Orthogenesis
Orthogenesis, also known as orthogenetic evolution, progressive evolution, evolutionary progress, or progressionism, is an
The term orthogenesis was introduced by
The philosopher of biology Michael Ruse notes that in popular culture, evolution and progress are synonyms, while the unintentionally misleading image of the March of Progress, from apes to modern humans, has been widely imitated.
Definition
The term orthogenesis (from Ancient Greek: ὀρθός orthós, "straight", and Ancient Greek: γένεσις génesis, "origin") was first used by the biologist Wilhelm Haacke in 1893.[9][10] Theodor Eimer was the first to give the word a definition; he defined orthogenesis as "the general law according to which evolutionary development takes place in a noticeable direction, above all in specialized groups".[11]
In 1922, the zoologist Michael F. Guyer wrote:
[Orthogenesis] has meant many different things to many different people, ranging from a mystical
inner perfecting principle, to merely a general trend in development due to the natural constitutional restrictions of the germinal materials, or to the physical limitations imposed by a narrow environment. In most modern statements of the theory, the idea of continuous and progressive change in one or more characters, due according to some to internal factors, according to others to external causes-evolution in a "straight line" seems to be the central idea.[12]
According to
Orthogenesis meant literally "straight origins", or "straight line evolution". The term varied in meaning from the overtly vitalistic and theological to the mechanical. It ranged from theories of mystical forces to mere descriptions of a general trend in development due to natural limitations of either the germinal material or the environment ... By 1910, however most who subscribed to orthogenesis hypothesized some physical rather than metaphysical determinant of orderly change.[13]
In 1988, Francisco J. Ayala defined progress as "systematic change in a feature belonging to all the members of a sequence in such a way that posterior members of the sequence exhibit an improvement of that feature". He argued that there are two elements in this definition, directional change and improvement according to some standard. Whether a directional change constitutes an improvement is not a scientific question; therefore Ayala suggested that science should focus on the question of whether there is directional change, without regard to whether the change is "improvement".[14] This may be compared to Stephen Jay Gould's suggestion of "replacing the idea of progress with an operational notion of directionality".[15]
In 1989, Peter J. Bowler defined orthogenesis as:
Literally, the term means evolution in a straight line, generally assumed to be evolution that is held to a regular course by forces internal to the organism. Orthogenesis assumes that variation is not random but is directed towards fixed goals. Selection is thus powerless, and the species is carried automatically in the direction marked out by internal factors controlling variation.[2]
In 1996, Michael Ruse defined orthogenesis as "the view that evolution has a kind of momentum of its own that carries organisms along certain tracks".[16]
History
Medieval
The possibility of progress is embedded in the mediaeval
Pre-Darwinian
The orthogenesis hypothesis had a significant following in the 19th century when evolutionary mechanisms such as Lamarckism were being proposed. The French zoologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) himself accepted the idea, and it had a central role in his theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics, the hypothesized mechanism of which resembled the "mysterious inner force" of orthogenesis.[1] Orthogenesis was particularly accepted by paleontologists who saw in their fossils a directional change, and in invertebrate paleontology thought there was a gradual and constant directional change. Those who accepted orthogenesis in this way, however, did not necessarily accept that the mechanism that drove orthogenesis was teleological (had a definite goal). Charles Darwin himself rarely used the term "evolution" now so commonly used to describe his theory, because the term was strongly associated with orthogenesis, as had been common usage since at least 1647.[18] His grandfather, the physician and polymath Erasmus Darwin, was both progressionist and vitalist, seeing "the whole cosmos [as] a living thing propelled by an internal vital force" towards "greater perfection".[19] Robert Chambers, in his popular anonymously published 1844 book Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation presented a sweeping narrative account of cosmic transmutation, culminating in the evolution of humanity. Chambers included detailed analysis of the fossil record.[20]
With Darwin
Ruse observed that "Progress (sic, his capitalisation) became essentially a nineteenth-century belief. It gave meaning to life—it offered inspiration—after the collapse [with
The inhabitants of each successive period in the world's history have beaten their predecessors in the race for life, and are, insofar, higher in the scale of nature; and this may account for that vague yet ill-defined sentiment, felt by many palaeontologists, that organisation on the whole has progressed. [Chapter 10][29]
As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Silurian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection. [Chapter 14][29]
In 1898, after studying
Nineteenth and twentieth centuries
Numerous versions of orthogenesis (see table) have been proposed. Debate centred on whether such theories were scientific, or whether orthogenesis was inherently vitalistic or essentially theological.[35] For example, biologists such as Maynard M. Metcalf (1914), John Merle Coulter (1915), David Starr Jordan (1920) and Charles B. Lipman (1922) claimed evidence for orthogenesis in bacteria, fish populations and plants.[36][37][38][39] In 1950, the German paleontologist Otto Schindewolf argued that variation tends to move in a predetermined direction. He believed this was purely mechanistic, denying any kind of vitalism, but that evolution occurs due to a periodic cycle of evolutionary processes dictated by factors internal to the organism.[40][41] In 1964 George Gaylord Simpson argued that orthogenetic theories such as those promulgated by Du Noüy and Sinnott were essentially theology rather than biology.[35]
Though evolution is not progressive, it does sometimes proceed in a linear way, reinforcing characteristics in certain lineages, but such examples are entirely consistent with the modern neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.
Recent work has supported the mechanism and existence of mutation biased adaptation, meaning that limited local orthogenesis is now seen as possible.[45][46][47]
Theories
For the columns for other philosophies of evolution (i.e., combined theories including any of Lamarckism, Mutationism, Natural selection, and Vitalism), "yes" means that person definitely supports the theory; "no" means explicit opposition to the theory; a blank means the matter is apparently not discussed, not part of the theory.
Author | Title | Field | Date | Lamarck. | Mutat. | Nat. Sel. | Vital. | Features |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lamarck | Inherent progressive tendency |
Zoology | 1809 | yes | In his inheritance of acquired characteristics, was a secondary aspect of this, an adaptive force creating species within a phylum.[1] )
| |||
Baer | Purposeful creation |
Embryology | 1859 | "Forces which are not directed—so-called blind forces—can never produce order."[21] | ||||
Kölliker | Heterogenesis |
Anatomy | 1864 | yes | Wholly separate lines of descent with no common ancestor[25] | |||
Cope | Law of acceleration |
Palaeontology | 1868 | yes | Combined orthogenetic constraints with (linear increase in size of species) | |||
Nägeli | Inner perfecting principle |
Botany | 1884 | yes | no | An " | ||
Spencer | Progressionism 'The Development Hypothesis' |
Social theory | 1852 | Yes[51] | Cultural value of progress; "Spencer has no rivals when it comes to open, flagrant connections of social Progress with evolutionary progress."—Michael Ruse[52] | |||
Darwin | (concept of higher and lower species), Pangenesis | Evolution | 1859 | yes | yes | |||
Haacke | Orthogenesis | Zoology | 1893 | yes | Accompanied by | |||
Eimer | Orthogenesis | Zoology | 1898 | no | On Orthogenesis: And the Impotence of Natural Selection in Species Formation: trends in evolution with no adaptive significance, claimed hard to explain by natural selection.[32][9] | |||
Bergson | Elan vital | Philosophy | 1907 | yes | Creative Evolution[55] | |||
Przibram |
Apogenesis |
Embryology | 1910s | [49] | ||||
Plate | Orthoselection or Old-Darwinism |
Zoology | 1913 | yes | yes | yes | Combined theory[9] | |
Rosa | Hologenesis |
Zoology | 1918 | yes | Hologenesis: a New Theory of Evolution and the Geographical Distribution of Living Beings[56][9] | |||
Whitman | Orthogenesis | Zoology | 1919 | no | no | no | Orthogenetic Evolution in Pigeons posthumous[57][58] | |
Berg | Nomogenesis |
Zoology | 1926 | no | yes | no | Chemical forces direct evolution, leading to humans[59][9][60] | |
Abel | Trägheitsgesetz (the law of inertia) | Palaeontology | 1928 | based on Dollo's law of irreversibility of evolution (which can be explained without orthogenesis as a statistical improbability that a path should be exactly reversed)[9] | ||||
Lwoff | Physiological degradation |
Physiology | 1930s–1940s | yes | Directed loss of functions in microorganisms[49][61][62] | |||
Beurlen | Orthogenesis | Palaeontology | 1930 | no | no | Start is random metakinesis, generating variety; then palingenesis (in Beurlen's sense, repeating developmental pathway of ancestors) as mechanism for orthogenesis[9] | ||
Victor Jollos | Directed mutation | Protozoology, Zoology | 1931 | yes | Combined orthogenesis with Lamarckism (inheriting acquired characteristics after heat shock as dauermodifications, passed on by plasmatic inheritance in the cytoplasm)[9] | |||
Osborn | Aristogenesis |
Palaeontology | 1934 | yes | no | no | [30][63] | |
Willis | Differentiation (orthogenesis) |
Botany | 1942 | yes | a force "working upon some definite law that we do not yet comprehend", compromise between special creation and natural selection, driven by large mutations involving chromosome alterations[64] | |||
Noüy | Telefinalism |
Biophysics | 1947 | yes | In book Human Destiny,[65] essentially religious[65] | |||
Vandel | Organicism | Zoology | 1949 | No | L'Homme et L'Evolution[49] | |||
Sinnott | Telism |
Botany | 1950 | yes | In book Cell and Psyche,[65] essentially religious[35] | |||
Schindewolf | Typostrophism |
Palaeontology | 1950 | yes | Basic Questions in Paleontology: Geologic Time, Organic Evolution and Biological Systematics; evolution due to periodic cycle of processes dictated by factors internal to organism.[40][9] | |||
Teilhard de Chardin | Directed additivity Omega Point |
Palaeontology Mysticism |
1959 | yes | The Phenomenon of Man posthumous; combined orthogenesis with non-material vitalist directive force aiming for a supposed "Omega Point" with creation of consciousness. Noosphere concept from Vladimir Vernadsky.[9] Censured by Gaylord Simpson for nonscientific spiritualistic "doubletalk".[11][66][67] | |||
Croizat | Biological synthesis Panbiogeography |
Botany | 1964 | mechanistic, caused by | ||||
Lima-de-Faria | Autoevolutionism |
Physics, Chemistry | 1988 | No | No | No | No | Natural selection is immaterial so cannot work.[69] |
The various
Status
In science
The stronger versions of the orthogenetic hypothesis began to lose popularity when it became clear that they were inconsistent with the patterns found by
At theoretical and philosophical levels, Lamarckism and orthogenesis seemed to solve too many problems to be dismissed out of hand—yet biologists could never reliably document them happening in nature or in the laboratory. Support for both concepts evaporated rapidly once a plausible alternative appeared on the scene.[73]
The
By 1948, the evolutionary biologist
The discipline of evolutionary developmental biology, however, is open to an expanded concept of heredity that incorporates the physics of self-organization. With its rise in the late 20th-early 21st centuries, ideas of constraint and preferred directions of morphological change have made a reappearance in evolutionary theory.[80]
In popular culture
In popular culture, progressionist images of evolution are widespread. The historian Jennifer Tucker, writing in The Boston Globe, notes that Thomas Henry Huxley's 1863 illustration comparing the skeletons of apes and humans "has become an iconic and instantly recognizable visual shorthand for evolution."[81] She calls its history extraordinary, saying that it is "one of the most intriguing, and most misleading, drawings in the modern history of science." Nobody, Tucker observes, supposes that the "monkey-to-man" sequence accurately depicts Darwinian evolution. The Origin of Species had only one illustration, a diagram showing that random events create a process of branching evolution, a view that Tucker notes is broadly acceptable to modern biologists. But Huxley's image recalled the great chain of being, implying with the force of a visual image a "logical, evenly paced progression" leading up to Homo sapiens, a view denounced by Stephen Jay Gould in Wonderful Life.[81]
Popular perception, however, had seized upon the idea of linear progress.
Sliding between meanings
Scientists, Ruse argues, continue to slide easily from one notion of progress to another: even committed Darwinians like Richard Dawkins embed the idea of cultural progress in a theory of cultural units, memes, that act much like genes.[4] Dawkins can speak of "progressive rather than random ... trends in evolution".[82][83] Dawkins and John Krebs deny the "earlier [Darwinian] prejudice"[84] that there is anything "inherently progressive about evolution",[85][84] but, Ruse argues, the feeling of progress comes from evolutionary arms races which remain in Dawkins's words "by far the most satisfactory explanation for the existence of the advanced and complex machinery that animals and plants possess".[86][84]
Ruse concludes his detailed analysis of the idea of Progress, meaning a progressionist philosophy, in evolutionary biology by stating that evolutionary thought came out of that philosophy. Before Darwin, Ruse argues, evolution was just a pseudoscience; Darwin made it respectable, but "only as popular science". "There it remained frozen, for nearly another hundred years",[4] until mathematicians such as Fisher[87] provided "both models and status", enabling evolutionary biologists to construct the modern synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s. That made biology a professional science, at the price of ejecting the notion of progress. That, Ruse argues, was a significant cost to "people [biologists] still firmly committed to Progress" as a philosophy.[4]
Facilitated variation
Biology has largely rejected the idea that evolution is guided in any way,
See also
- Adaptive mutation
- Convergent evolution (contrastable with orthogenesis, not involving teleology)
- Devolution
- Directed evolution (in protein engineering)
- Directed evolution (transhumanism)
- Evolutionism
- Evolution of biological complexity
- History of evolutionary thought
- Structuralism
- Teleonomy
- Teleological argument
References
- ^ ISBN 978-0-09-928583-0.
- ^ a b c d Bowler 1989, pp. 268–270.
- ISBN 978-0-674-89666-6.
- ^ a b c d e Ruse 1996, pp. 526–539.
- PMID 24368232.
- ^ a b c Ruse 1996, p. 447.
- ^ a b Letter from Ernst Mayr to R. H. Flower, Evolution papers, 23 January 1948
- ^ Simpson, George Gaylord (1953). Life of the Past: An Introduction to Paleontology. Yale University Press. p. 125.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Levit, Georgy S.; Olsson, Lennart (2006). "'Evolution on Rails': Mechanisms and Levels of Orthogenesis" (PDF). Annals of the History and Philosophy of Biology (11): 99–138.
- ISBN 978-0-674-00613-3.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-86554-498-7.
- JSTOR 2456504.
- ISBN 978-0-299-08854-5.
- ISBN 978-0-226-58693-9.
- ISBN 978-0-609-80140-6.
- ^ Ruse 1996, p. 261.
- ^ a b Ruse 1996, pp. 21–23.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-393-06425-4. Archived from the original on 2019-12-16. Retrieved 2019-08-01.)
{{cite book}}
:|work=
ignored (help - ^ Daly, J. P. (4 March 2018). "The Botanic Universe: Generative Nature and Erasmus Darwin's Cosmic Transformism". Republics of Letters. 6: 1–57.
- ^ Bowler 1989, p. 134.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-890688-08-0.
- ^ Ruse 1996, p. 29.
- ISBN 978-1-60021-612-1.
- ISBN 978-0-8204-7231-7.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-520-06283-2.
- ISBN 978-0-8109-5748-0.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-936883-14-1.
- ^ Ruse 1996, pp. 154–155, 162.
- ^ a b c d Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Chapters 10, 14.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-520-24684-3.
- ^ Ruse 1996, pp. 266–267.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-521-54198-5.
- ISBN 978-0-19-515619-5.
- ISBN 978-0-674-00613-3.
- ^ a b c Simpson, George Gaylord (1964). Evolutionary Theology: The New Mysticism. Harcourt, Brace & World. pp. 213–233.
{{cite book}}
:|work=
ignored (help) - JSTOR 2455865.
- ^ John Merle Coulter. (1915). A Suggested Explanation of 'Orthogenesis' in Plants Science, Vol. 42, No. 1094. pp. 859–863.
- PMID 17793787.
- S2CID 85365933.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-8229-6151-2.
- .
- PMID 15408469.
- .
- S2CID 29736048.
- S2CID 26956345.
- PMID 16857856.
- PMID 19625453.
- ISBN 978-1-4020-4956-9.
- ^ a b c d e f g Popov, Igor (7 April 2005). "The Persistence of Heresy: The Concepts of Directed Evolution (Orthogenesis)". Retrieved 15 April 2017.
- ^ Barnes, M. Elizabeth (24 July 2014). "Edward Drinker Cope's Law of Acceleration of Growth".
- ^ Ruse 1996, p. 189.
- ^ Ruse 1996, pp. 181–191.
- ^ Ghiselin, Michael T. (September–October 1994). "Nonsense in schoolbooks: 'The Imaginary Lamarck'". The Textbook Letter. The Textbook League. Retrieved 2008-01-23.
- ISBN 978-0-203-91100-6.
- ^ Bowler 1989, pp. 116–117.
- S2CID 85796293.
- doi:10.1086/279751.
- ISBN 978-0-674-00613-3.
- ^ Ruse 1996, p. 395.
- ^ Bowler 1983, p. 157.
- ^ Lwoff, A. (1944). L'evolution physiologique. Etude des pertes de fonctions chez les microorganismes. Paris: Hermann. pp. 1–308.
L'idée s'imposa que les microorganismes avaient subi des pertes de fonction. Celles-ci apparurent comme la manifestation d'une évolution physiologique, definie comme une degradation, une orthogenese regressive.
- S2CID 30286465.
- ISBN 978-0-7546-0587-4.
- doi:10.1086/281018.
- ^ Bibcode:1957SciMo..85..245K.
- ISBN 1-902210-30-1.
- ISBN 978-1-876646-23-3.
- .
- ISBN 978-0444809636.
- ^ a b Bowler 1989, pp. 261–262.
- ^ Bowler 1989, p. 264.
- ISBN 978-0-674-36446-2.
- ^ a b Larson 2004, p. 127.
- ISBN 978-0-674-00613-3.
- ISBN 978-0-521-80317-5.
- ISBN 978-1-4051-5625-7.
With the integration of Mendelian genetics and population genetics into evolutionary theory in the 1930s a new generation of biologists applied mathematical techniques to investigate how changes in the frequency of genes in populations combined with natural selection could produce species change. This demonstrated that Darwinian natural selection was the primary mechanism for evolution and that other models of evolution, such as neo-Lamarckism and orthogenesis, were invalid.
- ^ Ruse, Michael (31 March 2010). "Edward O. Wilson on Sociobiology". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 4 April 2017.
- ^ Ruse 1996, p. 536.
- ^ Ruse 1996, p. 530.
- ISBN 978-0-262-13419-4.
- ^ Boston Globe. Retrieved 29 December 2017.
- S2CID 9695900.
- ^ Ruse 1996, p. 466.
- ^ a b c Ruse 1996, p. 468.
- ^ Dawkins 1986, p. 178.
- ^ Dawkins 1986, p. 181.
- ^ Ruse 1996, pp. 292–295.
- ^ Bowler 1989, p. 270.
- PMID 18791259.
Sources
- ISBN 978-0-8018-4391-4.
- ISBN 978-0-520-06385-3.
- ISBN 978-0-393-31570-7.
- Larson, Edward J. (2004). Evolution. Modern Library. ISBN 978-0-679-64288-6.
- ISBN 978-0-674-03248-4.
Further reading
- Bateson, William (1909). "Heredity and variation in modern lights", in Darwin and Modern Science (A.C. Seward ed.) Cambridge University Press. Chapter V.
- ISBN 978-0140167344.
- Huxley, Julian (1942). Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, London: George Allen and Unwin.
- ISBN 9780297607410.
- Simpson, George G. (1957). Life Of The Past: Introduction to Paleontology. Yale University Press, p. 119.
- Wilkins, John (1997). "What is macroevolution?" 13 October 2004.