====== Redaktion Artikel Evolution ======
===== Allgemeines =====

Verfasser:

Koautor:

Redaktionell verantwortlich:

Abgabetermin:

Autorenabsprachen:

Expertisen:

Bemerkungen:


===== Stand der Redaktionsarbeit =====



bei jedem Neueintrag Signatur nicht vergessen:  --- //[[hetzer@zfl-berlin.org|Susanne Hetzer]] 2008/11/27 11:36//

===== Internes Material =====

===== Disziplinäre Begriffe =====
* **Allgemein:** Zeitliche und figürliche Verwendung im Sinne von 'Veränderung, Transformation, Entwicklung' ab 1850 (Bonnet/ Bousset - ?) (vor allem in den Naturwissenschaften).

==== B. Sekundärmaterial ====
=== Begriffsgeschichtliche Arbeiten ===

  * Rensch, B.: (Art.) Evolutionstheorie, in: Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie. Hg.v. J. Ritter. Bd. 2, Basel/Stuttgart, 1972, Sp. 836 - 838.

|**Inhalt**: Bereits bei Anaxiamander und in der christlichen Genesis wird angenommen, dass Lebewesen nacheinander und in zunehmend höheren Stufen entstanden sind. Der Gedanke wird im 17. und 18. Jhd. detailliert diskutiert (Leibniz, Bonnet, Herder). Die Idee der stammesgeschichtlichen Deutung der Stufenfolge kommt bei Kant, Leibniz und Buffon auf. Auch Goethes Untersuchungen zur Metamorphose der Pflanze und zum Intermaxiliarknochen liegt dieses Konzept zugrunde. E. Darwin legt ein Konzept der Stammesentwicklung von Lebewesen vor, das aber noch durch wenig Tatsachenmaterial gestützt ist. Lamarck gilt als der eigentliche Begründer der Abstammungslehre (Mittelbildungen). Die Evolutionstheorie geht jedoch auf Ch. Darwin und sein Werk 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' zurück, dessen Deutung der Evolution eine der wichtigsten Grundklassen der Biologie geworden ist.\\ Keine Erörterung des Begriffes in der Militärsprache und in der Mathematik. Jüngster Literaturhinweis 1963.|



=== Sonstige Literatur ===

  * Brandon, Robert N.: Biological teleology: Questions and explanations. Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A 12/2, (1981) S. 91-105.

|Abstract: This paper gives an account of evolutionary explanations in biology. Briefly, the explanations I am primarily concerned with are explanations of adaptations. (‘Adaptation’ is a technical term and defining it requires a fairly lengthy digression.) These explanations are contrasted with other nonteleological evolutionary explanations. The distinction is made by distinguishing the different kinds of questions these different explanations serve to answer. The sense in which explanations of adaptations are teleological is spelled out.|

* Elliott, Paul: Erasmus Darwin, Herbert Spencer, and the Origins of the Evolutionary Worldview in British Provincial Scientific Culture, 1770-1850. Isis 94, (2003) S. 1–29.

|Abstract: The significance of Herbert Spencer’s evolutionary philosophy has been generally recognized for over a century, as the familiarity of his phrase “survival of the fittest” indicates, yet accounts of the origins of his system still tend to follow too closely his own description, written many decades later. This essay argues that Spencer’s own interpretation of his intellectual development gives an inadequate impression of the debt he owed to provincial scientific culture and its institutions. Most important, it shows that his evolutionism was originally stimulated by his association with the Derby philosophical community, for it was through this group-of which his father, who also appears to have espoused a deistic evolutionary theory, was a member-that he was first exposed to progressive Enlightenment social and educational philosophies and to the evolutionary worldview of Erasmus Darwin, the first president of the Derby Philosophical Society. Darwin’s scheme was the first to incorporate biological evolution, associationist psychology, evolutionary geology, and cosmological developmentalism. Spencer’s own implicit denials of the link with Darwin are shown to be implausible in the face of Darwin’s continuing influence on the Derby savants, the product of insecurity in his later years when he feared for his reputation as Lamarckism became increasingly untenable.|



  * Gordon, Scott: Darwin and political economy: The connection reconsidered. Journal of the History of Biology 22/3, (1989) S. 437-459.

|Abstract: It seems to me that no substantial support can be provided for the thesis that the Darwinian theory of evolution drew significantly upon ideas in contemporary Political Economy. What Darwin may have derived from Malthus was not an integral part of the theory of population that the classical economists, including Malthus, put forward. He did not know the literature of Political Economy; and if he had been acquainted with it, he would not have been able to derive anything from it that was important for the theory of natural selection. The judgment that “with Darwin's theory there was a real transfer of knowledge from political economy to biology” (Pancaldi 1985:262) cannot be sustained.|



  * Kinch, Michael Paul: Geographical distribution and the origin of life: The development of early nineteenth-century British explanations. Journal of the History of Biology 13/1, (1980) S. 91-119.

|Abstract: By the 1840s and 1850s biogeographical theory had polarized into two opposing views — both of which had their origins in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries. At issue in this polarization was the question of God's involvement with His creation. At one end of the spectrum were Sclater, Agassiz, Kirby, and others who saw a neatly designed world in which geographical distributions were planned and executed by the hand of God at creation. For most of these naturalists, organisms were created en masse within the regions they now occupy. Disjunct distributions were proof to them that God had indeed created species in situ as many individuals. These naturalists hoped to reveal God's biogeographical plan by discovering His regions of creation. They had hoped to demonstrate a neatly devised set of regions of creation which might be applicable to all creatures, but in attempting to do so, they arrived at conflicting sets of delineations — thus helping to undermine their conceptions of nature in which design (both idealist and utilitarian) played an important part. At the other end of the biogeographical spectrum were the theoretical ideas of Prichard and Lyell, who viewed a more remote God — one who allowed His creation to be shaped and modified by secondary laws. Lyell in particular wished to leave considerations of design aside, hoping to demonstrate that the shape of the present creation is due to natural laws. Prichard and Lyell saw God's role in the creation of species (and distributions) as being extremely limited. In fact, the regions of creation seen today are in actuality only natural artifacts produced by migrations and barriers. They saw distributions being in constant flux, as was the rest of nature.\\ Those supporting the views of Prichard and Lyell spent a great deal of effort in attempting to remove a major obstacle in their paths — disjunct distributions. If disjunct distributions were indeed the products of separate creative acts, as Sclater and others claimed, then the arguments of Prichard and Lyell would be negated. For if the creation of a species was shown to be the product of multiple creations, then what was the need of migrations and dispersal mechanisms? Also at stake, of course, was the concept of species based upon generation. Darwin was well aware that if the supernatural implications of disjunct distributions could not be refuted, then his evolutionary system — founded upon a species concept based on descent — would be in peril. \\ A further barrier to the acceptance of the Prichard/Lyell view was the fact that those sympathetic to a nonsupernatural explanation of disjunct distributions could not agree upon a natural explanation for those anomalies, and an internal debate between naturalists within this group raged for decades. \\ By 1859 a biogeographical stalemate had occurred. Sclater and others, supporting their static view of nature, continued to look for regions of creation, pointing to disjunct distributions in support of their arguments, while those favorable to the views of Prichard and Lyell continued to search for natural explanations for such biogeographical anomalies. \\ The key needed to resolve the biogeographical debate was a credible theory for species origins. By 1858 there were essentially three options for British naturalists: supernatural creation, Lamarckian transmutation, or natural creation. A few British naturalists grasped at these straws, but most workers preferred the option of remaining silent until a more viable explanation for the origin and distribution of species could be advanced. And not until the publication of Darwin's theory did that explanation become available.|



  * Ruse, Michael: Teleology: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 31/1, (2000) S. 213-232.

|Abstract: Teleological explanations in evolutionary biology, from Cuvier to the present (and into the future), depend on the metaphor of design for heuristic power and predictive fertility.|



  * Wyhe, John van: The descent of words: evolutionary thinking 1780–1880. Endeavour 29/3, (2005) S. 94-100.

|Abstract: Histories of evolutionary thought are dominated by organic evolution. The colossus in our midst that is evolutionary biology casts its shadow over history, making it appear that what is so widespread and important today was always the primary subject of evolutionary speculation. Thus many histories assume that the core meaning of evolution is the change of organic life and that other forms of evolutionary thinking, such as linguistic, social or cultural evolution, are only analogies or offshoots of the main biological evolutionary trunk. Ironically this is an ahistorical understanding. Long before the work of Charles Darwin, scholars were independently developing evolutionary concepts such as descent with modification and divergence from a common stock in order to understand cultural change.|

----
^ Kategorien: {{tag>  }}  ^  siehe alle Artikel von {{tag>}} ^
