Allen-- I don't think we really have a disagreement here. Basically, I was positing (and Chris supported) that Darwin used Lamarckian transmission (not selection) to fill the function that genetics fills in the 'modern synthesis'. We are talking about action at two different levels of analysis that complement (not replace) each other.
PAUL K. BRANDON paul.bran...@mnsu.edu Psychology Dept (emeritus) Minnesota State University, Mankato http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ ________________________________________ From: Allen Esterson [allenester...@compuserve.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 3:44 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] What A Day: Mystery, Redemption, Astrology, Astronomy, History, and Tragedy ?Paul Brandon writes: >Minor point: >'Natural Selection' is a process; Lamarckian transmission is a >possible mechanism underlying that process. This is the >sense in which I used the term; as you did in your last paragraph >in your first reply. Paul: I don't think I've ever read anyone saying what you are suggesting. Anyway, here is my paragraph in question: >My understanding is that in later editions of *On the Origin of >Species* Darwin allowed a very limited role for Lamarckian >mechanisms because he had problems with inheritance, and >with the estimations of the age of the earth at that time. Natural selection is itself a proposed mechanism for transformation of species. As such it does not require an underlying process. Darwin resorted to Lamarckian explanations only where he did not believe that natural selection could give a full explanation. For instance, one factor that led him to suggest Lamarckian mechanisms as a subsidiary to his theory of species change is that at that time the accepted age of the earth didn't appear to be enough for the slow process of natural selection to explain everything about life on earth. (His increased resorting to Lamarckian explanations in later editions of *Origin* was largely in response to criticism of the first edition.) For Darwin, Lamarckian mechanisms were a proposed *additional* process, not one that underlay natural selection. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org --------------------------------------------------------------- RE: [tips] What A Day: Mystery, Redemption, Astrology, Astronomy, History, and Tragedy Brandon, Paul K Tue, 06 Apr 2010 07:29:31 -0700 Allen: Minor point: 'Natural Selection' is a process; Lamarckian transmission is a possible mechanism underlying that process. This is the sense in which I used the term; as you did in your last paragraph in your first reply. ------------------------------------------------------ From: Allen Esterson [allenester...@compuserve.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 3:18 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] What A Day: Mystery, Redemption, Astrology, Astronomy, History, and Tragedy ?One thing at a time! I was answering Paul Brandon's saying that "Darwin relied on Lamarck for a mechanism underlying natural selection". This is not the case. Natural selection is an alternative process to Lamarckian theory, as is evident from Darwin's writing in 1844 that in his theory "the means [of the transformation of species] are wholly different" from that postulated by Lamarck. (This was written when he had just completed his first major sketch of his theory.) Chris Green is right that I should not have written that natural selection was in "opposition" to Lamarckian theory, rather that it was an alternative theory. Chris writes: >"On the contrary," Darwin allowed an increasingly large role >for Lamarckian evolution over the course of the six editions of >_Origin of Species._ Although Darwin saw that his mechanism >was different from Lamarck's. he did not rule out the Lamarckian > mechanism (these are two quite distinct questions). The issue here (if there is one!) seems to be a matter of degree. I wrote that >My understanding is that in later editions of *On the >Origin of Species* Darwin allowed a very limited role >for Lamarckian mechanisms because he had problems >with inheritance, and with the estimations of the age of >the earth at that time. I don't have expertise on this topic, but I'll quote the words of someone who does. The evolutionary philosopher Helena Cronin writes that "in Britain, by the second half of the nineteenth century, most Darwinians (including Darwin himself – but not Wallace) accepted use-inheritance as a subsidiary agent in evolution" (*The Ant and the Peacock: Altruism and Sexual Selection from Darwin to Today*, 1991, p. 36). In other words, although Darwin allowed an increasing role for Lamarckian mechanisms through the editions of *Origin* it remained *subsidiary* to the main process of natural selection. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org -------------------------------------------------------- Re: [tips] What A Day: Mystery, Redemption, Astrology, Astronomy, History, and Tragedy Christopher D. Green Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:30:55 -0700 Allen Esterson wrote: > Paul Brandon wrote: >> Darwin himself relied on Lamarck for a mechanism underlying >> natural selection, since he wasn't aware of Mendel's work. > > On the contrary, the theory of natural selection was in *opposition* to > Lamarck's theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In a > letter to Joseph Hooker in 1844 Darwin wrote that "the conclusions I am > led to are not widely different from his [Lamarck's]; though the means > are wholly so." More generally, Lamarck's evolutionary theory was > teleological (i.e., purposive), whereas natural selection is > non-teleological. > > My understanding is that in later editions of *On the Origin of > Species* Darwin allowed a very limited role for Lamarckian mechanisms > because he had problems with inheritance, and with the estimations of > the age of the earth at that time. > "On the contrary," Darwin allowed an increasingly large role for Lamarckian evolution over the course of the six editions of _Origin of Species._ Although Darwin saw that his mechanism was different from Lamarck's. he did not rule out the Lamarckian mechanism (these are two quite distinct questions). The idea that Darwin and Lamarck were "opposed" to each other didn't really become a dominant thread until after Darwin's death, when August Weismann's work became available in English. There were exceptions earlier, of course (e.g., Darwin's leading advocate in the US, Chauncey Wright, bemoaned the fact that many people calling themselves "Darwinians" in his day (the 1870s) were really "Lamarckians"), but many evolutionists tried to find an accommodation between the two theories. The modern presumption that Lamarck and Darwin were "opposed" to each other is primarily the result of a reconstruction of the debate that took place in the 1890s. Mendel's work was a separate issue. Indeed, when it was "rediscovered" around 1900, it was widely thought to be incompatible with natural selection, until the "modern synthesis" was put together in the 1940s by Huxley's grandson (Julian) and others. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada PAUL K. BRANDON paul.bran...@mnsu.edu Psychology Dept (emeritus) Minnesota State University, Mankato http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: paul.bran...@mnsu.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a64900b&n=T&l=tips&o=1815 or send a blank email to leave-1815-13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a649...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=1817 or send a blank email to leave-1817-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
