Ospovat 1981

OSPOVAT

1 DARWIN AND THE BIOLOGY OF THE 1830S

  • ·      The rejection of teleological explanation by Darwin’s contemporaries provides the best perspective from which to examine one of the central elements in Darwin’s transmutationist thought- his concepto f adaptation. [...] But, like most of those who abandoned the teleological approach, Darwin for some time continued to bElieve in the Harmony of nature and in the perfection of adaptation. 6

The decline of teleological explanation

Darwin, teleological explanation, and the Harmony of nature

  • ·         Darwin: inicia como um fixista teleológico crente na adaptação perfeita. Como discípulo de Lyell utiliza o determinismo ambiental. Depois rejeita a teleologia e o antitransmutacionismo sem abandonar a adaptação perfeita.
  • ·         Darwin’s private debate With the teleologists runs through the whole series of transmutation notebooks he began in July 1837. Often it takes the form of an argument Against “creation”. By “creation” Darwin meant not so Much the notion of direct intervention by the creartor as the idea of special adaptation. It made comparatively litttle difference wheter “creation” was by secondary means, as Lyell seemd to say, or by immediate intervention, as Buckland and Sedgwick probably believed; in Darwin’s most common usage, what constituted the hypothesis of “creation” was the belief that each form is fully explicable in terms of its own needs and purposes. Here is a straghtforward example of such usage: Darwin argued that the wings of flightless beetles cannot be explained by the teleological assumption that Every organ is of some function importance to its possessor. These wings, show, he reasoned, that the beetles were “born of beetles with wings modified, - if simple creation, surely would have [been] born without them”. It is not the mode of introduction but the teleologicala assumption that is at issue. If organisms are informed solely With reference to their conditions of existence, then heredity, and hence transmutation, are left out of the question. 25
  • ·         Para Lyell as condições externas em conjunto com as capacidades de migração das sps era suficiente ara explicar distribuição biogeográfiica. De Candolle  achava que haviam certas leis das quais ainda estávamos ignorantes. Darwin explicava isso com sua teoria da descendência, que exlica coisas que a teleologia não consegue.
  • ·         Darwin desafiava Lyell ao dizer que os animais não estavam destinados a viver em lugares para os quais estavam adaptados, mas que seus mecanismos de dispersão permitiam que eles chegassem a habitats em potencial.
  • ·         Darwin’s own observations and his Reading provided him With numerous Other facts that seemed to him to be inexplicable by the teleologist. If organisms come into existence when the external conditions suited to them arise, why, he asked, are some animals not found in palces where there are manifestly appropriate conditions to them? Why are large mammals not found on islands? “If act of fresh creation, why not produced on New Zealand; if generated, an answer can be given”. Conversely, why are similar forms found under diferent condition; for instance, plants that grow in the volcanic soils of islands but that are of the same type as those growing in sandstone and granite soils in Africa? And there are species of molluscs that are common to Paragonia, to Tierra del Fuego, and to forest, which shows “independency of shells to external features of land.” As stilll Other facts lead to the same conclusion.. Races of domestic animals are shaped by the environmental influences of the country in which they originate. Yet they sometimes flourish in Other countries where the conditions are different. This indicates that species are not “so closely adapted” as the teleologists suppose. We who Always have in mind Darwin’s achievements in the Origin of Species tend frequently to assume that the lines of though he developed in his notebooks and later pre Origin writings were as exclusively Darwinian as the theory of natural selection. It is a useful corrective to recall that such opponents of transmutaion as Pritchard and Agassiz used these same arguments to reach the same conclusion – that the principle of adaptation could not explain geographical distribution 27-8
  • ·         A adaptação de cuvier não explicava os orgãos vestigiais, a unidade de tipo e as semelnhanças entre espécies fósseis e vivas. Aí que entra a hereditariedade
  • ·         D se aliou mais com Gaeoffroy do que com Cuvier
  • ·         Darwin se torna, junto com Whewell e depois Huxley, um teleólogo de uma ordem acima, ou seja, um buscador de leis com propósitos definidos criadas por Deus,
  • ·         Sexual Generation: “final cause is the adaptiation of species o circumstances by principles” e necessária para a formação de animais sociais incluindo o homem. 30-1
  • ·         VER NOTA 82 comparação da gravidade com a transmutação: B notebook 101-2, 196
  • ·         Rejeitou a teleologia, mas não a harmonia da natureza.

Perfect adaptation

  • ·         In the writings of Darwin and the biologists o his genrarion it is possible do distinguish, by the late 1830s, between two varieties of the concept of perfect adaptation. On the one hands, there is notion of perfect adaptation characteristic of Cuvier and the school of Paley, which may be designated conveninetly and not too inaccuraely as the Bridgewater variety. This includes environmental determinism, that is, the idea of “close” or “strict” adaptation, also de Cuvierian explanation o stricto wholly in terms of “final causes” or “conditions of existence”; it is Bell’s “principle of adaptation.” According to this view, adaptation – the fit between form and function and between organism and environment -  is so close that it can serve as complete explanation of organic phenomena. This is the assumption of Lyell: of all the possible ways the creator might choose to adapt an organism to the circumstances under which it is to live, one way of the organism is completely dependent on its condition of existence, and the condition of existence explain Every detail of strucutre. Conditions of existence may be conceived as broadly as an author wishes. They may include the internal coordination of parts, relations of the organism to the inorganic world, and the interrelation of organisms,. But in Every case, it is condition alone that determine structure; that is, there is a strict and invariant, relationship between parituclar conditions and particular organic structures: for any given set of conditions there is Only onde form that is the best possible. If, according to the view we find a vertebrate animal inhabiting a particular station, its vertebrate structure is not due to a law of uinitiy of type or to heredity. It is due rather to the fact that for that station na animal with a backbone is the best possible. Perfect adaptation in this sense expains even the most fundamental elements of structure (“If there are resemblances between the organs of fishes and those of the Other vertebrate classes, it is only insofar as there are resemblances bwtweeen their function”, cuvier said).
  • ·         On thwe Other hand, there is the sort of perfect adaptation that is common to those who reject the Bridgewater Teatrise variety. This second variety has room for rudimentary organs, the phenomeon of unity of type, and the fact that apparently there is no stricto relationship between environmental condition and organic form. This might best be called a doctrine of “limited perfection”. Its adherents did not believe that organism are in any sense imperfect, and they certainly did not suppose that they are mereley relatively well adapted compared to ther competitors. Organism are perfect, they said; but they are created by laws, and they are Only as pefect as is possible within the limits set by the necessity of conforming to thse laws. Since the creator’s laws are good and well-conceived, adaptation is the general rule. But an animal may possess an organ that serves no function, though it is useful to another animal of the same type. For those who understood perfect adaptation in this way, the basic strucutre of the previously mentioned vertebrate animal could not be explianed by the circumstance in which it lives. Adaptation is not “close” enough for that. Station that are apparently very similar might be inhabited by animals as different as vertebrates and molluscs. So if this particular animal is a vertebrate, it is because the creator stablished a law of Unity of type in the great classes, or a law of heredity; and part of his plan is that  a proportion of all animals will have the vertebrate strucutre. The animal in question is not then formed solely With reference to conditons. It is formed With reference to the law of Unity of type or of heredity, and to the creator’s plan. Given its typical or hereditary structure, however, it is as perfect as possible, that is, as well fitted to its environment as it is possible for an animal With its basic structure to be,. It is perfect within the limits of the general laws established by the creator. 33-5
  • ·         No primeiro caso o principio de adaptação ou de condições para existência é um princípio explanatório suficiente, enquanto no segundo outras leis são necessária para explicar a estrutura distribuição e sucessão dos seres orgânicos. A segunda, obviamente. É menos restrita e permite até mesmo uma visão transmutacionista.
  • ·         Contudo, ambas eram consonantes com a visão naturalista da teologia. Ambas auxiliavam na explicação racional da criação de Deus.
  • ·         Até mesmo Paley aceitava a perfeição limitada dizendo que deus trabalhou dentro das leis da matéria. Os antio-teleologistas diziam que ele também se subjugou as leis biológicas.

2 DARWIN BEFORE MALTHUS

  • ·         No início a “propagação” das sps era uma explicação para a harmonia da natureza.
  • ·         Paralelo com Kohn (1980): that for the whole of the period from July 1837 to September 1838, Darwin(1) conceived of adaptation as an automatic organic response to the environment; 2 conceived of adaptation as absolute, or “well nigh perfect”; and 3 had a coherent theory of transmutation in which the process of sexual Generation was supposed to produce adaptive variations. 39-40

Adaptation by generation

  • ·         Teoria de geração sexual nos primeiros notebooks.
  • ·         [...] Changes in circumstances somehow influence the generative process, causing the production of Young unlike their parentes, and the consequence f this is to adapt organisms to changes in external conditions. From this it follows that With in conditions, all species have a “tendency to change”. It is implied, further, that these organic changes are automatically adaptive, for adaptation is the sole reason for them. This is confirmed a few pages later in the first notebook: “Changes not result of will of animals, but law of adaptation as Much as acid na alkali”. When the chemist adds a quantity of acid to a quantity of alkali, an automatic change is produced according to the laws of Chemical combination. Similarly in nature, When an alteration is introduced into the conditions of life, an automatic change in organisms is produced according to the law of adaptation. 41
  • ·         [...] Why are ther two sexes, he asked, When they are not necessary to Generation? [...] One persistente, though obscure, idea is that this power is connected With the fact that in sexual Generation the embryo passes through a series of stages, which Darwin assumed to be a recapitulation of the organism’s ancestry: “an originality is given (and power of adaptation is given by true Generation), through means of Every step of progressive increase of organization being imitated in the womb which has been passed through to form that species”. How this allows the production of “originality” and adaptation is never specified, but that it does so is asserted as late as September 1838: “the very theory of Generation [is] the passing through whole series of forms to acquire diferences”. 41-2
  • ·         External conditons and the habits of the organism affect the reproductive system and give it “knowledge” (presumably Darwin did not mean this literally) of what the offspring’s needs will be; this causes the production of appropriate variations from the form of the parent. At one point, though Only briefly, Darwin wondered whether the effect of condition on the reproductive system might be through the meidum of the parent’s mind.
  • ·         Duas teses: alteração orgânica é acomodação Às circunstâncias e que a acomodação ocorre por geração sexual
  • ·         Na primeira teoria as variações já são adaptadas, não há necessidade de trabalho pela seleção.
  • ·         Leis de geração e hereditabilidade: blending inheritance, “one of the final causes of sex is to obliterare diferences, as mudanças diminutas são destruídas assim 44; law of hybrids, infertilidade e reversão; hereditary fixing, my theory of generation 47, caracteres mais antigos são menos dispostos de serem eliminados em cruzamentos, explicava o conservacionismo de certas estruturas; loss of desire in interbreeding, em conjunto com a primeira lei explica a uniformidade das espécies. 44
  • ·         Problemas da blending respondidos por isolacionismo geográfico e estudo dos híbridos, formando um continum de variação
  • ·         Hereditary fixing: rapid and large changes are short-lived, for the offspring of organism so changed are infertile or revert to “grandfather”. The small and slow changes that result from slowly changing conditions, however, become “congenital” and are fixed in the blood; “by a succession of generations, these small changes become multiplied, & great change [is] effected. That is, once the change is great enough, the hereditary tendency prevents it being obliterated by crossing. 47=8. By the Middle of the second notebook, Darwin saw hereditary fixing as the most importante of the laws of generaton. Not Only did it help account for a host of biological phenomena – including groups, the law of succession – but it seemed to explain how change is accumulated and how it is preserved. 48
  • ·         Para Darwin todas as alterações orgânicas são respostas adaptativas a mudança. As diferenças eram causadas por circunstâncias externas na vida do individuo ou pelas características herdadas de seus pais.
  • ·         Although his laws of Generation could not by themselves accout for adaptation, Darwin in developing and applying them never wavered in his conviction that their primary purpose was to adapt organisms to a changing world. They served for Other purposes, too, such as explaining the uniformity of species, the sterility of hybrids, reversion, and th existence of the taxonomist’s natural groups. But the reason for their existence in the creator’s system was to assure that When external conditions change, as geology shows they must, the fit between organic and inorganic worlds is not destroyed. Consistently, Darwin assumed that all organic change, whether it produces monster or “individual diferences,” is “accomodation”. By showing how much changes could be accumulated and preserved, his laws of Generation provided a seemingly secure foundation for his transmutationism. 50-1

Adaptation and extinction

  • ·         Aquisição de novos hábitos precediam mudanças de estrutura. Recalchutagem de Lamarck. Mudanças poderiam ser adquiridas na vida de um individuo e passadas adiante.
  • ·         Extinção: visão lielliana de mudança geológica. Espécie se extingue mas sua linhagem adaptada continua (mesma ideia de Lamarck). Alinha-se com a visão de mundo harmonioso. Número de espécies mais ou menos constante (Lyell) gerou problemas > A ideia de ramificação prolífica de espécies necessitava de uma força extintiva de igual tamanho. Cruzamento com blending poderia explicar o expurgo de certos variantes e catástrofes locais. Apenas assim o mecanismo automático de adaptação poderia ser burlado.

Conclusion

  • ·         According to Darwin’s pre-Malthus theory, the generative system, in response of changing external conditions, produces variations that are adapted to the altered circumstances. The cause of organic change is Always assumed to be external, while the change itself is produced by and expressed through the reproductive system. The idea that variation is dependent on external change is reinforced by the law of hereditary tendency  is not disturbed to any appreciable degree, offspring will resemble their parents, within the narrow limits imposed by the individual diferences between the parents (and these individual diferences are themselves untimately the result of slight variations in conditions). It is assumed further that all variation is accommodation to change. 58
  • ·         In this view of variation, Darwin deviated very little from the opinions of his contemporaries that he learned about these things. [...] According to Lyell, changes in conditions produce variations in organisms, and variations are “accommodations” to these changes. This was Darwin’s view also. His theory differed from Lyell’s Only in that Lyell said the power of accommodation of each species is strictly limited by its original specific characer, while Darwin said that accommodation can continue indefinitely, as long as there are changing conditions to require it. The difference is significant, but so is the similarity. The basic structure of Darwin’s theory followed directly from his traditional understanding of variation and adaptation. It is a theory of organic response to external change. Transmutation is not a constant, but rather and intermittent, process. It is not continously tending to produce new and better adapted forms. In the absence of external change, all forms are well adapted; Only When changes occur do some becom not well adapted. The purpose of Darwin’s mechanism for transmutation is to adjust organisms to such changes in conditions, and the essential elemnt of the mechanism is a generative system that produces variations When external conditions affect it. The source of Darwin’s atitude, as well as Lyell’s, toward the production fo variations was the harmonious view of nature, in which organisms were presumed to be Always perfectly adapted to conditions. 58-9
  • ·         Darwin’s pre-Malthus theory might best be described as the unconventional outcome of the conventional Project of attempting to discover the fixed laws that constitute the harmonious system of creation. Not Only did Darwin not reject the harmonious view. It seems fair to conclude that it had not occurred to him to think of nature in any Other way . He continued to see nature as the culture of early-nineteenth-century Britain taught him to see it, and this should not be surprising. What motives were there for Darwin to adopt na alternate perspective; and what sources were readily available to him to suggest one? The idea of transmutation by itself certainly did not require any departure from the traditional conception. An alternate perspective, insofar as Darwin ever arrived at one, appears Only to have been gained gradually and piecemal in the months and Years after he read Malthus and formulated the theory of natural selection.  59
  • ·         VER NOTAS 66 efeito cultural no desenvolvimento da teoria: CANNON, The bases of Darwin’s achievement [escopo mais limitado que ospovat] e MOORE, The post darwinian controversies 307-351 [desdobramento de cannon]

 

3 NS AND PERFECT ADAPTATION, 1838-1844

The impact of Malthus

  • ·         28 de setembro de 1838. Le Malthus e fala pela primeira vez da metáfora das “cunhas”.
  • ·         Toma cuidado para não ler as conclusões do Origin nessas primeiras notas.
  • ·         O texto de Malthus é uma ode ao conformismo de classe. Uma explicação naturalística para as estruturas sociais. 63
  • ·         Darwin teve contato indireto com Malthus em Summer, Kirby e Paley. Paley tinha uma explicação teológica para o excesso de população e o aparente sofrimento derivado daí.
  • ·         Para Malthus a superpopulação era um modo de gerar ação. Esses capítulos foram alterados nas eds seguintes.
  • ·         [...] For Malthus, the potential increase of population beyond the means fo subsistence produces that human activity which is required to accomplish the creator’s aims. For Darwin, similarly, the force of population produces that constant adaptation of organisms to conditions which he believed to be charactheristic of “this perfect world”. Influnced by the Darwin of the Origin of Species, we have become accustomed to thinking of natural selection as necessarily implying a universe of chance and imperfection. But in fact there is in Darwin’s notebook entries for September 28, 1838, no suggestion that he had ceased to believe in a “system of great Harmony”. Instead we find a direct analogy drawn between Darwin’s new theory and the arguments that Malthus used to incorporate the principle of population ino that very system. From the fact that Darwin Drew such na analogy it is a fair inference that he did no immediatey see disharmony as the necessary concomitant of transmutation by means of warring of species. ´...] 66-7
  • ·         NOTA 17 religião: várias refs, ver p 248
  • ·         O amor a Deus existe porque Deus estabeleceu uma lei para que o homem fosse capaz de ama lo
  • ·         A lei da população servia para adaptar organismos.
  • ·         In the fourth transmutation notebook there is a long passage, written just over a month later, in which Darwin expressed unequivocally his belief that the existence of man is a part of the creator’s plan. The immediate question under discussion is the “final cause” of separate sexes. One reason they exist, Darwin argued, is so that by the blending of slight differences thr uniformity of species can be maintained. Without sexes all individuals would vary in different ways in accordance With the different slight changes in conditions that affect each, and there would then “be as many species, as individuals”, which “is not the order in this perfect world”. Such a situation would make impossible all social animals, including man. And since “man is one great object for which the world was brought into presente state”, sexes are a necessary part of the system. 68
  • ·         Isso também encotra respaldo em suas notas de leitura sobre Macculloch
  • ·         The earliest passage I have seen in the transmutation notebooks in which variations are unambiguously staed to be mere differences, rather than adaptative changes, is from early march 1839: “my principle [is] the destruction of all the less hardy ones & the preservation of accidental hardy seedlings: [...] to sift out the weaker ones: there ought to be no weeding or encouragement, but a vigorous battle between Strong and weak.” By the this time chance variation has clearly become a central part of Darwin’s theory. On November 27, 1838, by contrast, the survival of chance variants was merely one possible explanation of change. Darwin’s notes on Macculloch’s Attrivutes of God show signs of having been written during the period of transition in his thinking. While continuing too speak of the “GREAT SYSTEM” and the wisdom of providence, he asked whether he ought to use final causes as a guide to his speculations. And in part of his notes he discussed the differential probability of survival of puppies in a single litter [...] Early in December, probably as result of reflecting on the role accident was assuming in his theory, Darwin reversed his previous position on man, saying that he was a “chance” production rashter than “one great object” of the creator’s plan. 70
  • ·         Antes disso, as “cunhas” de Malthus devem ser interpretadas como meio de eliminação das formas não adaptadas. Começa a haver transições por volta de outubro.
  • ·         One problem facing Darwin all through the first three transmutation notebooks was ro know what causes variations to be adaptive. Until September 1838 his solutions were all internal organic mechanisms. In response to environmental changes, organisms alter in ways that adapt them and their offspring to the new conditons. They do so by means of their reproductive system and the physiological laws that produce structural changes to correspon to changes of habit. Malthus’s popuplation pressure gave Darwin and external cause of adaptation, the wedging action that forces organic forms into gaps in the economy of nature. But for this truly to be the cause of adaptation, variations must be mere differences which the wedging force molds into new perfectly adapted forms. In the few weeks after Reading Malthus, Darwin gradually adoptd this view and abandoned his long-held belief that adaptation are born. The idea that variations have no adaptive relation to conditons appears to have been a consequence of, rather than a prerequisite for, Darwin’s adoption of Malthusian views. If this interpretation is correct, that the transformation of Darwin’s understanding of variations was produced gradually in the two months after he read Malthus, then his continued belief in a plan of creation during this period is readily intelligible. His new thoery as this point as little more than the old but With populartion pressure grafted onto it to explain better the extermination of the unfit. Lacking as yet the essential idea of accindental variations, it was still compatible With belief in a preplanned system. 71-2
  • ·         VER NOTA 37 deísta: GREENE Reflections on the progress of Darwin studies. MOORE Post Darwinian controversis 307-26.
  • ·         Após ler Malthus houve um período de mudança de dois meses. Sua conversa com Asa gray (design laws working according to chance) pode em dezembro pode marcar o fim de uma teoria com adaptação perfeita.

The structure of Darwin’s theory, 1838-1844

1844 versus 1859

  • ·         SN, no iníco, explicava a manutenção da adaptação perfeita. Continua assim mesmo depois dele desistir da ideia de natureza harmoniosa.
  • ·         1844 adaptação perfeita; variação derivada de mudanças das condições externas (molde plástico); pouca variação na natureza; SN intermitente/ 1859 adaptação relativa; variação independente; muita variação na natureza; SN contínua.

 

4 PART II OF DARWIN’S WORK ON SPECIES

  • ·         A parte aplicada é bem curta no Origin, mas proporcionalmente maior em 42 e 44. Se wallace não tivesse interrompido a escrita do livro os assuntos classificação, morfologia, embriologias e órgão abortivos teriam seus próprios caps ao invés de estarem contidos no cap 13 (como visto nos manuscritos de notas). Teriam composto o terceiro vol da triologia (NS, I: var. (úncio que saiu); II: var nat.).
  • ·         Darwin dava mais valor a teoria da descendência do que a SN. 89 Essa parte aplicada foi trabalhada na parte dois de 44

Darwin and his contemporaries: the method of part II

  • ·          [PARA OUTRO ESTUDO] Information derived from breeders was undoubtedly important for Darwin’s work, particularly on the laws of Generation and heredity, although top ut their contribution in perspective it should be noted that the large majority of individuals and works cited in Natural Selection, which is almost entirely Part I, the presentation of Darwin’s theory, are professional biologists and their writings. For Part II, professional biologists were by na even larger margin Darwin’s major source of facts and ideas. 91 VER NOTA 11: sobre a autoaval como baconiano.
  • ·         Vai explorar o lado profissional de Darwin para o desenvolvimento da teoria.
  • ·         VER NOTA 13, 14 importancia dos anos pos beagle: Herbert The place of man p. 1 240-5, p. 2 156-7; Kottler CD biological species concept and theor of geogrpahic speciation p281
  • ·         Pós Beagle muito amigo de Owen, Waterhouse, Hooker, Lyell... fala do network físico e via correio e pela leitura.
  • ·         From 1838 on his aim was to reform all of the natural history sciences. This place on him the burden of reinterpreting what was already known, and for this he required at the very least good working knowledge of th principle generalizations of his fellow naturalists. 95
  • ·         Dá muito valor a leitura que Darwin fez. 95
  • ·         A unidade de tipo, semelhança embriológica, leis de sucessão geológica e distribuição geográfica já eram reconhecidas na época. Darwin teve que reinterpreta-las.
  • ·         Contudo outras leis eram mais difíceis. Cabia a Darwin descarta-las ou tentar reinterpreta-las. 97
  • ·         A hypothesis, he said, “is developed into a theory solely by explaining na ample lot of facts.” NOTA 37. B notebook 104
  • ·         Estilos argumentativos: Sometimes he deduced consequences from his theory and then compared them With the facts. [...] Much more often he employed another form of argument, nearly the reverse of this: First he stated the prominent laws or facts in a subdiscipline of natural history, and then he posed the question of whether they could be explained by his theory.  99-100 [o segundo refletia o projeto de reinterpretação como um todo e era mais comum na parte II]

An example of Darwin’s method: his explanation of quinarism

  • ·         MacLeay era muito importante na sociedade Linneana. Darwin o conhecia e de início acreditava que sua teoria estaria certa.
  • ·         Passou a rejeitar MacLeay, mas seguiu com a ideia de analogia ser geral: It was the presumably general occurrence of analogies that imposed on Darwin the necessity of inventing new principles to enable his theory to account for them. If descendente is the Only cause of similarities, one could not expect to find more than a few chance resemblances among groups that are not descended from the same stock. But naturalists found analogous resemblances to be common. Since heredity coul not be the cause of them, Darwin had to add to his theory to show why they shopuld exist among organisms produced by “breeding in irregular trees” rahter than by God’s geometrical design. He did so by introducing the three-element hypothesis [?] into his theory and by arguing that it is probable that the tendency of living beings to “fill up” the “scheme” of nature will cause Every Family to presente analogies With Other groups 112
  • ·         Grupos de número fixo eram muito aceitos. Após os 1840s deixaram de ser.
  • ·         Contudo: When he first developed his three-element hypothesis in the transmutation notebooks, it was in order to explain why nature was more or less as MacLeay found it. But When he mentioned it in the Origin, it was to show how naturalists had been misled into developing the quinary system and Other similar systems. 113

Conclusion

  • ·         Nice sum up 113-4

 

5 NATURAL HISTORY AFTER CUVIER: THE BRANCHING CONCEPTION OF NATURE

  • ·         Cuvier: enfatiza diferenças, seres devem ser considerados isoladamente um do outro. Semelhanças referem a condições de existência semelhantes. Geoffroy enfatiza  unidade de tipo. Darwin foi parte de uma síntese dos dois.115
  • ·         Branching conception: combinação da unidade e diversidade, diversidade oriunda da unidasde. Se juntava ao desenvolvimento embriológico, aos arquétipos e suas especializações (progress). D se utilizou disso para traduzir a cc antiga em seus termos.

Von Baer’s embryology

  • ·         Arquétipo é a base da branching conception. 117
  • ·         Von Baer negava a recapitulação: Von Baer’s oppostion to recapitulation had its roots in his dissatisfaction With the lienar view of nature on which recapitulation at that time depended. As a result of the increased knolwdge of internal strucute of animals, and of Cuvier’s cirticism of the chain of being, virtually no naturalist of any standing in the 1820s arranged animals in a simple series. But adherents of the doctrine of recapitulation retained in their theory the notion of a single sacle of organic perfection, and they used the doctrine as a means of establishing the Unity of type of all animals, They supposed that the developing embryos of higher animals pass through the adult form of animals lower on the scale. 119
  • ·         Propunha independência entre Grau de desenvolvimento (diferenciação dos tecidos) e tipo de organização (posição relativa dos elementos e órgãos, tipos de cada grupo orgânico). Não pode haver escala porque cada tipo pode ter graus de desenvolvimento distintos. Não há recapitulação pois as mudanças embriológicas são apenas em grau. O tipo está presente desde o início no desenvolvimento embriológico.
  • ·         A partir da comparação de embriões percebeu que no início são muito parecidos. Levando-o a formular sua lei de desenvolvimento: 1. The more general characters of large group of animals appear earlier in their embryos than the more special characters; 2. From the most general forms the less general are developed, and soon, until finally the most special arises; 3. Every embryo of a given animal form, instead of passing through the other forms, rather becomes separeted from them; 4. Fundamentally, therefore, the embryo of a higher form never resembles any Other adult form, but Only its embryo. 122
  • ·         As semelhanças entre embriões de tipos superiores e adultos de tipos inferiores ser correspondências no desenvolvimento de grau ou compartilhamento de tipo. Mas não há recapitulação, mas sim um branching a partir da vesícula primária entre os arquétipos e de cada arquétipo subsequentemente.
  • ·         Não tem arquétipo em Cuvier
  • Emryology and classification: Milne Edwards
  • ·         Barry já apresentava ideias da relação entre classificação e embriologia, mas Milne Edwards desenvolveu esse assunto melhor.
  • ·         Milne Apresetou uma teoria de desenvolvimento muito semelhante a de Von Baer
  • ·         Classificação por semelhança zoológica. Embriologia é o melhor jeito de identificar semelhanças. Pois Caracteres mais especializados surgem depois no desenvolvimento embrionário.
  • ·         Milne Edwards then discussed the kind of natural groups that embryology discloses. Like Von Baer, he noted the relationship between the theory of recapitulation and the idea of a single scale of organic perfection, both of which he rejected. But he said that in denying the existence of an animal series it is not necessary to follow Cuvier’s example and reject also the idea of a natural classifcation that recognizes different degress of organic perfection. 128
  • ·         Não há escala pois cada um segue seu caminho. Usa a metáfora da árvore. Aumento em organização, divisão fisiológica do trabalho como critério de perfeição. “[...] in the corresponding series of adults, those that have developed furthest before divergin to their special forms are characterized by a greater Division of physiological labor than those that diverged earlier. Animlas but little developed from the common forms of their types and subtyppes are located near the bottoms of the main stems and branches of the tree, while the more perfect forms are at the top.” 129
  • ·         Darwin era fã.

Richard Owen, the vertebrate archetype, and the fossil record

  • ·         Sincretismo entre Cuvier e Geoffroy. Meio do caminho entre teleologismo puro e morfologia pura.
  • ·         Distinção entre analogia (teleologia, adaptação) e homologia (morfologia, ontologia). The infusorial monad is the fundamental or primary form of the animal Kingdom 130
  • ·         Era contra a unidade de tipo, pois “Every animal in the course of its development typifies or represents some of the permanent forms of animals inferior to itself; but it does not represent all the inferior forms, nor acquire the organization of any of the forms which it transtitorily represents.” 132
  • ·         Arquétipos eram necessários para explicar as homologias, já que a teleologia pura não dava conta.
  • ·         Duas leis: Força polarizadora que causava repetição vegetativa das partes sem função especial. Força adaptativa que modifica os segmentos de acordo com a necessidade.
  • ·         Carreira de Owen como paleontólogo começou com os mamíferos do beagle
  • ·         Não admitia recapitulação. Haviam apenas variações do arquétipo. O desenvolvimento também era paleontológico: exiastia uma especialização entre fósseis e seus “primos” extantes.

Mid-century morphology and British natural theology

  • ·         Unificar Geoffroy com Cuvier era importante para não abandonar o design na natureza, um importante argumento teológico.

Conclusion

  • ·         NOTA 73 sobre a branch conception: foucault 226-32 263-79
  • ·         Whether he was Reading Owen, Milne Edwards, or Carpenter’s or Johannes Müller’s discussions of von Baer, Darwin found similar conceptions of archetypal forms; similar conceptions of divergence in embryology, taxonomy, and paleontology; and similar definitons fo roganico compelxcit and progress. 145

6 DARWIN AND THE BRANCHING CONCEPTION

  • ·         No início Darwin acreditava na criação de um arquétipo real.
  • ·         Versado em morfologia. Em busca do arquétipo de círripede onde já usava a metáfora da árvore. Aliava-se aos naturalistas de Branching conception

Morphology and teleology

  • ·         Era consciente e orgulhoso das implicações teleológicas da SN conforme carta de AG. 148-9
  • ·         In the Origin of Species Darwin echoed Whewell’s statement: “It is generally acknowledge that all organic beings have been formed on two great laws – Unity of Type, and the Conditions of Existence.” 140
  • ·         Havia um esforço por parte de D para mostrar a compatibilidade entre suas ideias e as de Cuvier.
  • ·         Darwin believed that all structures, With the possible exception of those produced by “coreelation of growth” and the direct effect of conditions, originated as adaptations. In the first transmutation notebook, this was because there was a designed “law of adaptation”. After 1838 Darwin supposed that natural selection was the law of adaptation, the agente by which adaptation is produced. In his notes on Owen’s Archetype and omologies of the Vertebrate Skeleton Darwin pictured selectiona s servinf the same function as Owen’s teleological prionciple. While Owen suppoed that his “adaptive force” fashioned the elements of the archetyope to the various needs of all the species built on that plan, Darwin said that selection does this. Owen observed that the separate bones of the skull, which have their origin in the archetype, are specially adaped in mammals toe ase the passatge of the head through the birth canal. A structure of indepndent origin, Darwin commented, “is usefully, nay indispensaby worked in; it is found out & used by the selection princole.” In the Descent of Man Darwin explicitly identified as a theological assumption his long-held belief tyhat Every part of Every organism is an adaptation. This suggests that the agrément he saw between his analysis of structure and Owen’s was not mereley suuoperficilal, a possibility that is strenghened by a remark Darwin made in his copy of Owen’s On the nature of limbs. There he said that he agreed With Owen that Unity of type and design arte not incompatible. Like Owen and many others in his Generation, Darwin was concerned to explain fundamental organic relations without denying purpose and from his often repated statements thart natural selectyion is a second cause andf the he believed in design - of a sort – it is clear that in this sense purposeful: it was a law instituted by God to produce adaptation. And so, like Owen With his polarizing and adaptive forces, Darwin thought he could legitimately claim that heredity and selection combined the best of Geoffroy and Cuvier in a single theory. 150
  • ·         Carta de ag e resposta mostram essa relação entre D e owen

The problem of von Baer’s laws

  • ·         D teve dificuldade em incorporar o branching model em sua branching Evolution. Darwin era recapitulista até a popularização de von Baer. Em 42 e 44 já abandona a ideia em favor de Muller e Owen.
  • ·         Darwin recognised very quickly after Reading Müller that the law of embryonic resemblance was potentialy a very Strong argument for genetic connection (“Community in embryonic structure reaveals Community of descente,” he said in the Origin). But it did not appear to him that it was a necessary consequence of Evolution by natural selection. If the descendants of some fishlike form have become adapted for life on land, why should their embryos still be fishlike? 153
  • ·         Resposta 1. SN só atua em adultos não fetos. Assim é razoável que os fetos sejam pouco diferenciados e se assemelhem aos ancestrais dos grupos;
  • ·         Resposta 2: [...] “each individual has tendency to beget another which shall be similar to itself at each corresponding time of life.” The inheritance of variations, like the inheritance of firmly fixed characters, follows this law, he argued. Therefore variations that ffirst appear at some stage Other than the embryonic will be inherited at that same astage and will not produce any alteration in the embryonic form of the species. 155
  • ·         Resposta 3[?]: “the parent more variable than foetus, which explains all” 155
  • ·          Início do programa com pombos em 1854-5, com o intuito de estudar variação em diferentes idades.
  • ·         In the early transmutation notebooks Darwin argued that variation occurs in order to adapt organisms to a changing world; after he read Malthus, and gave up the idea of adaptive variation, he continued to suppose that variations are caused by the chanes in conditions to which the organism must adapt. Since he believed the main cause of variations was excternal changes, Darwin could expalin why, as he then thought, internal parts are less variable than extenral. Heextended the same reasoning to embryos: “Central organs bear som relation to ebryonic in this respect,” He said. If external conditions can most easily affect external parts, the can also most easily affect organisms afthe rther leave the egg o r womb. Mosrt variations should therefore appear at  a not very early eriod of life. 158
  • ·         Buscava harmonização com a inalteração embrionária de von Baer.
  • ·         In the “Sketch of 1842” and the “Essay of 1844” Darwin’s treatment of embryology assumes ony te are miniiumum of divergence. The mammal is at no time a fish, the jerllyfish at no tima a polype. The fish must therefore at some period diverge from the path follwed by the mammalian embryo in order to assume its own fish form, and the polype simlarly With respect to the jelly fish. On the basis of these statements it is safe top lace Darwin aomng the followers of von Baer, rather than o fthe recapitulationists. But it appears safe to say also that embryonic diverfence was less impoerrtant for Darwin than for von Baer. Darwin’as chief interest was in the resemblance of early emryonic stages. When he referred to the differences that development ultimately produces betweeen adult fish and mamma, he attrivutes them principally to the higher development of the mammal rahter than to divergence. In this his emphasis was the opposite of von Baer’s Von Baer agreed that the embryonic mammal will resemble the adilt fish because the fish is not dfar removed drom the vertebrate type, that is, not highly developed. But for him the fundamental differences between fish and mammal ertr fuur yotheir assuming different subordinate types of strucutre, not to their achieving different degrees od development. 162
  • ·         He [Darwin] considered the changes the embryo undergoes as a series of stages that reflect in some way the ancestry of the individual. Because mammals have descende from fish and reptiles. Their embruos pass through a “fish form” and a “reptile form”, which have been added onto the originally shorter developmental path of some ancestral vertebrate. These stages tend to be preserved during the ovolutionary porcess because selectionn Only alteras the form after birth. But stages that have been added may later be deleted, hust as in Darwin’s old vew of Generation as “shortned” repetion fo ancestral forms. If we had no othe record of Sarin’s embryologicasl ideas in the 1840s, we would surely conclude from this document that he as a recpitualitnist and that he was accountinfg doer na exceitno ont the the lea of embryonic resemblance but to the theory of recapitulation. Since we do have othe records we can recogniza that by “fish form” Darwin meant not na adult fish ut the stage at which mammals and fish are still simlar, beforte the fish diverges to assume its special mature form. Nevertheless, it is difficult to deny the predominance of the linear componente over the divergente in Darwin’s embryological thought at this period. 163
  • ·         Darwin tetou explicar milne Edwards pro Brullé (quanto mais modificada a parte, mais cedo ela começa a variar no desenvolvimento). Isso juntaria a divergência embriológica e os graus de afinidade. Huxley achava que Brullé estava errado.

The evidence for descent

  • ·         Emrbiologia melhor conjunto de argumentos seguido das homologias. Frequentemente juntava os dois.
  • ·         NOTA 62 distribuição geográfica: Limoges 26-85; Browne Darwins bot art. Sulloway, Geographic isolation in darwin thinking.
  • ·         Discute paleontologia. Agazssiz era suporte para a recapitulação fóssil.
  • ·         Elogio ao profissionalismo de Darwin 168-9

7 CLASSIFICATION AND THE PRINCIPLE OF DIVERGENCE

  • ·         9 de setembro de 1854 começou a preparar o livro sobre espécies. Muitos problemas ainda por serem resolvidos, principalmente na parte II.

The problem of classification

  • ·         O princípio de divergência não foi criado para responder como os indivíduos variáveis originam múltiplas esps, mas para entender questões de classificação. “Why the species of a large genus, will hereafter probably be a Family With several genera” 171
  • ·         A partir de 37 D assumia classificação genealógica.
  • ·         Em 44 classificação explicada pela proliferação dos animais seguida de extinções que formavam as lacunas que definiam os grupos.
  • ·         A partir de certo ponto a concepção puramente genealógica não mais bastou.
  • ·         Meados de 1844-7 foi quando o Branching aparecue muitas vezxes para Darwin. Especialmente em Milne Edwards
  • ·         Darwin’s explanation of classificatoin in 1844 depended on the acidentes of trnaspor, geographical isolation, and extinction. It could explain how the offspring of some one species might spread and give rise to a genus or a Family, but it could not explain why there should be a tendency of offspirng to depart in different Direction from the parent foorm. It could not show that ondivergent evourion was not the fgenral rule. If divergence is of general occurrence, it requires na equually general explanation. “Mere chanve”, Darwin said in the origin, could never account for it. 175
  • ·         O trabalho com os círripedes ao final (1848) corroborou para isso.

The solution to the problem

  • ·         The basic assumption here [ver citação p. 176] is the same as in Darwin’s account of the origin of genera and families in the essay of 1844: groups of higher value are formed from species and genra which because of some advantage are able to spread ino new áreas; there they encounter new conditions that cause them to vary and give rise to new forms. What is novel in this hypothesis of 1854 is the idea that the varying offspring of sprerading forms will tend to be selected. They will have a better than average chance of survival because as newcomers they will differ from the natives and so may fill some unoccupied place in the local economny. 176
  • ·         1847 sugeriu que gêneros maiores variam mais e portanto tem mais chance de gerar variedades bem sucedidas. O fato dos que mais divergem serem mais bem sucedidos explicava a tendencia de divergência dos grupos.
  • ·         The difference between the principle of divergence and the hypothesis of November 1854 is that in 1854 Darwin still assumed, as in 1844, that it was necessary for pecies to spread and encounter new conditoins before they would vary and give rise to new forms, whereas accourding to the princv=leo of divergence, the production of diverse offspring from obne parent form may occur in a single localit without any change inc conditions. 177
  • ·         Esutodo de da distribuição e contas para determinar se o tamanho fdos genereos realmette afetava sua distribuição
  • ·         No início explicava gêneros aberrantes pela constância do número de sps. Mas logo abandona.
  • ·         Generos produtivos teriam muitas espécies próximas enquanto genereos degenerativos teriam sps bem definidas. Fries foi referencia para mostrar isso. No natural selection tem os resultados que conseguiu a partir de ajuda de alguns amirogs
  • ·         1855-6 etudou catalogso botânicos estatisticamente e mostrou que de fato haviam mais espécies próximas e variações em gêneros grandes.
  • ·         A segunda tarefa era explicar pq as formas  mais diversas são mais bem sucedidas. Já havia pensado nisso em ilhas, sps mais diversas interferem menos umas com as outras. Mais pra frente, em outra ilha, explicou que as sps invasoras deveriam ser diferentes das presentes de modo a poderem supera las competitivamente, mas esse principio era muito restrito.
  • ·         Mostrou por meio de experimentos próprios e de outros que lugares com alta variação suportam mais vida.
  • ·         In Natural selection and the Origin of Species Darwinr etained the divisdion of labor as a leading theme in his exposition of divergence. But in his account of the process he shifted the emphasis from the group to the individual or variety within the group. He argued that it follows from the principle that the most diverse can best succed, that among the varying offspring of a species those that are most different form the Other and from the parent form have the best chance of survivg. In this way the advantage of diversity, a grouop characteristic of the larger group,. Was trnalsated into the advantage of being different, which is a characteristic of individuals or varieties and hence selectable. 181
  • ·         As far as I know, the note of September 1856, just quoted, is the earliest instance of Darwin’s drawings na analogy between the processes of divergence and Division of labor. In this case the analogy is With the political economists’ application of the concept to human socviety. In Natural Selection and the Origin,, it is With Milne Edward’s Division of physiological labor. Since the principle of divergence was in process of formation from 1854 on (one might even say from 1847), it seems of doubtful utility to argue that either usage of the concept was te idea of the Division of labor did contribute to a subtle but signigicvan shiift in Darwin’s thinking. In the note of September 1856, as in his published discussion of divison of labor, the implication is no ,longer sdimply that diversity gives an adavantage to wwide-rangging species. It is rather that diversification tends Always to occur, even in groups inhabiting single regions. It does so by a process of “dfivision of labour”, enforce by the struggle for existence, which increases the complexity of the natural economy of each region. It is this doctrine that Darwin identified in March 1857 as his “principle of divergence”. 181-3
  • ·         A partir disso conseguiu explicar a classificação não mais apenas por extinção, a divergência também criava gaps.

The keystone of the book

  • ·         Inicialmente o principio de divergência entraria mais pra frente no livro, em uma parte sobre classificação. A partir de 1857 ele foi incorporado ao coração da teoria e enxertado nas primeiras partes.
  • ·         Após retrabalhar as estatísticas devido a um erro apontado por Lubbock, D percebeu que elas podiam ser usadas para além de mostrar que gêneros grandes tendem a aumentar. Elas também mostravam que a produção de variedades levava a espécies. Isso explicava o aumento de tamanho dos gêneros grandes.
  • ·         With the formulation of this argumetn in 1857 Darwin adopted a new way of stating the fundamental proposition of his theory, that species are made by nature, not directly by god: Varieties are incipiente species. Although Darwin from the notebook period on had supposed that the varying offspring of one species may form a well-marked variety and finally a new species, he had not previously spoken of varieties as “incipiente species”. There was a point in doing so now, because he now conceived that his calculation on varieties in large genera gave him a powerful new argumenty for his theory if the theory were stated as the simple porposition that varieties tend to become species, With the adoption of this centrally important new argument, the principle of Divergence als acquired a major new function in Darwin’s exposition of his theory. Darwin had previously reached na understanding of how divergencemust result form the struggle for existence, which is all that was required for his explanatoin of classifcation. But he had not considered the reverse relation ship, that the principle f divergence might influence the process of selection. Now he concluded that it must do so. It is divergence that converts incipien species inot good and disrtinct species. How, Darwin asked, is the slifht difference thart separtes rtwo varieties of a species augmented i9nto the greater difference that spearates two species, “which must on our theory be continually occurring in nature, if varieties are converted into good species?” The answer is the princoile of divergence, the continued selection of “those varieties, which diverge most in all sorts of respect form their parent type .. so as to fill as many, as new, and as widely different places in the economy of nature as possuible”.
  • ·         There is no notion here [frase da primeira cversão do cap iv citada em 187] pf augmenting differences, except bu the passage of time. The main point of the origin Chapter IV is that there is Much variability in nature, in support of which claim Darwin argued that there is no sharp distinction between individual diffrwences, marked varieites, and species. Species differ form varieits onluy in having varied less recently. In the addtion to Chaopters Iv and VI, on the Other hand, the mains ponitis that varieties are incipiente species and that it is ther natural selection of the most diverge forms that converts them into distinc species. The principle of divergence has here assumed a role scarcely less important than natural selection itself. The principle of divergence has here assumed a role scarceluy less impoertan than natural selection itself. The principle off sivergence Darwin said, “regulates the natural selecion of variations”. 186-7
  • ·         Pricnipio da dfivergencia cresceu na teoria a partir de então sendi discutido com Hooker e Gray

Conclusion

  • ·         A autobiografia não é uma boa fonte pra traçar a história do princípio da divergência. Da a entender que sempre foi sobre speciação e não classificação
  • ·         VER NOTA 72 debates sobre a o principio da divergência: sps ecológica ou geográfica Mayr evo. And the divers. Of life 117-217. Sulloway Geographic isolation in Darwins thinkning 23-65
  • ·         Darwin in the 1850s did reach a new conclusion about speciatoiin, but this was na incidental consequence of his efforts to explain classificatoin, In order to show that divergence is a general tendency, Darwin modified his earlier views on speciatoin bbecause they dependo n the accdients of transpor and geographuical isolatoni, and this made diverce a matter of mere chance, to explain why there is a “tendency” todiverge, Darwin first introduced into his old model os speciation th eidea that the most diverse forms can best succed, which he thought would mea that the varying offsprinig of forms that spread into new regions woukd have a better than average chance ofg giving rise to new species. In the process of integrating this principle into the theory of Naturasl selction, Darwin camer to see it as implying a tendency toward ecological diversificatoin and hence ecological rather than geographical speciation.
  • ·         Darwin’s views on speciatoin and classifcation are closely cvonnected, but there are good reasons for not conlating them. Had the rpoblem of divergence  proevde on examination of Darwin’s notes to have been the best way to ecplain the multiplicatoi of species, this might have helped perpetuate the idea that Darwin was na islted scientist whose aim was merely to constructo the best theopry to account for the facts as he aw them nad that his prblems 3wewe problems concerning his mecanismo for porducinf evolutionar inheritance. But since the problem was classifcation, and since it arose a s a resut of recente innovations in theorical natural history, the developkent o f the princiople of divergence appears as detemrined by the the theories and pespective of his fellw naturalists. It is na instance of considerable importancve, for not Only did exp,aing the manufacvturin of species, but also it played a key role in the development of his theory. Although it originated in Part II of Darwin’s species work, the principle of diverce was largely responsible for the transformation of the theory of natural selection that occurred between 1844 and 1859. 189-190

8 THE PRINCIPLE OF DIVERGENCE AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF DARWIN’S THEORY

  • ·         44 derivado dos notebooks, adaptação perfeita, variações intermitentes segundo condições externas limitando a ação da SN. Em 59 já havia percebido que a variação era constante e rejeitava a adaptação perfeita.
  • ·         When Darwin in november 1854 introduced into his explanation of classifcation the principle that the most diverse forms can best succeed, he pictured the multiplication of species as occurring under the same conditoins as he had envisioned in 1844: A successful species spreads into many regions and is modified in different ways in each of tyhem, Several assumptions about the process of transmutation are inovlved here, the most important of them being that geographical isolation is generally necessary for the prodfucction of new species and that new conditoins are required to cause variation. By march 1857, When Darwin included a page on divergence in Chapter VI of Natural Selection, he was working on the assumption that variation and the multplication of species ma occur without geographical isolation or any change in excternal conditions. This is implicit already in the not of semptember 1856 in which a group of organisms is comoared to inhabitants of a simgle country who are enabled to increase in numbers by Division of labor. It is made explicit in the note which I suggested was preliminar sketch for the page on divergence in Chapter VI. There the pressure of population is said to be a power tending to make “each site” support as Much life as possible. This enforces diversification (tilizing different food” is mentioned i9nillustration) entailing changes in habit and “ultimately strcuture”.

Geographical isolation and the interrelations of organisms

  • ·         Isolamento geográfico necessário no início para evitar a bleding.
  • ·         After he decided that variatioins are “accindetal” and that Only some are in the right Direction to adapt the species to changin conditions, he concluded for the same reason that transmutation can most easily occur in a small population. Where there are many individuals of the species, the few favourable variations will be lost thorugh interbreeding With Other variants and tweith the parent form. Darwin supposed therefore that isolation of a small part of a population from the parent stock (as on na island.) would be favourable not Only for the multiplication of species, but for the production of any new species. This belief was called into question, howeverm by Darwin’s solution in 1844 to the problem of ow genera and families arise.
  • ·         Ilhas não podem produzir mais espécies que o continente por falta de espaço para gêneros grandes. Exceções poderiam ser especializações ecológicas (uma prévia do princípio de divergência, mas restrito a essa explicação), isso por volta de 54. Resultados das estat´siticas também mostravam que não havia necessidade de isolamento 194.
  • ·         Over the next two year the idea of “isso,ation from habit” became increasingly attractive to Darwin, His work on divergence led him to suppose that if diversity is an advantage, then population pressure will act in Every group as a powerful impetus forcing its members to diversify so as to be able to fill as many different placves as possible in the economy ofg tyhe regioni they inhabit. Darwin could argue that diversifcation may occur in a group inhabiting a single region because he was willing to consider nongeographical modes of isolatoin. At the same time, his principle of divergence reinforced his feeling that the adoption of new habits might be na effective bar Against interbreeding in which the interrelations of organism take precedence over geographicasland climatic considerations. He urged that the “places” organisms may occupy are defined less by external features and more by the habits (broadly conceived) of organsism, and this made Much more plausible the idea that physical barriers are not necessary to produce reproducitve isolartion. Whereas in 1854 Darwin had been surprsed at the rresults of his calucvlartin in Schoenherr, after he developed the principle of divergence he took pains to inssit that “it must not ... be suppiosdfe that isolation is at all necessary for the productoin of new forms”. [...] Not until 1856 did changes in associated organi9sms surpass in importance physical conditons of life in Darwin’s ranking of factors favourable for the operation of natural selecton. 194-5
  • ·         Há uma prévia dessa ideia já em 1839 mas ainda era difícil de hartmonizar com o restante da teoria de adaptação perfeita e variação em condições externas desfavoráveis apenas e número constante de sps.
  • ·         VER NOTA 21 relação com nicho: Stauffer ecology in he long manuscrtip version of Dasrwins origin of species and linaeus econu of nature; limofges la sn 131-2; Vorzimmer Darwins ecology and its influence upon his theory 150 mas já ospovat já cita criticando.
  • ·         O conceito de lugar era rígido da mesma form auq e a daptação era rigiida. 199

Variaton

  • ·         Variação era ainda mais importante que lugares para ocupar. Mudança de variação situacional para mudança constante.
  • ·         Pequena mudança de concepção já em 1856 202

Relative adaptation

  • ·         Possiblidade infinita de variação 206. Aparece primeiro claramente em 1857.

Conclusion

  • ·         VER NOTA 64 influencia teológica: varias refs p. 273.
  • ·         As Darwin’s work on barnacles ando n variation in large genera gave him a more flexible view of variation, perfect adaptation became a less and less effective regulator of variabilit.
  • ·         Breve histórico das mudanças de pensamento em 208-9

9 NATURAL SELECTION OF DARWIN’S THEORY AS A SOCIAL PROCESS

Darwin’s theory of progress

  • ·         Desde os notebooks acreditava no progresso, mas tinha que explicar como ocorria.
  • ·         Before the mid-1850s there is apparent in his thought, as in Lamarck’s, a tension between progress and adaptation. Darwin saw that the natural contexto in which, as he beliecved, transmutation takes place excluded the possibility of na innate tendency of organisms to progress regardless of external conditions. He supposed that the impetus for change in the organic world was not the achievement of higher levels of organization, but rather the maintance of adaptation by the production of new forms suited for new conditions of lide. In this his emphasis was the reverse of Lamarck’s. For Lamarck adaptation was the cause of deviations from the primary upward movement of life. But from Darwin’s perspective, in which adaptation was the central concern, progress was a secondary consequence of adaptive change. There could be no questoion of na independet pouvoir de l avie. Adaptation was Always primary ro Darwin; but it was Only while he believed that adaptation was perfect, and in consequence that trnasmutation was na intermitente process of organic adjustment, that the tensio  between adaptation and development was particularly acute. Because a continuously opearting developmental tendency in nature was incompatible wti his predivergence theory, it was necessary for him, as believer in progress, to shoe that na avance of organization will tend to occur as result of repeated Adaptice resposes to environmental change. 211-2
  • ·         No começo progresso significa produzir a próxima e mais perfeita forma.
  • ·         Problemas em definir high e low. Cuvier recusava isso, pois para ele todos os animais eram igualmente perfeitos. Eram os anti-teleologistas que pensavam em graus.
  • ·         In the 1850s increasing differentiation, specialization, or Division of lasbor became the generally accepted definition of organic progress among zoologists. As such it was adopted as the basis for numerou interpretations of the history f life. Owen and Carpenter separately proposed the law of development from more general to more special forms as the best expression. Of the character of the fgeological succession of organisms. Their new version of progressionism was accepted even by some of the older progressionist geologists, such as Sedgwick asndmurchison. Robert Chambers in the tenth edition of Vestigesd of the Natural History of Creation (1853) revised his account of organic development to bring it into agrément With owen’s and carpenter’s theory. And Herbert Spencer, inspired by Owen’s lectures and Carpenter’s Principles of Comparative Physiolofgy, made von Baer’r law o development the fundamental principle of his universal evolutionary synthesis: Von Baer’s “law of organic progress is the law of all progress,” he said, and he cited Owen and Carpenter in support of his claim that the history of life, like the history of the solar system, is characterized by increasing heterogeneity. 216
  • ·         VER NOTA 22 chambers se aproxima de owen e Carpenter: vestiges 10ed p. 156
  • ·         Em 53 já pensava em high e low em termos de especialização ou divergência do arquétipo do grupo.
  • ·         Em torno dos 50 utiliza a competitive highness, quanto mais organismos num local mais competição mais especialização.
  • ·         Já tinha suas ideias de progresso bem delineadas, mas se sentiu acuado de desenvolve-las na primeira ed do origin.
  • ·         The reception of Vestiges had long sincer suggested the adfvisability of avoiding any detailed discussion of the subjetc, and Huley’s recente review of Chamber’sd tenth edition indicated that the same kind of ridicule might be in store for hum dfrom tis new Champion of Lyell’s noprogressionism. Sarwin wanteds Lyell’s support and, at the least, Huxley’s neutrality. Hooker toowa sympathetic to Lyell’s doctrines. On the Other hand, any progressionists who might be favorably disposed toward Darwin’s thoery could be counted on to assume that trnasmutaion would lead to porgress. Darwin ad nothing to gain and perhaps Much to lose by exhibiting prominently his belief that progress is nevitable. Moreover, what might be called Darwin’s scientific caution held him back. On theoretical grounds he was sure that progress must occur. But the arguments of Lyell, Hooker, Huxley, and others led him to think that the evidence for it was not as Strong as he wished.
  • ·         Byt the time of the second and third Editions (1860, 1861) these constraints had lost Much of their strength. From the first the origin, in contrast to the Vestiges, was treated qs a serious contributioin to Science. Darwin knew too that in “morphological differentiation” and “Division of physiological labour” he had definitoins of “highness” that were generally accepted among professional zoologists. Huxley remained committed to nonprogressionism form several more Years; but though Darwin was skeptical about Huxley’s competence to expound the theory of natural selection, he knew that he had his good will and support so that that he feared no public attack from that quarter. By contrast, Lyell, the founder and chief advocate of nonpregressionis in 1858 abandoned his uniformitarian theory of the organic world. Lyell’s conversion to progessionism eliminate one of Darwin’s reasons for avoiding the subject and, qs t hapenned, supplied a perhaps decisive motive for treating it at greater lenght in subsequent Editions. Lyell indficvated to Darwin in October 1859 that he thopught a continued intervention of creative power or some “princiople of imporvement” was necessary to produce sucssively higher levels of organizatoni and, in particular, to produce man. Darwin responded quickly that natural selection alone is a suficiente expanation of inprovement. Better adapted forms, forms better able to compete, more especialized forms, an incvreased numer of forms, and more complex organic conditions are all inevitable consequences of natural selection, he said. “I can see no limit to this process opf improvement, witout the intervention of any Other and direct principle of improvement” He added, “if I have a second edition, I will reiterate }”Natural Selection” and, as a general consequence, “Natural improvement.
  • ·         Darwin made few changes in the scond edtion, but among thme were two brief respose to Lyell. In the summary to the chapter on natural selectin he interted the remark that “it leads to the improvement of each crerature in realtion to its organic and inorganic conditions of life”. IIn his discussion of geological succesion, where orignally he had spoken onlu of competitve highness, he added that the best definition of highness is greater Division of phsilogica labor and that, since this is na adavantage to each being, natural selection “will constantly tend” to make later forms “higher” than their progenitors. For the third edition Darwin drafted a wholer new section, “On the degree to which Orgqanizations tneds to advance,” to fololow his dicussion of the princiople of divergence. There he asserted, and repeated in all later Editions, that “if we look at the differentiatoin and specializatoin of the several organs odf each beingwhena dult and this will include the advancement of the brain for intelectual purposes) as the best standard of highness of organizaton, natural seleciton clearly tend towards highness”. 221-3

Accident and inevitability

  • ·         Darwin’s efforts to develop a theory of progress acan be explained i part by the functions his belief in imporvement served in his evolutionary system. One was to justify the apparent evils of the Darwinian view of nature. In the conclusion to the “Sketch,” “Essay’ and Origin Darwin argued that fasmine, deat, and the war of nature lad to “the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals. I noted earlier that Darwin’s reasoning here is the same as that of Malthus and Paley on the evils of superfecundity, and probably the theolgical underpinnings of his argument qand thers were essentialy the same: belief that the lawsd of nasture were designed b a benevolente god. Maurice Mandelbaum has suggested that Darwin’s belief in progress was simply a consequence of this therologicvasl convictions in the late 1830s, but I suspect that the situatoin was rathe rmore compex, that there were ontheologica underpinnings to the arugment as well. For one in Darwin’s position there were olenty of reasons, Other than theologica one for believing in progress. Ansd progress, apart for many explicitl rhwolofical consideration, was sufficiently widely perceived as good that it could serve, regardless of on’’e’s religious convictions to justify struggle, incoveninece, misery, and the econmic practicces and rationaliazatoins tha heloped produce them. The conclution to the OPrigin might well have been not liny  a justifcxaton of the ways of the author oof the theory, but a nture thar was nevertheless good because it was progressive. 223-4
  • ·         224-5 aplicação no homem, descente.
  • ·         Progresso era inevitável. Há um embate teórico entre o papel da probabilidade e imprevisibilidade e das tendências gerais. Vale lembrar de sua religiosidade ainda na época do Origin.
  • ·         Havia um voto contra os termos high e low q ele nunca conseguiu seguir 227-8 VER NOTAS 62,64 sobre os termos: Gould, ever since darwin 36-7. Cirripedia 2 19-20 DAR 205-9
  • ·         Ospovat defende D progressionista, mas isso não é um ponto pacífico.

10 CONCLUSION: THE DEVELOPTMERN OF DARWIN’S THEORY AS SOCIAL PROCESS

·         As ideias de Darwin são resultados do cenário cultural político científico e religioso de Darwin na 

Comentários

Postar um comentário

Postagens mais visitadas deste blog

Os usos sociais da ciência - Bordieu

Imagem
Livro publicado em 2004 pela Editora Unesp em parceria com o Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), baseado em uma conferência e debate organizados pelo grupo Sciences in Questions em Paris, no INRA, no ano de 1997; O livro conta com um prefácio escrito por Patrick Champagne, diretor de pesquisas do INRA, que apresenta Bordieu e sua obra, principalmente aquelas que concernem a sociologia da ciência; Neste livro, o autor formula a ideia de campo. O campo é definido como toda a área intermediária entre o conteúdo da obra (seja ela artística, literária, científica...) e sei contexto social, o campo é: "[...] o universo no qual estão inseridos os agentes e as instituições que produzem, reproduzem ou difundem a arte, literatura ou ciência. Esse universo é um mundo social como os outros, mas que obedece a leis sociais mais ou menos específicas." Através dessa ideia o autor afirma que não devemos rotular a ciência como totalmente "pura", livr
Leia mais

O Evolucionista Voador - Costa

Imagem
Clique na imagem para ler uma amostra em PDF O Evolucionista Voador é um livro de publicação independente escrito por Felipe A. P. L. Costa, autor de diversos artigos jornalísticos de divulgação científica e pesquisador independe de instituições de ensino, ele pode ser mais facilmente encontrado aqui . O livro é constituído de 15 capítulos, alguns publicados previamente em outros lugares, voltados para a história da ciência. Os primeiros 14 capítulos falam sobre cientistas e o último é um comentário sobre dicionários de biografia científica. Em ordem, os autores tratados são: Wallace; Bates; Curie; Price; Maynard Smith; Mayr; Keeling; Southwood; Miller; Harper; Williams; Margulis; Crow; e Woese. Todos pedras angulares de seus campos, alguns mais conhecidos que outros. Destaquei diversos pontos ao longo do livro que chamaram minha atenção: A divisão biogeográfica segundo Wallace; Uma representação da seleção natural utilizando um funil como metáfora para as pressões
Leia mais

Alfonso-Goldfarb

Imagem
O que é: História da Ciência (1994) HC dividida em três fases: 1) HC como justificativa - Antiguidade; 2) como crônica (glorificação e registro) vai do XVII ao XX; e 3) crítica da segunda metade do século XX até agora. Europa quatrocentista era um caldeirão cultural no qual a retomada do conhecimento clássico (a partir de traduções do grego e do árabe para o latim) permitiu redescorbetas e possibilitou a crítica dos saberes tradicional e novo. A expansão européia e acumulação de novos conhecimentos se auxiliavam mutuamente. A Ciência surge como forma de organizar esses saberes. Paracelso é discutido como um exemplo de "antigo não tão antigo". Rompeu com a medicina humorística de Galeno e Avicena. Paracelso prefere o conhecimento empírico e tem a Bíblia como livro-guia infalível. Se na medicina tradicional temos a doença como um desiquilíbrio interno curada pelo princípio dos contrários, Paracelso postula a doença como afecção externa que deve ser curada através do princípio d
Leia mais