Search

In this paper, I will conduct three interrelated analyses. First, I will develop an analysis of various concepts in the history of biology that used to refer to individual-level phenomena but were then reinterpreted by the Modern Synthesis in terms of populations. Second, a similar situation can be found in contemporary evolutionary theory. While different approaches reflect on the causal role of developing organisms in evolution, proponents of the Modern Synthesis refrain from any substantial change by reinterpreting and explaining individual-level phenomena from a population perspective. Finally, I will approach these historical and contemporary debates by arguing for the statistical reading of natural selection, which holds that explanations by natural selection are statistical. My main conclusion is that the historical conceptual reinterpretations belong to a new explanatory strategy developed by the Modern Synthesis based on population thinking. Adopting the statistical point of view has three advantages for the issues discussed in this paper. First, understanding historical conceptual change as part of an explanatory shift fits with the emergence of population biology as a discipline that employs statistical methods. Second, concerning current debates in evolutionary biology, the statisticalist reading can validate the goal of both sides of the dispute. It ascribes an invaluable role to the population statistical explanation of the MS and also commends the study of developmental and organismal causes of adaptive evolution. Finally, the division of explanatory roles in evolutionary biology, embarrassed by statisticalism, can be related to the different interpretations that important biological concepts have undergone throughout history and contemporary biology, i.e., that the division of explanatory roles allows for a division of conceptual interpretations., (© 2024. Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

The celebrated 1917 work "On Growth and Form" of D'Arcy W. Thompson has established a landmark for mathematical biology, introducing new perspectives of study and research in biology, providing mathematical methods to morphology of biological systems. In this brief historical essay, we recall the novelties and relevance of the work from a retrospective stance, above all pointing out the crucial role played by it in the dawning of epigenetic standpoint. The role of underlying epigenetic processes in generation of biological forms via similarity transformations is analyzed within the framework of D'Arcy Thompson. The significance of D'Arcy Thompson as a predecessor of the relational biology and of the epigenetic concepts of evolution is discussed., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The article discusses the importance of integrating physiological approaches into evolutionary studies to understand functional evolution and biodiversity. It emphasizes the need for real-time physiological studies in natural habitats to explore the evolution of behaviors, learning, and memory at the cellular-molecular level. The authors argue that the physiology of evolution should be a fundamental part of biomedical education and interdisciplinary research to advance scientific understanding and address societal challenges. The article highlights the historical context of evolutionary physiology and calls for a renewed focus on integrative approaches to study evolutionary processes. [Extracted from the article]

The article "Niches for neglected ideas?" published in the journal Evolution discusses the argument made by a group of biologists over the past 25 years that evolutionary biology is overly focused on genetic inheritance, neglecting other important aspects of evolution. The authors emphasize five neglected aspects of evolution: the role of development in shaping phenotypes, niche construction, non-genetic inheritance, phenotypic plasticity, and evolvability. While the book presents thought-provoking empirical case studies, it also critiques the historical interpretation of evolutionary biology and proposes a reevaluation of neglected aspects of evolution. The article encourages further study of these neglected aspects to enrich evolutionary analysis. [Extracted from the article]

In honour of the two hundredth birthday of naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913) we present a transcription and analysis of the plan for Wallace's unrealized final book. Recently come to light, Darwin and Wallace was to have been a volume of eight chapters published by the well-known London publishing house of John Murray in the spring of 1915, a project derailed by Wallace's death at the age of 90 in November 1913. Drawing on letters, manuscripts and contemporary published works, we show how the chapter outlines illuminate Wallace's late-life thinking about his and Darwin's working methods, the factors contributing to their independent discovery of natural selection and contemporary challenges to Darwin–Wallace evolutionary gradualism and natural selection by the neo-Lamarckian, mutationist and early Mendelian schools during the period dubbed the 'eclipse of Darwinism'. Wallace's planned book provides insight into how the co-founder of modern evolutionary biology saw his legacy in relation to Darwin's, and his role as fierce and eloquent defender of his and Darwin's theory during a fascinating period in the history of evolutionary biology. In the emergence of neo-Darwinism in the 'Modern Synthesis' period, Wallace's contributions were largely omitted, an oversight that Darwin and Wallace may have prevented had it been realized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the fifth edition of the textbook "Evolution" by Doug Futuyma and Mark Kirkpatrick, focusing on the changes in the conceptual framing of evolutionary biology. The book has expanded with more chapters, illustrations, and boxed materials compared to its 1986 version. It covers various topics such as genetic mechanics, species, speciation, evolution of genes and genomes, and evolutionary ecology. However, the article suggests that future editions should include alternative ideas and evidence, particularly in the treatment of macroevolutionary change. The article praises the clear and easy-to-follow chapter on human evolution, but criticizes the textbook for not mentioning the speculation on the origin of humans from African apes before Darwin and the ongoing debate over the extended evolutionary synthesis. The article suggests that textbooks should clarify concepts related to fitness, distinguish between causes and consequences of selection, and emphasize the role of phenotypes and transmission fidelities in evolution. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the concept of evolvability and its significance in evolutionary biology. The authors argue that evolvability, which refers to the factors that influence an evolutionary system's ability to evolve, is a crucial addition to evolutionary theory. They highlight the diverse conceptions of evolvability within different fields of biology and emphasize the need for a comprehensive synthesis of these ideas. The article also explores the challenges in defining evolvability and the potential for it to bridge gaps in our understanding of evolution. While the authors acknowledge the historical roots of evolvability research, they suggest that a more focused and restricted definition is necessary for further development. They also note the missed opportunities in exploring the relationship between evolvability and sex, as well as the role of environmental change in evolvability. Despite these limitations, the article concludes that the book reviewed is a significant step towards understanding and integrating evolvability into modern evolutionary theory. [Extracted from the article]

As an undergraduate studying biology at Bryn Mawr College in the messy aftermath of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, Marianne Moore found herself surrounded by renowned biologists like Thomas Hunt Morgan, Jacques Loeb, Nettie Maria Stevens, and David Hilt Tennent – all of whom were highly invested in debates concerning the epistemological validity of empiricist and essentialist approaches to the natural world. As her biology class manuscripts reveal, these debates had a profound influence on Moore's early poetry (1908–1924), especially when it involved plants and animals. Eager to perceive other living organisms with precision, Moore rejected the demands of wider vision and focused her inquisitive intensity on the particular properties of individuals. The more that Moore attended to these particulars in her poetry, the more pressure she was able to place on the categorical structures that biologists impose upon organisms for the sake of a stable scientific nomenclature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cell Survival and Cell Death, 2nd ed., 57 Nucleus, ed. by A. Pombo et al., 2nd ed., 231 Nurse P., What Is Life? Lung Cancer: Disease Biology and Its Potential for Clinical Translation, 317 Lung Cancer: Disease Biology and Its Potential for Clinical Translation, ed. by C. M. Lovly et al., 317 Mammalian Sexuality: The Act of Mating and the Evolution of Reproduction, by A. F. Dixson, 162 Marine Disease Ecology, ed. by D. C. Behringer et al., 50 Masopust D., and R. Ahmed (eds.). [Extracted from the article]

The foundation of the Universidad Nacional de los Estados Unidos de Colombia in 1867 took place almost a decade after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) and Virchow's Die Cellularpathologie (1859). The first of these works presents the theory of evolution by natural selection, the second the cell theory, both of which underpin modern biology. The analysis of primary and secondary historical sources led us to determine that cell theory was taught in the School of Natural Sciences between 1868 and 1875. The botany course of Francisco Bayón (1868) explained the cell theory, including the proposals of Schleiden, Mirbel, Mohl and Unger; as well as the processes of pollination and fertilization in plants. Some topics were outdated, mainly by the fact that Bayón's main sources were texts edited in Spain and France, and by the absence of translations of the pioneering works that emerged in Germany. The School of Natural Sciences took a step further from natural history to modern biology by including the cell theory in their courses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The inference of positive selection in genomes is a problem of great interest in evolutionary genomics. By identifying putative regions of the genome that contain adaptive mutations, we are able to learn about the biology of organisms and their evolutionary history. Here we introduce a composite likelihood method that identifies recently completed or ongoing positive selection by searching for extreme distortions in the spatial distribution of the haplotype frequency spectrum along the genome relative to the genome-wide expectation taken as neutrality. Furthermore, the method simultaneously infers two parameters of the sweep: the number of sweeping haplotypes and the "width" of the sweep, which is related to the strength and timing of selection. We demonstrate that this method outperforms the leading haplotype-based selection statistics, though strong signals in low-recombination regions merit extra scrutiny. As a positive control, we apply it to two well-studied human populations from the 1000 Genomes Project and examine haplotype frequency spectrum patterns at the LCT and MHC loci. We also apply it to a data set of brown rats sampled in NYC and identify genes related to olfactory perception. To facilitate use of this method, we have implemented it in user-friendly open source software. Author summary: Identifying regions of the genome that contain adaptive variation is of fundamental interest in evolutionary biology, providing insight into an organism's history and biology. When positive selection is recent or ongoing, we expect to find genomic patterns such as high frequency haplotypes and low genetic diversity in the vicinity of the adaptive locus. Here we develop a statistic to identify these regions based on distortions of the haplotype frequency spectrum from a background distribution. We evaluate the performance of this statistic under numerous realistic settings of interest to empiricists and demonstrate its superior performance relative to other haplotype-based selection statistics. We also apply this statistic to real population-genetic data. As a positive control, we explore two well-studied loci, LCT and MHC, in a European and an African human population that show strong evidence for selection. We also apply this statistic to the genomes of an urban brown rat population, where we uncover evidence for adaptation in olfactory perception genes. We release user-friendly software implementing this statistic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The central importance of evolution to all biological sciences is recognised by many authors. Despite this scientific consensus, the theory of evolution is commonly presented as one discrete topic among many in the biology curriculum. Possible reasons for this scenario include discomfort with the content, ideological opposition and teachers' difficulties in concepts identified as essential for the understanding of evolution. In evolution education, there is a well-established literature on these aspects, but little has been discussed about the historical and philosophical issues concerning the challenges to the centrality of evolution in biology teaching. In this article, I argue that evolution at both basic and higher education levels is strongly based on the original evolutionary synthesis, with a focus on population genetics, and this is one of the reasons for the failure in establishing the centrality of evolution in biology teaching. Given the diversity and complexity of contemporary evolution theory, a more pluralistic perspective to evolutionary teaching is required. I propose that a causally pluralistic evolutionary worldview, which expands the range of causal factors contributing to evolutionary change, is essential when it comes to establishing the centrality of evolution in biology teaching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From Living Beings to Organisms So far, we have determined "shape" in different modes of utterances as an object level expression without relevant reference to biology at all. This loss of the categorical basis of modern biology has its origin in the loss of form as well as in the loss of the form of forms, which both belong to the categorical foundation of biology. Paradoxically, it is even the insistence on the reference to form that shows its very disappearance.[1] The more the functionalization[2], systematization, and finally algorithmization of modern biology[3] advances, in the sense of systems biology, synthetic biology and bioinformatics, the less audible the call for a rehabilitation of the concept of form becomes. Evolutionary Form and its Relation to Individual and Developmental Form The evolutionary form can be determined by a specific speech mode - such as the individual form of organisms and the developmental form of life cycles. [Extracted from the article]

While French biologists were turning a cold shoulder to On the Origin of Species in the 1860s, Charles Darwin was earnestly pursuing a professional connection with one French physiologist in particular: Charles Brown-Séquard. Darwin had been closely following Brown-Séquard's startling experiments on guinea pigs, which demonstrated that experimentally induced epilepsy could pass from parent to offspring. In Darwin's mind, Brown-Séquard had produced the most convincing evidence to date that acquired traits could be inherited. Darwin saw opportunities in Brown-Séquard and his work. If Brown-Séquard realized the evolutionary implications of his experiments, and then endorsed the Origin in Paris, Darwin could be well on his way to securing a French audience for his theories. Darwin quickly mobilized his powers of correspondence to make this French connection, but Brown-Séquard received Darwin's advances with caution. A connection with Darwin could be useful in London and America, where he was increasingly spending time, but to publicly support Darwin would be professionally damaging back home in Paris. This paper examines the dance of letters between Darwin and Brown-Séquard, the politics of citation, and the delicacy of sustaining a transnational biological career between France and Britain in the 1860s. This paper casts a new perspective on an old debate in the history of biology. I show that from within the "heavy cloud" of anti-evolutionary thought in France (Stebbins 1988), there existed a live wire between Brown-Séquard and Darwin. I argue that British evolutionary theory in the age of Darwin was built, in part, with French participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We continue our biography section, featuring former Society for Molecular Biology & Evolution (SMBE) president Marta L. Wayne. In the new department, in which Marta admittedly had little background knowledge in having focused coursework on molecular biology, Marta had to again prepare for and take her qualifying examinations. Because Marta was confident in her interests with that first lab, she was not worried about the selection of the second lab to rotate through and "frivolously" picked Marty Kreitman's lab. [Extracted from the article]

In the wake of recent attempts at alternate history (Bowler 2013), this paper suggests several avenues for a pluralistic approach to Charles Darwin and his role in the history of evolutionary theory. We examine in what sense Darwin could be described as a major driver of theoretical change in the history of biology. First, this paper examines how Darwin influenced the future of biological science: not merely by stating the fact of evolution or by bringing evidence for it; but by discovering natural selection, and giving it pre-eminence over any other mechanism for evolution; and also by proposing a masterful and quite unique synthesis of many scientific fields. Contrasting Darwin's views with those of A.R. Wallace, I conclude that "natural selection" is clearly an original contribution, that it had no forerunners or co-discoverers, and could barely have appeared after Darwin conceived of it. This specificity of Darwin's contribution is an invitation to be strongly presentist (Loison 2016) and to adopt only weak counter-factuals. In contrast, there are possible ways to use strong counter-factuals as attempts to "pluralize" the history of biological theory: i.e. imagine new possible avenues for the development of evolutionary biology. The idea that evolution was a theory "in the air" suggests that evolutionary theory could have developed in a world without Darwin, especially if we accept to delete not only "Darwin" but "England". France and Germany are examined as possible countries where evolutionary ideas would have thrived even with no contribution from the English scientists. Finally, the paper suggests another counter-factual hypothesis: deleting not Darwin and his Origin but the Darwin Industry itself. This may allow us to read the Origin of Species with fresh eyes and to discover Darwin's life-long interest in variation and its laws, as many of his early readers did. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of paleontology in evolutionary biology between the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859 and the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1940s (the post-Darwin, pre-Synthesis [PDPS] period) is frequently described as mostly misguided failure. However, a significant number of American and British PDPS invertebrate paleontologists of this period did devote considerable attention to evolution, and their evolutionary theories and conclusions were a good deal more diverse and nuanced than previous histories have suggested. This paper brings into focus a number of important but underrecognized aspects of the history of paleontology within the history of biology, including that PDPS paleontologists were not all as theoretically backward as they have been portrayed; that the post-Synthesis narrative of the history of evolution should be continually reevaluated, in part to decouple historical understanding from the agendas of authors who have used history to advance particular views of evolution; and that there is a much richer story to be told about the history of evolutionary biology in both the pre- and post-Synthesis eras. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding the causes and consequences of range expansions or range shifts has a long history in evolutionary biology. Recent theoretical, experimental, and empirical work has identified two particularly interesting phenomena in the context of species range expansions: (i) gene surfing and the relaxation of natural selection and (ii) spatial sorting. The former can lead to an accumulation of deleterious mutations at range edges, causing an expansion load and slowing down expansion. The latter can create gradients in dispersal-related traits along the expansion axis and cause an acceleration of expansion. We present a theoretical framework that treats spatial sorting and gene surfing as spatial versions of natural selection and genetic drift, respectively. This model allows us to analytically study how gene surfing and spatial sorting interact and derive the probability of fixation of pleiotropic mutations at the expansion front. We use our results to predict the coevolution of mean fitness and dispersal rates, taking into account the effects of random genetic drift, natural selection, and spatial sorting, as well as correlations between fitness- and dispersal-related traits. We identify a "rescue effect" of spatial sorting, where the evolution of higher dispersal rates at the leading edge rescues the population from incurring expansion load. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For about 30 years, including 20 years as Co-Director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Studies (1998-2018) Michael Tomasello led an observational and experimental search for the fundamental differences in developmental psychology between humans and our closest living cousins the chimpanzee and bonobo. A few passages in Tomasello's book have discussion that seems to be based on my publications and those of others listed here, but no citation is given to any researcher, leaving the naïve reader to assume that these ideas originate with Tomasello. The research by Tomasello and colleagues extends and supports Vygotskian hypotheses by, as Tomasello writes, examining in close detail the, "...ontogeny of uniquely human psychology..." (p. 301). [Extracted from the article]

This paper surveys questions about the nature of the Modern Synthesis as a historical event : was it rather theoretical than institutional? When and where did it actually happen? Who was involved? It argues that all answers to these questions are interrelated, and that systematic sets of answers define specific perspectives on the Modern Synthesis that are all complementary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract I consider the motives of historians devising counterfactual histories, analyze the narrative structure of these histories, and assess their merits. Richard Evans attacked counterfactual histories as motivated by wishful thinking. And he claimed that they could not contribute anything to the understanding of the past because they are concerned "with pointing out supposedly preferable alternatives." Both claims can be refuted with two particular counterfactual histories of biology. An analysis of the narrative structure of counterfactual histories suggests objective criteria that can distinguish those that have been designed, in order to reach a certain narrative ending, from those that were open-ended at the beginning. These criteria are then applied to two examples from the history of biology: Bowler's Darwin Deleted and Radick's 'Other Histories, Other Biologies.' Radick did not determine his counterfactual in advance, to meet a certain narrative ending. This refutes the first claim (wishful thinking). Bowler self-avowedly did design his counterfactual in advance, but its narrative ending still contributes to understanding. In particular, it shows that the idea of natural selection is not necessarily associated with its social discontents. This refutes the second claim (cannot contribute to understanding). Highlights • Counterfactual histories share a narrative structure. • Common parts are: contingent point of departure, counterfactual narrative, alternative result. • Differences between homing and scouting counterfactual histories exist for all three parts. • These differences clearly identify a homing and a scouting counterfactual history of biology. • However, even the homing counterfactual contributes to understanding the past. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The early decades of the twentieth century were marked by widespread optimism about biology and its ability to improve the world. A major catalyst for this enthusiasm was new theories about inheritance and evolution (particularly Hugo de Vries's mutation theory and Mendel's newly rediscovered ideas). In Britain and the USA particularly, an astonishingly diverse variety of writers (from elite scientists to journalists and writers of fiction) took up the task of interpreting these new biological ideas, using a wide range of genres to help their fellow citizens make sense of biology's promise. From these miscellaneous writings a new and distinctive kind of utopianism emerged – the biotopia. Biotopias offered the dream of a perfect, post-natural world, or the nightmare of violated nature (often in the same text), but above all they conveyed a sense that biology was – for the first time – offering humanity unprecedented control over life. Biotopias often visualized the world as a garden perfected for human use, but this vision was tinged with gendered violence, as it became clear that realizing it entailed dispossessing, or even killing, ‘Mother Nature’. Biotopian themes are apparent in journalism, scientific reports and even textbooks, and these non-fiction sources shared many characteristics with intentionally prophetic or utopian fictions. Biotopian themes can be traced back and forth across the porous boundaries between popular and elite writing, showing how biology came to function as public culture. This analysis reveals not only how the historical significance of science is invariably determined outside the scientific world, but also that the ways in which biology was debated during this period continue to characterize today's debates over new biological breakthroughs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay engages a classic debate about the way nineteenth-century biology was informed by contemporaneous developments in political economy, and vice versa. However, rather than argue for a convergence between classical liberalism and Darwinian evolution, this essay traces the way that the concept of organization moved between both fields of discourse. Compared to the theory of evolution by natural selection, the logic of organization was far more teleological and, often, authoritarian. Instead of asserting that competition for access to scarce resources among autonomous agents yields adaptive outcomes in the population at large, it held that organic entities inexorably tend to develop from a state of simplicity to one of complexity. Moreover, it stressed the production of hierarchical structures wherein the whole was privileged over its constitutive parts, in biology as well as society. It is my thesis that the logic of organization proved especially attractive in debates about the transition from free-market to corporate capitalism, providing a powerful means to describe, discuss, and dispute the centralization, rationalization, and bureaucratization that contemporary observers often took to be characteristic of a distinctly modern political economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Christian Emden's recent book sheds fascinating light on Nietzsche's readings in the nineteenth-century life sciences and his relationship to Darwinism, though it is less successful in showing how particular readings influenced Nietzsche's claims. Emden largely follows my distinction between substantive and methodological naturalism in Nietzsche, but argues--unpersuasively, I argue--that the latter must collapse into the former, and that the latter requires "uniform" scientific methods, though I explicitly deny that and no plausible form of naturalism requires it. I also discuss Emden's treatment of the Kant-Nietzsche relationship, and raise doubts about whether what Emden sometimes calls "the problem of normativity" is really a Nietzschean problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Philosophy & History of Biology / Filosofia e História da Biologia is the property of Associacao Brasileira de Filosofia e Historia da Biologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Biologists having rediscovered amphioxus, also known as the lancelet or Branchiostoma, it is time to reassess its place in early Darwinist debates over vertebrate origins. While the advent of the ascidian-amphioxus theory and challenges from various competitors have been documented, this article offers a richer account of the public appeal of amphioxus as a primitive ancestor. The focus is on how the 'German Darwin' Ernst Haeckel persuaded general magazine and newspaper readers to revere this 'flesh of our flesh and blood of our blood', and especially on Das neue Laienbrevier des Haeckelismus (The new lay breviary of Haeckelism) by Moritz Reymond with cartoons by Fritz Steub. From the late 1870s these successful little books of verse introduced the Neapolitan discoveries that made the animal's name and satirized Haeckel's rise as high priest of its cult. One song is reproduced and translated here, with a contemporary 'imitation' by the Canadian palaeontologist Edward John Chapman, and extracts from others. Predating the American 'It's a long way from amphioxus' by decades, these rhymes dramatize neglected 'species politics' of Darwinism and highlight the roles of humour in negotiating evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By formulating in 1875 his major theoretical achievement, the 'principle of succession of functions', Dohrn was consciously entering the controversy between Darwin and Mivart. Dohrn's principle enjoyed the approval of Darwin, but not his enthusiasm. The paper examines the evolution of Darwin's original idea of 'conversion of functions' in the 6th edition of his Origin, following Mivart's criticism, and contrasts the overtly functionalist interpretation entailed in Dohrn's formulation with Darwin's increasing structuralist hesitations as to the origin of evolutionary novelty. A more accurate analysis of Dohrn's principle, however, appears to corroborate the thesis that Dohrn was equally receptive to Darwin's argument as to Mivart's criticism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study focuses on the origin of life as presented in the thought of Anaximander of Miletus but also points to some parallel motifs found in much later conceptions of both the pre-Darwinian German romantic science and post-Darwinian biology. According to Anaximander, life originated in the moisture associated with earth (mud). This moist environment hosted the first living creatures that later populated the dry land. In these descriptions, one can trace the earliest hints of the notion of environmental adaptation. The origin of humans was seen as connected in some way with fish: ancient humans were supposed to have developed inside fish-like animals. Anaximander took into account changes in the development of living creatures (adaptations) and speculated on the origins of humans. Similar ideas are found also in the writings of much later, eighteenth and nineteenth century authors who were close to the tradition of German romantic science. We do not argue that these later concepts are in any way directly linked with those of the pre-Socratics, but they show surprising parallels in, e.g., the hypothesis that life originated in a moist environment or the supposition that human developed from fish-like ancestors. These transformations are seen as a consequence of timeless logic rather than as evolution in historical terms. Despite the accent on the origin of living things, both Anaximander and the later Naturphilosophen lack in their notions the element most characteristic of Darwin's thought, that is, the emphasis on historicity and uniqueness of all that comes into being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses Australia's place in the history of biology as well as the author's own travel experiences there. The author visited places including Western Australia; Darwin, Northern Territory; and the International Botanical Congress in Melbourne, Victoria. She also discusses the British biologist Charles Darwin's visit to Australia, the frequency of wild fires, and the presence of stromatolites. The article draws lessons on biological evolution from the convergent evolution of kangaroos and deer, notes Australia's prehistoric breakaway from the continent Gondwana, and addresses the relation between native and invasive species.

This article recounts the story of the development of pangenesis, a principle proposed by Charles Darwin to describe the rules of inheritance and the source of new variation, two concepts vital to his proposal of evolution by natural selection. Historical accounts such as this are infrequently included in texts and classroom discussions but can serve a number of useful proposes. Pangenesis was ultimately shown to be an inaccurate idea, and one of Darwin's few errors, but this account is an interesting case study to illustrate both how science itself works and a rare glimpse into Darwin's thinking and personality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evolutionary biology history is recounted here using Lakatos' model. We deal with the transformation of the natural history research program to the evolutionary biology one. Lakatos' framework allows us to study step by step the transformations within theoretical structures, conferring rationality to science changes. Such scheme fits adequately in physics, yet for biology demands some artificial basic assumptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The rise of evolutionary developmental biology was not the progressive isolation and characterization of developmental genes and gene networks. Many obstacles had to be overcome: the idea that all genes were more or less involved in development; the evidence that developmental processes in insects had nothing in common with those of vertebrates. Different lines of research converged toward the creation of evolutionary developmental biology, giving this field of research its present heterogeneity. This does not prevent all those working in the field from sharing the conviction that a precise characterization of evolutionary variations is required to fully understand the evolutionary process. Some evolutionary developmental biologists directly challenge the Modern Synthesis. I propose some ways to reconcile these apparently opposed visions of evolution. The turbulence seen in evolutionary developmental biology reflects the present entry of history into biology. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article discusses on the field of biology in the U.S. during the 1960s, focusing particularly on the intra-disciplinary negotiations regarding both organismic and molecular biologists. Public recognition received by molecular biologists and biochemists threatened biologists in other fields including those studying animal behavior, ecology, and botany. Notable scientists considered include Ernst Mayr, Theodosius Dobzhansky, and George Gaylord. Other subjects considered include the American National Academy of Sciences, science policy in the U.S., and the philosophy of biology.

Many studies have shown that students' understanding of evolution is low and some sort of historical approach would be necessary in order to allow students to understand the theory of evolution. It is common to present Mendelian genetics to high school students prior to Biological Evolution, having in mind historical and epistemological assumptions regarding connections between the works of Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin. It is often said that Darwin 'lacked' a theory of heredity and, therefore, he had not been able to produce the synthetic theory of evolution himself. Thus, schools could provide a prior basis for heredity, so that students could begin to study evolution with a proper background in genetics. We intend to review some research on the history of biology, attempting to show that, even if Darwin had had notice of Mendel's works -- which we think he did -- he would not have changed his views on heredity. We examine this belief and its possible origins, offer some considerations about Darwin's views on heredity, including his knowledge of the 3:1 ratio, the consequences for the work on Nature of Science (NOS), and finally give five reasons to consider alternative possibilities for curriculum development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Some contributions to evolutionary theory, from the “orthodox” Synthesis to the “Evo-devo Super synthesis” 1970–2009: A point of view. The “Modern Synthesis” of evolutionary biology coalesced and revitalized evolutionary theory beginning in the 1930s. It stressed the explanatory power of natural selection and gradual change to account for the processes that govern natural populations today, as well as patterns in the history of life. In the past 40 years, the synthesis has been challenged on various fronts ranging from paleontology to developmental biology, systematics, biogeography, and molecular and developmental biology. Several of its central propositions have been modified and expanded as a result. How well the synthesis continues to be effective will depend on its continued ability to test its central propositions and the efficacy of its central mechanisms, particularly on the basis of new evidence from emerging fields of study. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Information about a presentation by Alain Prochiantz, research director at the French National Centre for Scientific Research, on where biologists stand regarding scientist Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, held at a conference organized by the Union rationaliste, a French association defending the non-religious state, on February 17, 2008 at the Collège de France in Paris, France, is presented. Prochiantz reflects on the history of biology between 1840 and 1900.