Two Neo-Darwinisms
There are two extant theories of evolution, each of which deserves the honourific "neo-Darwinism": Modern Synthesis Replicator theory and a theory I shall call Developmental Darwinism. The principal difference concerns the canonical unit of biological organization. Modern Synthesis replica...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | History and philosophy of the life sciences 2010-01, Vol.32 (2/3), p.317-339 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 339 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2/3 |
| container_start_page | 317 |
| container_title | History and philosophy of the life sciences |
| container_volume | 32 |
| creator | Walsh, Denis M. |
| description | There are two extant theories of evolution, each of which deserves the honourific "neo-Darwinism": Modern Synthesis Replicator theory and a theory I shall call Developmental Darwinism. The principal difference concerns the canonical unit of biological organization. Modern Synthesis replicator theory explains the process of evolution by appeal to the activities of genes or replicators. Developmental Darwinism explains the process of evolution by appeal to the capacities of organisms. In particular, it is the plasticity of organisms, manifested most distinctly during development, that causes adaptive evolution. Despite the fact that each, in its own way, traces its origin to the theory outlined by Darwin, they are radically different. The objectives of this essay are twofold: to underscore the differences between these theories, and to argue that Developmental Darwinism, though nascent, is a viable alternative to Modern Synthesis replicator theory. |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_818644557</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>23335077</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>23335077</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-j232t-f4a1626ba1ed77accbc85d989bd8fc15a80d110a39ce66691c4c24e648f0f8f43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFj89LwzAYhoMork4v3hVvngL58uXnUaZTYehlnkuaJtDSLrNpGf73Fjbx9B7ehweeM1KAFpwqBHVOCoYWqNUgFuQq55YxpiTTl2TBARRHjQW53R7Sw0dI9NkNh2bX5D5fk4vouhxuTrskX-uX7eqNbj5f31dPG9py5CONws0SVTkItdbO-8obWVtjq9pED9IZVgMwh9YHpZQFLzwXQQkTWTRR4JI8Hr37IX1PIY9l32Qfus7tQppyacAoIaTUM3l_IqeqD3W5H5reDT_lX8YM3B2BNo9p-P8RcQ7W-AudBUwv</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>818644557</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Two Neo-Darwinisms</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>JSTOR</source><creator>Walsh, Denis M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Walsh, Denis M.</creatorcontrib><description>There are two extant theories of evolution, each of which deserves the honourific "neo-Darwinism": Modern Synthesis Replicator theory and a theory I shall call Developmental Darwinism. The principal difference concerns the canonical unit of biological organization. Modern Synthesis replicator theory explains the process of evolution by appeal to the activities of genes or replicators. Developmental Darwinism explains the process of evolution by appeal to the capacities of organisms. In particular, it is the plasticity of organisms, manifested most distinctly during development, that causes adaptive evolution. Despite the fact that each, in its own way, traces its origin to the theory outlined by Darwin, they are radically different. The objectives of this essay are twofold: to underscore the differences between these theories, and to argue that Developmental Darwinism, though nascent, is a viable alternative to Modern Synthesis replicator theory.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0391-9714</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1742-6316</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21162373</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Switzerland: Giannini Editore</publisher><subject>Animals ; Biological Evolution ; Biology ; Darwinism ; Developmental biology ; Epidemiology ; Evolution ; Evolutionary theories ; Genetic inheritance ; Genetic Phenomena ; Genotype ; Genotypes ; Heredity ; History of medicine ; Humans ; Molecular theory ; Neo Darwinism ; Phenotype ; Phenotypes</subject><ispartof>History and philosophy of the life sciences, 2010-01, Vol.32 (2/3), p.317-339</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2010 Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23335077$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/23335077$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,4022,58016,58249</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21162373$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Walsh, Denis M.</creatorcontrib><title>Two Neo-Darwinisms</title><title>History and philosophy of the life sciences</title><addtitle>Hist Philos Life Sci</addtitle><description>There are two extant theories of evolution, each of which deserves the honourific "neo-Darwinism": Modern Synthesis Replicator theory and a theory I shall call Developmental Darwinism. The principal difference concerns the canonical unit of biological organization. Modern Synthesis replicator theory explains the process of evolution by appeal to the activities of genes or replicators. Developmental Darwinism explains the process of evolution by appeal to the capacities of organisms. In particular, it is the plasticity of organisms, manifested most distinctly during development, that causes adaptive evolution. Despite the fact that each, in its own way, traces its origin to the theory outlined by Darwin, they are radically different. The objectives of this essay are twofold: to underscore the differences between these theories, and to argue that Developmental Darwinism, though nascent, is a viable alternative to Modern Synthesis replicator theory.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biological Evolution</subject><subject>Biology</subject><subject>Darwinism</subject><subject>Developmental biology</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Evolution</subject><subject>Evolutionary theories</subject><subject>Genetic inheritance</subject><subject>Genetic Phenomena</subject><subject>Genotype</subject><subject>Genotypes</subject><subject>Heredity</subject><subject>History of medicine</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Molecular theory</subject><subject>Neo Darwinism</subject><subject>Phenotype</subject><subject>Phenotypes</subject><issn>0391-9714</issn><issn>1742-6316</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFj89LwzAYhoMork4v3hVvngL58uXnUaZTYehlnkuaJtDSLrNpGf73Fjbx9B7ehweeM1KAFpwqBHVOCoYWqNUgFuQq55YxpiTTl2TBARRHjQW53R7Sw0dI9NkNh2bX5D5fk4vouhxuTrskX-uX7eqNbj5f31dPG9py5CONws0SVTkItdbO-8obWVtjq9pED9IZVgMwh9YHpZQFLzwXQQkTWTRR4JI8Hr37IX1PIY9l32Qfus7tQppyacAoIaTUM3l_IqeqD3W5H5reDT_lX8YM3B2BNo9p-P8RcQ7W-AudBUwv</recordid><startdate>20100101</startdate><enddate>20100101</enddate><creator>Walsh, Denis M.</creator><general>Giannini Editore</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100101</creationdate><title>Two Neo-Darwinisms</title><author>Walsh, Denis M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-j232t-f4a1626ba1ed77accbc85d989bd8fc15a80d110a39ce66691c4c24e648f0f8f43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biological Evolution</topic><topic>Biology</topic><topic>Darwinism</topic><topic>Developmental biology</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Evolution</topic><topic>Evolutionary theories</topic><topic>Genetic inheritance</topic><topic>Genetic Phenomena</topic><topic>Genotype</topic><topic>Genotypes</topic><topic>Heredity</topic><topic>History of medicine</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Molecular theory</topic><topic>Neo Darwinism</topic><topic>Phenotype</topic><topic>Phenotypes</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Walsh, Denis M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>History and philosophy of the life sciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Walsh, Denis M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Two Neo-Darwinisms</atitle><jtitle>History and philosophy of the life sciences</jtitle><addtitle>Hist Philos Life Sci</addtitle><date>2010-01-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>2/3</issue><spage>317</spage><epage>339</epage><pages>317-339</pages><issn>0391-9714</issn><eissn>1742-6316</eissn><abstract>There are two extant theories of evolution, each of which deserves the honourific "neo-Darwinism": Modern Synthesis Replicator theory and a theory I shall call Developmental Darwinism. The principal difference concerns the canonical unit of biological organization. Modern Synthesis replicator theory explains the process of evolution by appeal to the activities of genes or replicators. Developmental Darwinism explains the process of evolution by appeal to the capacities of organisms. In particular, it is the plasticity of organisms, manifested most distinctly during development, that causes adaptive evolution. Despite the fact that each, in its own way, traces its origin to the theory outlined by Darwin, they are radically different. The objectives of this essay are twofold: to underscore the differences between these theories, and to argue that Developmental Darwinism, though nascent, is a viable alternative to Modern Synthesis replicator theory.</abstract><cop>Switzerland</cop><pub>Giannini Editore</pub><pmid>21162373</pmid><tpages>23</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0391-9714 |
| ispartof | History and philosophy of the life sciences, 2010-01, Vol.32 (2/3), p.317-339 |
| issn | 0391-9714 1742-6316 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_818644557 |
| source | MEDLINE; JSTOR |
| subjects | Animals Biological Evolution Biology Darwinism Developmental biology Epidemiology Evolution Evolutionary theories Genetic inheritance Genetic Phenomena Genotype Genotypes Heredity History of medicine Humans Molecular theory Neo Darwinism Phenotype Phenotypes |
| title | Two Neo-Darwinisms |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T15%3A52%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Two%20Neo-Darwinisms&rft.jtitle=History%20and%20philosophy%20of%20the%20life%20sciences&rft.au=Walsh,%20Denis%20M.&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=2/3&rft.spage=317&rft.epage=339&rft.pages=317-339&rft.issn=0391-9714&rft.eissn=1742-6316&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E23335077%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=818644557&rft_id=info:pmid/21162373&rft_jstor_id=23335077&rfr_iscdi=true |