction and look at the philosophy of science about it. There was a documentary survey mainly on secondary sources on the history and philosophy of biology, also in some primary sources. Having performed this step, there was a review of disciplinary content of National Curriculum of Secondary Education (PCNEM) PCNEM + and Curriculum guidelines. The study walked directed by three questions: What are the elements that characterize the biology as such throughout its construction? How these elements are characterized and articulate? Documents of curriculum consider these elements in its formulation? As a result, it brought the history of ideas on living in antiquity to the Middle Ages, it is possibile to identify some of the questions that biology came to look over the following centuries. Then, we seek to emphasize the change in worldview in the modern era who opposed scholasticism and its implications to the science that culminated in the Scientific Revolution. The nineteenth century marks the emergence of biology as a science. At the beginning of the century there were already some branches, but still tied to the philosophy of nature. It consists from there a specific look on nature by considering three main theories: cell theory, theory of internal equilibrium and the theory of natural selection and origin of species. Two central perspectives are structured, a Mechanistic and another Historic, which ... (Complete abstract click electronic access below)

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:24:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2010-05-14Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T18:21:21Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 correa_al_me_bauru.pdf: 665809 bytes, checksum: 4bd7db60d077d670dcda2277d4c6dc8a (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:24:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2010-05-14Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T18:21:21Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 correa_al_me_bauru.pdf: 665809 bytes, checksum: 4bd7db60d077d670dcda2277d4c6dc8a (MD5) Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) O conceito de evolução biológica atualmente constituir-se um eixo unificador do conhecimento biológico, pois fornece subsídios para compreensão da biologia atual e possibilita a interpretação dos múltiplos cenários que se formaram desde a origem da vida até os dias atuais. Os Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais do Ensino Médio, também, orientam que a evolução biológica seja um conceito unficador da biologia, uma vez que, a compreensão da teoria evolutiva pode se interligar a outros conceitos biológicos e, assim, propiciar um ensino menos fragmentado. Diversas pesquisas apontam que os alunos tem dificuldades de compreensão ou aceitação do conceito de evolução. Uma das razões que contribuem para esta dificuldade de compreensão dos históricos presentes nos livros didáticos. Sendo assim, objetivou-se investigar como a inserção de uma discussão epistemológica sobre o conceito de evolução biológica pode contribuir para a aprendizagem de alunos de graduação de licenciatura em ciências biológicas. Para esta dissertação, os instrumentos de pesquisa utilizados foram os questionários, entrevistas semi-estruturadas, e discussões em grupos focais sobre os temas propostos, nas quais questões gerais foram focadas em três eixos: Evolução, História da Biologia e Ensino. Após análise coleta inicial foi possível criar categorias que permitiram agrupar resposta com padrões de explicação similares. Em seguida foram feitas intervenção didáticas, utilizando-se um material didático, organizado pelos autores desta pesquisa, contendo textos da História e Filosofia da Biologia sobre o conceito de evolução biológica. A partir da coleta final pôde-se, então, fazer uma análise comparativa dos dados iniciais, com a finalidade de se observar quais e como os objetivos propostos foram atendidos com a intervenção didática. Ao final desta pesquisa foi possível... The concept of biological evolution currently consist in an unifying axis of the biological knowledge, therefore providing subsidies to comprehend actual biology and making possible interpretation of the multiple scenes that were constitute since the origin of life until the nowadays. The National Curricular Parameters of High School, also, suggest that the biological evolution is a unifying concept of biology, because, understanding of the evaluative theory can establish a connection with other biological concepts and thus promote a less fragmented education. Many researches point that the pupils have difficulties to understand or accept of evolution, being one of reasons that contribute to this difficulty of understanding of related concepts to the theory of evolution, appertain to the misconceptions present in textbooks. Wherefore, it was aimed to investigate as an insertion of an epistemological discussion on the concept of biological evolution can contribute to learning of students in pre-service teachers' education in biology's graduation. For this dissertation, it was used questionnaire, semi-structuralized interviews, and discussion in focal groups about considered subjects, which general questions had been concentrated in three axles: Evolution, History of Biology and Education. After initial analysis of the data, it was possible to create categories that allowed the group to give answers with similar explanations standard. After they were made dicactic intervention, using a didactic textbook organized by the authors of this research, it having texts of History and Philosophy of Biology about the concept of biological evolution. From the finals data a comparative analysis of the initial data could be made, with purpose of observing which and how they considered aims had been reached with the didactic intervention. In the end of this research it was possible ... (Complete abstract click electronic access below)

In this paper I address an important question in Aristotle’s biology, What are the causal mechanisms behind the transmission of biological form? Aristotle’s answer to this question, I argue, is found in Generation of Animals Book 4 in connection with his investigation into the phenomenon of inheritance. There we are told that an organism’s reproductive material contains a set of ‘‘movements’’ which are derived from the various ‘‘potentials’’ of its nature (the internal principle of change that initiates and controls development). These ‘‘movements,’’ I suggest, function as specialized vehicles for com- municating the parts of the parent’s heritable form during the act of reproduction. After exploring the details of this mechanism, I then take up Aristotle’s theory of inheritance proper. At the heart of the theory are three general principles (or ‘laws’) that govern the interactions between the maternal and paternal movements, the outcome of which determines the pattern of inheritance for the offspring. Although this paper is primarily aimed at providing a detailed analysis of Aristotle’s account of inheritance, the results of that analysis have implications for other areas of Aristotle’s biology. One of the most interesting of these is the question of whether Aristotle’s biology is anti-evolutionary (as traditionally assumed) or whether (as I argue) it leaves room for a theory of evolution by natural selection, even if Aristotle himself never took that step.

This paper explores the relation between Aristotle’s mature theory of animal generation and his broader cosmology.