rjohara.net

Search:  

Darwin-L Message Log 9: 101–140 — May 1994

Academic Discussion on the History and Theory of the Historical Sciences

Darwin-L was an international discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences, active from 1993–1997. Darwin-L was established to promote the reintegration of a range of fields all of which are concerned with reconstructing the past from evidence in the present, and to encourage communication among scholars, scientists, and researchers in these fields. The group had more than 600 members from 35 countries, and produced a consistently high level of discussion over its several years of operation. Darwin-L was not restricted to evolutionary biology nor to the work of Charles Darwin, but instead addressed the entire range of historical sciences from an explicitly comparative perspective, including evolutionary biology, historical linguistics, textual transmission and stemmatics, historical geology, systematics and phylogeny, archeology, paleontology, cosmology, historical geography, historical anthropology, and related “palaetiological” fields.

This log contains public messages posted to the Darwin-L discussion group during May 1994. It has been lightly edited for format: message numbers have been added for ease of reference, message headers have been trimmed, some irregular lines have been reformatted, and error messages and personal messages accidentally posted to the group as a whole have been deleted. No genuine editorial changes have been made to the content of any of the posts. This log is provided for personal reference and research purposes only, and none of the material contained herein should be published or quoted without the permission of the original poster.

The master copy of this log is maintained in the Darwin-L Archives (rjohara.net/darwin) by Dr. Robert J. O’Hara. The Darwin-L Archives also contain additional information about the Darwin-L discussion group, the complete Today in the Historical Sciences calendar for every month of the year, a collection of recommended readings on the historical sciences, and an account of William Whewell’s concept of “palaetiology.”


-------------------------------------------
DARWIN-L MESSAGE LOG 9: 101-140 -- MAY 1994
-------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:101>From drestrep@javercol.bitnet  Thu May  5 20:33:58 1994

Date: Wed, 04 May 1994 18:17:30 +0000 (COL)
From: David X Restrepo <drestrep%javercol.bitnet@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Evolution of bodies but not minds
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD JAVERIANA - BOGOTA, COLOMBIA

If evolution is change every creature is involved in this process. With
us, the humans, there are one little problem: our anthropocentrism
conduce us to think that we are something diferent to the rest of the
animals. Moreover, when some scientist are search for the the true that
are hidden in our mind, its investigation are something corrupted because
in this case the object and the subject of investigation are the same and is
very difficult find some of the true.

The Drosophila genus show us some examples of selective behavior which
must have a phisiological foundation in its Nervous System. We cannot
think without brain and this brain bring us a infinite number of
posibilities, something in its function acts like a multiplicator agent and
let us to "manage" our environment. But our brain is an organ of an evolved
animal like others. Additionally, the behavior of our mind is strongly
influenced by many external things, externals to our genetic basis (the
genome) then much of our behavior, thinking and mind have a "cultural
evolution" but the basic mechanism for the function of the Nervous System
evolved organically (mutation, natural selection...).

We are a deliciously complicated organism Or not?

David X. Restrepo
Biologist
Pontificia Universidad Javeriana

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:102>From PICARD@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA  Thu May  5 22:14:24 1994

Date: Thu, 05 May 1994 23:13:24 -0500 (EST)
From: MARC PICARD <PICARD@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA>
Subject: Re: Re: Species/Linguistic Death
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
	In response to Jerry Koch's and Bonnie Blackwell's belief that
learning another language can have an effect on one's mother tongue,
it would be nice to have some specific phonological, morphological or syntactic
examples of this.
	In any case, I think we've drifted too far from the original point
of this discussion which, if I recall, was whether linguistic evolution
was still operating the same way it did in the past, and whether it was
still leading to the same kind of dialectal diversity. Activities like
reading and foreign language learning are not pertinent because they have
absolutely no impact or influence on the transmission of grammars from
one generation to another.

Marc Picard

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:103>From hoffmeyer@mermaid.molbio.ku.dk  Fri May  6 04:23:37 1994

Subject: Peirce and Clarence King
To: Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: hoffmeyer@mermaid.molbio.ku.dk
Date: Fri, 6 May 94 10:31:06 +0100

       Jeremy,

Concerning 'C.S.Peirce's essay _The Architecture of
Theories_ ' and Mr. Clarence King. Maybe you should pose your question also to
the Peirce-list:

            PEIRCE-L on LISTSERV@TTUVM1.TTU.EDU

   An Open Forum for Discussion of the Philosophy of Charles S. Peirce

   This list is open to the discussion of all topics pertaining to the
   work of the American philosopher/logician/scientist Charles Sanders
   Peirce.  Since Peirce is especially associated not only with topics
   in logic and the philosophy of science, but also with theory of
   representation and interpretation ("semiotic"), and with the
   conception of thought as essentially communicational and social, it
   is likely that the list will be highly interdisciplinary in character.
   This will be encouraged; but the intention is to keep a continuing
   focus on the philosophical basis of his thought as well, and to
   sustain discussion which is philosophical in type:  no empty
   rhetoric, no dogmatism, no personal attacks in lieu of reasoned
   arguments, and a standing willingness not only to be critical but to
   receive and even seek out criticism as well.

   This is a LISTSERV managed list, so normal subscription requests
   apply.

To subscribe send mail (with no subject heading) to

   LISTSERV@TTUVM1.TTU.EDU with the body containing the command

           SUB PEIRCE-L Yourfirstname Yourlastname

   This list is sponsored by the Peirce Telecommunity Project
   of the Electronic Peirce Consortium, and by
   The Department of Philosophy of Texas Tech University

 Owner/manager:
 Joseph Ransdell
 Department of Philosophy   BNJMR@TTACS.TTU.EDU (INTERNET)
 Texas Tech University           (806) 742-3158

Jesper Hoffmeyer
University of Copenhagen,
Institute of Molecular Biology, The Biosemiotics Group
Soelvgade 83, DK - 1307 Copenhagen K
Tel. 3532 2032, Fax. 3532 2040, E-mail: hoffmeyer@mermaid.molbio.ku.dk.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:104>From ad201@freenet.carleton.ca  Fri May  6 09:46:35 1994

Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 10:47:03 -0400
From: ad201@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Donald Phillipson)
To: Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Stories

Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner, observed Thu, 05 May 1994, with
bibliographical list: Subject: "Just So Stories", Vitamin C, etc:

>One of the strongest psychological impulses human beings seem to have is
>the impulse to narrate.  We tell stories about all kinds of things, and
>generating stories is tremedously easy for us.  In the historical sciences,
>of course, we endeavor to tell stories that are true -- indeed, that is our
>entire business as historical scientists.  It is very easy however, to
>generate _plausible_ stories to account for almost any current state of
>affairs.

Cross-bearings on the same topic can be found in the later
publications of literary scholar Northrop Frye.  His early work
focussed on a taxonomy of literary genera.  Late in life Frye came to
the semi-Chomskian conclusion humans are predisposed to narration,
i.e. cannot refrain from making up stories.  He wrote in 1987 in
Criticism in Society, ed. Imre Salusinzsky (Methuen, 1987) p. 31.

	Ideology is always a secondary and derivative thing, and... the
	primary thing is a mythology.... People don't think up a set of
	assumptions or beliefs;  they think up a set of stories, and derive
	the assumptions and beliefs from the stories.

Another non-technical source is his book Fables of Identity.  The best
I know is an interview in a defunct Toronto literary monthly, The
Idler, March 1991.

--
 |          Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Rd., Carlsbad         |
 |        Springs, Ont., Canada K0A 1K0; tel: (613) 822-0734       |
 |  "What I've always liked about science is its independence from |
 |  authority"--Ontario Science Centre (name on file) 10 July 1981 |

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:105>From abrown@independent.co.uk  Fri May  6 12:02:46 1994

From: Andrew Brown <abrown@independent.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Language evolution
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 17:18:52 +0100 (BST)

> i might wonder whether all brits would pronounce forehead as "forrid",
> or if that only occurs in the "lower classes"?  Well educated brits have
> always sounded to me like they were saying "forhead", although I admit
> they often added an "r" sound here and there that did appear in print.
> Also was it that the schoolmarm felt unsure of herself or that she wanted
> her charges to feel they could walk into lunch with the queen and not feel
> like a hick?
> Bonn

Well, I am an educated Brit and I say "forrid". It took me until my
twenties to work out a connection between what I and my family said and
what we wrote: a bit like "hiccough" really.

But without that pronunciation, the rhyme wouldn't make sense:

There was a little girl
and she had a little curl
right in the middle of her forehead.
And when she was good
she was very very good
But when she was bad, she was *horrid*

Andrew Brown

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:106>From princeh@husc.harvard.edu  Fri May  6 12:31:45 1994

Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 12:32:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Patricia Princehouse <princeh@husc.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: cladistics & human evolution
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

On Thu, 5 May 1994 Bob O'Hara wrote:

> Phylogenetic approaches are now sweeping through
> ecology and behavior like wildfire, but (to prod my colleagues a bit) they
> don't seen to have made their way into discussions of human evolution very
> far yet.

	I find this a very puzzling statement. As an undergrad in Anthro
in the early '80's I had apomorphies & homoplasies & all other manner of
cladistic terminology running out my ears (and I wasn't at Harvard or Yale
then - I was at Wright State Univ in the middle of a cornfield in Ohio).
And it's only mushroomed since then. I can't think of anyone who doesn't
regard phylogeny as the primary interest of evolutionary anthropology
(although not everyone adopts cladistic classificatory practices as some
of us want to know that what we mean by hominid this week is what we meant
last week).

	Most problems lie in identifying character states and determining
polarities. That's where the disagreements come in. But cladistic methods
are widespread whether the data are morphological or genetic. One
especially thorny issue for both has to do with the differential fixation
of ancestral polymorphism (lineage sorting). This is a major issue in the
chimp-gorilla-human trichotomy debate (esp. with the genetic data*) And
also in the uni- vs multi-regional debate (esp. with morph features such
as shovel-shaped incisors, brow ridges, etc).

	For references, I would say pick up any copy of the _American
Journal of Physical Anthropology_ or the _Journal of Human Evolution_.

Patricia Princehouse
Princeh@husc.harvard.edu

*  ie. sequencing, RFLPs, etc --not DNA hybridization which is not
suitable for cladistic analysis, of course.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:107>From ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu  Fri May  6 13:17:22 1994

Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 14:19:52 -0400
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu (Jeremy Creighton Ahouse)
Subject: Clarence King - the answer Kingian evolution.

Well Darwin list folk,

        the Peirce list (which was suggested to me) quickly(!), via Andre
De Tienne, provided the enclosed description of Clarence King.  This really
does have some punctuated equilibrium feeling to it.  Will we see a future
SJGould article in Natural History discussing King vis a vis Punk Eek?  (Is
it a precedent if you didn't know about it?)

        - Jeremy

:::::::::::::::::::

>From the Peirce list:

Clarence King (1842-1901) was a famous American geologist who
was the first (appointed) head of the U.S. Geological Survey (1878-1881)
and who worked as a mining engineer after that.  He was an explorer
at heart, and part of his life was spent in different regions of
California (where he discovered Mt. Whitney, named after his friend and
colleague Josiah Whitney) and Arizona.

Clarence King was a member of the Century Club in New York from December
1874 until the end of his life.  Peirce belonged to the same club from 1877
up until 1894 or 1895 (when he was dropped from the club because he
could not afford to pay the $25 dues).  It is very likely that Peirce
and King met many times at the Century Club. King made himself a huge
reputation at the club, where he was noted as one of the most brilliant
and versatile conversationalists (as well as one of the wittiest) of
the time.

Peirce refers to King several times in his early 1890's writings.  In
a review of several essays by Herbert Spencer, he wrote:

"Another interesting part of [Spencer's] essay is where the author draws
attention to the strong evidence of an enormous direct effect upon
animal and vegetable forms due to the circumambient element. Such
considerations strengthen Mr. Clarence King's suggestion that
transmutations of species have chiefly been caused by geological changes
of almost cataclysmic magnitude and suddenness, affecting the chemical
constitution of the atmosphere and ocean."
[Contributions to The Nation, Part 1, 8 Oct. 1891, p. 113]

In a draft of "The Architecture of Theories", Peirce uses the phrase
"Kingian evolution" after mentioning the Darwinian and Lamarckian
(MS 956:2, Fall 1890).  He describes it on page 20 of the same manuscript:

"A third theory of evolution is that which I understand to be advocated
by Mr. Clarence King.  Understanding the evidence to be that species
are sensibly unchanged under ordinary circumstances, but are rapidly
altered at periods of rapid geological change, Mr. King, as I understand
it holds that under novel circumstances animals and plants often
undergo great changes during individual life, and also sport excessively
in reproduction, these variations being due partly to the enfeeblement
of the vitality, and partly to changed food, and partly to direct
specific influences of the element in which the organism lives.
Not only are the changes so produced very great, instead of being
almost insensible, as both Darwinians and Lamarckians suppose, but they
are furthermore neither haphazard on the one hand, nor yet determined
by an inward striving on the other, but on the contrary are effects of
the changed environment and are of a nature to adapt the organism to
that environment.  This is evolution by the breaking up of habits, and
by external forces." [MS 956: 20, fall 1890]

Andre De Tienne
Assistant Editor
Peirce Edition Project, IUPUI
ADETIENN@INDYCMS

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:108>From rh@dsd.camb.inmet.com  Fri May  6 15:00:29 1994

Date: Fri, 6 May 94 16:00:42 EDT
From: rh@dsd.camb.inmet.com (R. Hilliard)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Species/Linguistic Death

In Sally Thomason's very interesting reply to my remarks about the
role of the folk notion of "language" in linguistics, she says the
abstraction "possible human language" is confined to synchronic
theory, but not appropriate to "the messiness of real-life language"
found in diachronic theory.  She adds that "[v]ery few specialists in
synchronic linguistic theory concern themselves with the history of
language(s)".  While there has been a traditional distinction within
the field between synchronic and diachronic linguists, this seems to
be an artifact of the long descriptivist tendencies of the field only.
Once one moves toward an explanatory goal such as understanding
"possible human language" theorists can and do greedily devour all
manner of data about both sorts of phenomena (at least, this is the
case within the generative paradigm -- some of my best friends are
diachronic generativists :-).  I think the distinction is not one of
synchronic vs. diachronic focus but rather descriptive vs. explanatory
goals.  To the extent that historical linguistics seeks explanations
of things like language change, I suspect a certain degree of
idealisation and abstraction will be needed to get anywhere.  We could
debate whether the same abstractions that seem to play a role in
synchronics would be valuable in diachronics, but that's an empirical
matter.

But I reiterate my original point, and make clear I intend to include
historical linguistics: a formal definition of language has no role in
such studies.  One can certainly go around tabulating dialects and
languages, and that is valuable work, but it doesn't hinge on a formal
definition of "language" -- the folk notion will be just fine for
descriptive purposes.

If "language" did play such a role then I would expect there to be
generalisations, or laws, or facts that distinguish language from
dialect.  Can anyone name such?  Or are there cases where data about
dialects must be excluded in the formulation of some law about
languages?  What formal properties enable me to deduce that Mandarin
and Cantonese are dialects or that German and Dutch are languages?
These questions can be raised in a geo-political, social context that
needs to take into account revolutions, famines, invasions and
plagues, as well as other unforseeable accidents and forces of
history, but I fail to see how "language" would enter into such
narratives as a construct.  I would add that mutual
[un]intelligibility seems to be independent of the geo-political
demarcations of dialect/language.

I've never found the language :: species analogy compelling -- to me,
it seems more like we're talking about a single species (human
language) and its numerous adaptations (historical languages).

On idiolect: I listed it with dialect and language, because, of the
three, it seems closest to being a 'Thing in the World' that might be
ammenable to scientific study.  Although people don't use the term
anymore, it's closest to Chomsky's notion of I-language: a state of an
individual's language faculty that makes possible language use.

 -- Rich Hilliard
    rh@inmet.com

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:109>From coon@CVAX.IPFW.INDIANA.EDU  Fri May  6 15:08:11 1994

Date: Fri, 06 May 1994 15:09:17 EST
From: coon@CVAX.IPFW.INDIANA.EDU
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: RE: Inbreeding avoidance

Tom Schoeneman asked about human groups that allowed marriage between
first degree relatives.
I believe Chagnon had documented the practice among the Yanomamo in a
recent article.  Its been a while since I read it, but as I recall the
gist of it was that the Yanomamo will reclassify women as fictive kin
cross cousins when the latter are in 'short supply'.  Among those who
are so reclassified included sisters, aunts and mothers.
I checked our on-line library catalog in an effort to stir my memory
and I think the book this was in is the following;
Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior, E.A. Smith and B. Winterhalder,
eds.  1992.  ISBN 0202011836 and 0202011844.
Hope that helps ( and for that matter, thats the book I have in mind.)
************************************************
Roger (Brad) Coon            "Better to have one
COON@IPFWCVAX.BITNET          freedom too many,
COON@CVAX.IPFW.INDIANA.EDU    than to have one
                              too few."

Politically incorrect and proud of it.
Niquimictitoc inana Bambi.
************************************************

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:110>From rh@dsd.camb.inmet.com  Fri May  6 17:55:05 1994

Date: Fri, 6 May 94 18:55:29 EDT
From: rh@dsd.camb.inmet.com (R. Hilliard)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: re: Re: Species/Linguistic Death

> I'll start with Rich Hilliard's anology regarding the folk notion
> "the sun rises" playing no role in astronomy.  Sure, but I think we
> can make certian predictions about whether the sun will rise
> tomorrow without being an astronomer.  By the same token, I think we
> can make certian predictions about language without being a
> linguist.

I agree, we have intuitions in daily life and they're useful, but as
scientists, once we start to formulate explanatory theories of things,
we quickly throw those intuitions out -- so in astronomy the sun
doesn't "rise" and in linguistics, "language" is a useless notion.
Both are "ways are knowing" one isn't better than the other (although
folk knowledge seems much more useful to our existence) they're just
different.

 -- Rich

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:111>From chan@lake.scar.utoronto.ca  Sat May  7 00:07:02 1994

From: Leslie Chan <chan@lake.scar.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: cladistics & human evolution
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 01:07:22 -0400 (EDT)

Patricia Princehouse (6 May 1994) seems to take exception to Bob
O'Hara's statement that:

> Phylogenetic approaches are now sweeping through ecology and
> behaviour like wildfire, but (to prod my colleagues a bit) they don't
> seem to have made their way into discussions of human evolution
> very far yet. (5 May, 1994)

The statement may not be as puzzling given the context in which it was
given.  While I do not disagree with Patricia's observation that
phylogeny has become "the primary interest of evolutionary
anthropology," phylogenetic methods have been applied almost exclusively
to "morphological or genetic" data as far as humans are concerned.
There are few studies that explicitly address the evolution of human
behaviour in a phylogenetic framework, with the exception of Bob Foley's
works cited below.   There is an abundance of "just so stories" about
how this or that "features" evolved in the course of human evolution
(e.g. permanent breast enlargement, lost of estrus, reduced canine, not
to mention increased brain size), yet few, if any, studies that
interpret  behavioural characteristics  (e.g. pair-bonding, parental
care, sexual behaviour, foraging, and yeah intelligence) in a
comparative framework based on cladistic principles. So there are many
adaptive scenarios of why certain human behaivour evolved, but often no
"evolutionary chronicle," of how a feature came to be in the first
place. "Tree thinking" really hasn't make it very far in discussions of
human evolution.

Foley, R.   1989.   The evolution of hominid social behaviour. In
_Comparative socioecology: the behavioural ecology of humans and other
mammals_. Oxford; Boston: Blackwell Scientific Publications. pp.
473-494.

Foley, R. & P.C. Lee.   1989.   Finite social space, evolutionary
pathways, and reconstructing hominid behaviour.  _Science_, 243:901-906.

Leslie Chan
chan@macpost.scar.utoronto.ca

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:112>From ROGRADY@delphi.com  Sat May  7 13:04:45 1994

Date: Sat, 07 May 1994 14:05:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Richard O'Grady, 301/891-1244" <ROGRADY@delphi.com>
Subject: Parallel universes/time lines
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

I was in the midst of making a remark to someone about parallel universes
(having to do, I think, with an episode of Star Trek: TNG), when I began
to wonder just when it was (in this universe, at least) that the concept
of parallel universes and time lines developed.  Toulmin, for example, in
DISCOVERY OF TIME, discusses four concepts of time: Big-Bang, Steady-State,
Cyclical, and Linear.  Scala Naturae concepts can be worked in to any of
these four.  I'm not aware of any scientific, cultural, or religious
world-views of any substantial age that incorporate the idea of parallelism.

Thanks for your comments on this.

- Richard O'Grady
  Research Associate
  National Museum of Natural History
  Smithsonian Institution

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:113>From CSM@macc.wisc.edu  Sat May  7 14:16:13 1994

Date: Sat, 07 May 94 14:15 CDT
From: Craig McConnell <CSM@macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Parallel universes/time lines
To: DARWIN-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Richard O'Grady recently asked for "scientific, cultural, or religious
world-views" that incorporate the ideas of parallelism.

The Greek Stoics come to mind--they believed in a cycle of expansion and
contraction.  Their science was based on this view (and this view was based on
their science, of course), and it informed their cultural and religious
world-view.  Knowing that you are in the midst of an unalterable cycle implores
you to become aware of your place in the cycle (a reason for studying nature)
and be content (you cannot change the sequence of events).

It strikes me as ironic that this cyclical concept results in multiple
universes (only one of which is in eistence at a time) that are absolutely
parallel (each cycle is a perfect reproduction of all that came before it),
whereas the "parallel universes" of Wheeler et.al. are NOT exactly
parallel--each universe is different from every other by one quantum event.
(You'll recall that in the Star Trek: TNG episode, every time Wharf "blipped"
from one universe to another, it was slightly different from the universe he
just left).

For the Stoics, each iteration of the cosmic cycle is parallel event-by-event
to preceding cycles.  For Wheeler, an infinite number of unique universes are
evolving parallel to each other only in time.

(For scientific, cultural, religious world-views of this sort of parallelism, I
think you'll find examples only in the science fiction of Wheeler fans).

--Craig

Craig S. McConnell, (608) 238-1352
Internet:  csm@macc.wisc.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:114>From SHANKSN@ETSUSERV.EAST-TENN-ST.EDU  Sat May  7 14:47:47 1994

From: <SHANKSN@ETSUSERV.EAST-TENN-ST.EDU>
Organization:  East Tennessee State University
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 15:45:52 GMT-5

The idea of parallel universes plays a role in some versions of the
"many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics.  This can be
illustrated in the context of the paradox of Schroedinger's Cat.
Quantum mechanics allows, in addition to the states "Live cat" and
"Dead cat", further states such as "Live cat + Dead cat".  Orthodox
quantum mechanics countenances the idea that in the latter state, the
cat is neither alive nor dead -- surely a paradoxical biological
state.  The idea behind the many-worlds interpretation of quantum
mechanics is that when the peculiar state describes the cat, the
universe splits in two, one universe containing a live cat and
another containing a dead cat.

While the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics seems to me
to involve such a whopping dollop of Ockham's hair restorer as to be
absurd, it has many adherents -- especially among quantum
cosmologists.  For more information, you might check out "The Quantum
Physics of Time Travel" Scientific American, March 1994 (I'm afraid I
cannot recommend the authors conclusion that quantum mechanics
validates the possibility of time travel -- but then, one man's modus
ponens is another man's modus tollens!)

Cheers,
Niall Shanks

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:115>From princeh@husc.harvard.edu  Sat May  7 15:47:48 1994

Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 16:14:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Patricia Princehouse <princeh@husc.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: cladistics & human evolution
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

On Sat, 7 May 1994, Leslie Chan wrote:

> [Bob O'Hara's] statement may not be as puzzling given the context in
>which it was given.

Yes, I missed the implication that behavioral & ecological data should be
used to reconstruct phylogeny. It seems to me that behavior and ecology
are more subject to homoplasy than morphology and genetics (granted, this
is a bias). If someone were to claim behavioral or ecological
synapomorphies in an attempt to resolve the Human-African ape trichotomy,
I wouldn't dismiss the idea out of hand (by private e-mail the suggestions
have been made to me of Gorilla-Mormon polygyny synapomorphy and
Gibbon-New Yorker synapomorphy of living high above the ground (-perhaps
Wood-Jones was right after all)). However, it seems that as with genetic
and morphological data, the problems would lie in agreeing on what
constitutes a character and how to determine polarity with only 5 kinds of
living hominoids.

It seems that social system is the sort of character likely to be used.
Thelma Rowell's article "Reification of Social Systems" in the current
issue of _Evolutionary Anthropology_ only reinforces my feeling that
character definition is a very slippery thing in behavior/ecology.

To quote:

"It seems to me that the assumption that there is indeed a mating system
has, for a long time, distracted observers from a range of enterprising
social maneuvers among primates. If there is an emergent property of
mating patterns, it is, perhaps, merely a range of variation in
individual lifetime reproductive success."

Later:

"I suggest that the reification of social systems leads us to improbable
evolutionary scenarios ... I thought I had spent a lifetime studying
social systems. Now...I rather doubt they exist at all."

Perhaps the "enterprising social maneuvers" are what should be used. But
they are still characteristics of social interaction, not of discrete
individuals.

Patricia Princehouse
Princeh@harvard.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:116>From gessler@anthro.sscnet.ucla.edu  Sat May  7 19:50:06 1994

From: "Gessler, Nicholas (G)   ANTHRO" <gessler@anthro.sscnet.ucla.edu>
To: DARWIN - postings <DARWIN-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: "Emergence" in Cultural Evolution?
Date: Sat, 07 May 94 17:43:00 PDT

I'm forwarding the quotes below to open a new strand of "emergence" in the
thread which I've excerpted below.  My own work is deeply concerned with the
paradigm of "emergence," and the extent to which it may apply to human
cultural systems.  "Emergence" in this sense is a non-random pattern seen at
a high level of a system (i.e. an aggregate cultural pattern), which comes
into being solely through the interaction of components operating under only
local rules of behavior (i.e. individuals who don't have that pattern in
mind) at a lower level of that system (i.e. a population of individuals).
The operational mantra is, "from local rules to global patterning."  Using
"emergence" in this sense gives primacy to processes that are not under the
conscious control of the individual, even though the overall "pattern" may be
sensed and recognized by that individual.  Although this recognition may be
"after the fact" and may reflexively reinforce itself, that "pattern" is
primarily determined from the bottom-up.  Since the "social systems" thread
arose, I wonder to what extent readers believe that "emergence"
might be responsible for symbolic kinship systems, and behaviors such as
marraige and exchange patterns in which they find expression?

Nick Gessler
"Get A-Life!"  ;)
gessler@alife.santafe.edu

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Patricia Princehouse <princeh@husc.harvard.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: Re: cladistics & human evolution

(lead-in discussion deleted...)

Thelma Rowell's article "Reification of Social Systems" in the current
issue of _Evolutionary Anthropology_ only reinforces my feeling that
(social system) definition is a very slippery thing in behavior/ecology.

To quote:

"It seems to me that the assumption that there is indeed a mating system
has, for a long time, distracted observers from a range of enterprising
social maneuvers among primates. If there is an emergent property of
mating patterns, it is, perhaps, merely a range of variation in
individual lifetime reproductive success."

Later:

"I suggest that the reification of social systems leads us to improbable
evolutionary scenarios ... I thought I had spent a lifetime studying
social systems. Now...I rather doubt they exist at all."

Perhaps the "enterprising social maneuvers" are what should be used. But
they are still characteristics of social interaction, not of discrete
individuals.

Patricia Princehouse
Princeh@harvard.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:117>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Sat May  7 21:26:14 1994

Date: Sat, 07 May 1994 22:26:31 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Clarence King, C. S. Peirce, and pragmatism
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Clarence King, about whom Jeremy Ahouse inquired, was at one time a student
of Louis Agassiz at Harvard I believe, as was Charles Sanders Peirce.
(Peirce's father Benjamin, a mathematician, was one of Agassiz's close
friends.)  Agassiz was an anti-evolutionary catastrophist, who believed that
the fauna and flora of each geologic period was catastrophically (divinely)
wiped out and then replaced by a new fauna and flora during the next
geological period.  King's views, from what I've read of them here, sound
like a sort of evolutionary catastrophism, perhaps his own modification of
Agassiz's non-evolutionary catastrophism.  There were other people at the
time who thought the evolutionary transition between species was abrupt; St.
George Jackson Mivart was one, as I recall.  King and perhaps others with
similar views were trying to modify Darwin's original evolutionary
mechanisms so as to fit the history of life into the new shorter geologic
timescale that was being proposed by Kelvin (who turned out to be wrong in
the end, of course).  King's views on the influence of the environment on
variation don't strike me as all that odd for the time, but I'm certainly
not an expert.  If you look at Darwin's discussion of the causes of
variation in the _Origin_ you will find the view that changes in the
environment induce organismal variation directly by acting on the
reproductive system.

Both catastrophism and uniformitarianism (or gradualism or actualism;
I'm not worrying about semantic details at the moment) were concepts that
were applied to the history of languages as well as the history of the
earth in the 19th century.  See the pioneering collection of papers:

  Naumann, Bernd, et al., eds.  1992.  _Language and Earth: Elective
  Affinities Between the Emerging Sciences of Linguistics and Geology_.
  Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

"Catastrophism" and "uniformitarianism" were both coined by one of
Darwin-L's patrons, William Whewell, whose 200th anniversary is coming
up later this month.  (More on that very shortly; keep May 24th open on
your calendar.)

It is also interesting to note that C. S. Peirce, along with William James,
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and several others, founded of the American
school of philosophy known as pragmatism, of which John Dewey was a noted
later exponent.  The whole pragmatist school as it grew in the late 1800s
was perfused with evolutionism of one sort or another, and contrasts
interestingly with much of the philosophy of science of the early to
mid-20th century which grew out of physics and mathematics.  One of the
pragmatists' mentors was a minor figure named Chauncey Wright, who had
gotten his early evolutionism from Robert Chambers' _Vestiges of the Natural
History of Creation_ (1844), and who later became a staunch Darwinian and
defender of natural selection when others were looking for alternative
evolutionary mechanisms.  (Wright was highly critical of Mivart's
anti-selectionism, for example.)  Wright considered the idea of natural
selection to be generalizable to other fields, and claimed that an
individual person's mental development was the result of the variation and
selection of ideas, thereby prefiguring the field today that's usually
called "evolutionary epistemology".  For an excellent account of the role
of evolution in late 19th-century philosophy see:

  Wiener, Philip P.  1949.  _Evolution and the Founders of Pragmatism_.
  Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

For more background on Agassiz and his time see the very fine recent book
by Darwin-L member Polly Winsor:

  Winsor, Mary P.  1991.  _Reading the Shape of Nature: Comparative Zoology
  at the Agassiz Museum_.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

On Kelvin's young earth see:

  Burchfield, Joe D.  1990.  _Lord Kelvin and the Age of the Earth_.
  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner

Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology
100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:118>From ad201@freenet.carleton.ca  Sun May  8 07:10:07 1994

Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 08:10:37 -0400
From: ad201@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Donald Phillipson)
To: Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Parallel universes

>Richard O'Grady recently asked for "scientific, cultural, or religious
>world-views" that incorporate the ideas of parallel universes.

>(For scientific, cultural, religious world-views of this sort of
>parallelism, I
>think you'll find examples only in the science fiction of Wheeler fans).

There was a vogue for this in Britain in the 1920s, focussed on London
where Faber (ed. T.S. Eliot) published aviator J. W. Dunne's
"Experiment in the Theory of Time" and (I think) philosopher Samuel
Alexander's "Space, Time and Deity" (1927).  It's 30 years since I
looked into this, but it then seemed literary fantasy rather than
speculative physics. -- So the affinity with Star Trek scripts may be
no less close!  Toulmin was no doubt familiar with this literature:
can't verify today that he thought it trivial too.

--
 |          Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Rd., Carlsbad         |
 |        Springs, Ont., Canada K0A 1K0; tel: (613) 822-0734       |
 |  "What I've always liked about science is its independence from |
 |  authority"--Ontario Science Centre (name on file) 10 July 1981 |

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:119>From jcassidy@hawk.anselm.edu  Sun May  8 07:24:58 1994

Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 08:23:39 -0400
From: Fr. James Cassidy O.S.B. <jcassidy@hawk.anselm.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Clarence King at Harvard?

Bob,
	Are you sure about Clarence King having been a student of Agassiz
at Harvard?  So far as I've ever read, King was a student at Yale--at the
Scientific School--and then went straight from there to the California
Geological Survey for three or four years before managing to set up his own
survey of the 40th Parallel--also known as the King Survey.  After that, he
was appointed the first director of the USGS in 1879.  I have never before
heard of his being a student of Agassiz or at Harvard.  Can you give me any
references on that?

	Jim Cassidy, Saint Anselm College
	jcassidy@hawk.anselm.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:120>From princeh@husc.harvard.edu  Sun May  8 10:04:55 1994

Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 10:59:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Patricia Princehouse <princeh@husc.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: phylogeny
To: gen Darwin-L <darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>

On Sat, 7 May 1994, Jon Marks wrote:

> Wood-Jones was for tarsiers.  As far as I know, nobody has ever proposed
> gibbon-human, though obviously bipedal locomotion on the ground is a good
> synapomorphy there.

Thanks Jon, of course he was. I don't know what I was thinking. Weren't
Dubois' fossils referred to as a giant gibbon at some point (by him or
someone else)?

Patricia Princehouse
Princeh@harvard.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:121>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Sun May  8 12:25:52 1994

Date: Sun, 08 May 1994 13:26:09 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Clarence King and Louis Agassiz
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Jim Cassidy asks for more information about Clarence King as a student
of Louis Agassiz.  I'm afraid all I know is what little appears in the
sketch of King in the _Dictionary of Scientific Biography_:

  Clarence King took the intensive chemistry course, which included
  James Dwight Dana's geology lectures, at Yale's Sheffield Scientific
  School from September 1860 to July 1862, when he graduated with a
  bachelor of philosophy degree.  Between graduation and April 1863,
  King read further in geology and audited Louis Agassiz's lectures on
  glaciers.

I assumed that the aforesaid auditing took place at Harvard, but I don't
know that for a fact.  Glaciation was for Agassiz ("father of the Ice Age")
a catastrophic agent responsible for the destruction of whole faunas and
floras.  (I say that as a non-specialist in Agassiz; others here could
provide much better explanations of his views, I'm sure.)

There is a delightful small book called _Louis Agassiz as a Teacher_,
compiled by Lane Cooper (Ithaca, 1945), which will charm anyone interested
in teaching natural history.  It contains many recollections from Agassiz's
students, including the famous story of Agassiz and the Fish, later
appropriated by Ezra Pound in his _ABC of Reading_.  Cooper gives several
lists of Agassiz students as I recall, but I don't know how complete or
authoritative they are.  I don't have the book at hand or I would check to
see if King is included.

Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner

Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology
100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:122>From junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu  Sun May  8 12:50:22 1994

Date: Sun, 08 May 94 12:47:06 EDT
From: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: "Emergence" in Cultural Evolution?

In message <2DCC3610@courier.sscnet.ucla.edu> Nick Gessler writes:

>I'm forwarding the quotes below to open a new strand of "emergence" in the
>thread which I've excerpted below.  My own work is deeply concerned with the
>paradigm of "emergence," and the extent to which it may apply to human
>cultural systems.  "Emergence" in this sense is a non-random pattern seen at
>a high level of a system (i.e. an aggregate cultural pattern), which comes
>into being solely through the interaction of components operating under only
>local rules of behavior (i.e. individuals who don't have that pattern in
>mind) at a lower level of that system (i.e. a population of individuals).
>The operational mantra is, "from local rules to global patterning."  Using
>"emergence" in this sense gives primacy to processes that are not under the
>conscious control of the individual, even though the overall "pattern" may be
>sensed and recognized by that individual.  Although this recognition may be
>"after the fact" and may reflexively reinforce itself, that "pattern" is
>primarily determined from the bottom-up.  Since the "social systems" thread
>arose, I wonder to what extent readers believe that "emergence"
>might be responsible for symbolic kinship systems, and behaviors such as
>marraige and exchange patterns in which they find expression?

[The quotations are omitted]

I am pretty well convinced that this type of emergence is responsible for
the evolution (and appearance) of legal systems, and particularly of the
common law forms of action.  Even in the case of statutory law, the
larger consequences, if any, of the enactments are seldom intended or
even contemplated by their draftsmen or the legislature.

But that last statement would be difficult to prove empirically, if only
because--as was suggested in the omitted quotations--there may well be
nothing that corresponds to a legal "system" at all, but rather only a
congeries of practices that can be found in some societies--those within
the traditions of Roman law and western feudalism--and not in others,
except to the extent that they have imitated (and naturalized) Western
practices.

As to the last point, why do we consider that the "law" of descent and
distribution of a decedent's estate is part of the same "system" as the
law relating to murder?  And why should we expect anything that can be
conceived of as the "same" system to appear in China and Borneo?

Peter D. Junger

Case Western Reserve University Law School, Cleveland, OH
Internet:  JUNGER@SAMSARA.LAW.CWRU.Edu -- Bitnet:  JUNGER@CWRU

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:123>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Sun May  8 15:52:42 1994

Date: Sun, 08 May 1994 16:53:00 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: MSc in early hominid studies at Liverpool (fwd from Dr. Chris Wood,
         boisei@liverpool.ac.uk)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

***********************************************************************

Postgraduate studies at
THE UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL

HUMAN EVOLUTION IN CONTEXT

MSc in EARLY HOMINID STUDIES

This course provides a broad-based theoretical and practical understanding
of human origins, within the context of climatic change and the evolution
of life over the past several millions of years. Offered jointly by the
Department of Archaeology of the School of Archaeology, Classics and Oriental
Studies (SACOS) and the Hominid Palaeontology Research Group (HPRG) of the
Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, it is unique in the degree
of integration of evolutionary, behavioural and ecological aspects
of human evolution, and is taught by a team of eight internationally
recognised specialists.

*    Dr Robin Crompton (HPRG): primate ecology, behaviour and evolution
*    Dr John Gowlett (SACOS): Palaeolithic archaeology, site contexts
     and early human mental abilities
*    Dr Michael Gunther (HPRG): functional morphology and biomechanics
*    Dr Alf Latham (SACOS): geochronology and geoarchaeology
*    Dr Gabriele Macho (HPRG): early hominid evolution, gnathic and
     dental evolution, function and development
*    Dr. John Shaw (SACOS/Earth Sciences): palaeomagnetism
*    Dr Alan Turner (HPRG): palaeoecology, archaeozoology, vertebrate
     palaeontology and evolutionary theory
*    Professor Bernard Wood (HPRG): early hominid evolution and anatomy

The intensive, one year programme is flexible. It will be attractive to
students committed to a graduate programme in palaeoanthropology/primatology
who wish to widen their experience and develop their expertise prior to
entering graduate school. It can also be tailored to meet the needs of
students with a wide variety of Science and Arts backgrounds. It will
provide recent graduates, or more mature students seeking retraining,
with a solid background of knowledge and transferable skills.
It is a time-efficient, ideal qualification for future teaching at the
Community College and University levels, across the whole range of
palaeoanthropology, and for teachers of human biology at secondary and
tertiary levels.

The student will benefit from an unique range of facilities for:

*   field training in the UK, continental Europe and Africa in excavation
    skills and studies of living primates;
*   laboratory studies using state-of-the-art equipment for 3-D measurement;
*   computer modelling;
*   uranium series and magnetic dating;
*   kiniesiology and biomechanics;
*   access to computerized databases for hominid fossils and sites;
*   an extensive cast collection;
*   scanning electron microscopy;
*   a host of other local research facilities, including the UK's largest zoo,
    museum collections, and anatomy laboratories.

Programme

Formal coursework takes the form of seminars, tutorials and lectures,
but the emphasis throughout is on hands-on experience. All students share
a common core of essential knowledge, in two prescribed courses:
*   Early Hominid Sites and Behaviour
*   Hominid Palaeontology

The remaining course units are chosen from two streams, one concentrating
on studies of the hard evidence, where proffered courses include:
*   Quantitative methods in Palaeoanthropology
*   Site formation processes and taphonomy
*   Chronological studies

and one representing approaches from comparative behaviour and community
ecology, where courses include:
*   Primate and hominid palaeobiology
*   Plio-Pleistocene ecosystems
*   Archaeozoology

The final element of studies is a field- or laboratory-based research
project, submitted in the form of a dissertation and oral presentation.

***************************************************************************

Further details can be obtained from:

Dr. Gabriele Macho
Hominid Palaeontology Research Group,
Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology,
The University of Liverpool,
P.O. Box 147,
Liverpool L69 3BX, United Kingdom.

Email: gama1@liverpool.ac.uk
Tel: +44 51 794 5466   Fax: +44 51 794 5517

or:

The Postgraduate Admissions Tutor,
School of Archaeology, Classics and Oriental Studies,
The University of Liverpool,
P.O. Box 147,
Liverpool L69 3BX, United Kingdom.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:124>From TREMONT%UCSFVM.BITNET@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU  Sun May  8 17:07:20 1994

Date: Sun, 08 May 1994 15:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Elihu M. Gerson" <TREMONT%UCSFVM.BITNET@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Clarence King and Louis Agassiz
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

There's a pretty good biography of Clarence  King: Thurman Wilkins,
_Clarence King: A Biography_  Revised & enlarged edition published
at Alburquerque by the University of New Mexico Press in 1988 (also
in paper); the first edition was published in NY by Macmillan in 1958.

Wilkins doesn't say anything about King studying with Louis Agassiz. Louis'
son Alexander (a mining engineer, as King often was) sometimes supported,
sometimes opposed King's plans and career moves.

Elihu M. Gerson
Tremont Research Institute
458 29 Street
San Francisco, CA 94131
415-285-7837  tremont@ucsfvm.ucsf.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:125>From ROGRADY@delphi.com  Sun May  8 17:07:32 1994

Date: Sun, 08 May 1994 18:07:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Richard O'Grady, 301/891-1244" <ROGRADY@delphi.com>
Subject: Re: Parallel universes/time lines
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Thanks for the comments so far on my initial question.  Contrasted with the
Greek Stoic's cyclical time, in which "parallel" universes *follow* each
other, my query has to do with similar, but not identical, universes each
following their time lines in true parallel: viz, at the same time, but in
different, well, universes.

Given that Toulmin traces the concepts of big-bang, steady-state, cyclical,
and linear time back to classical antiquity, what can be said about parallel
time (as I have just defined it above)?  Star Trek and quantum theory aside,
is it a strictly 20th Century concept, or does it have antecedents in earlier
centuries?

- Richard O'Grady
  NMNH, Smithsonian

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:126>From mwinsor@epas.utoronto.ca  Sun May  8 18:14:45 1994

From: mwinsor@epas.utoronto.ca (Mary P Winsor)
Subject: L. Agassiz's students
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu (bulletin board)
Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 19:14:18 -0400 (EDT)

I feel guilty for not including an appendix to my book Reading the
Shape of Nature (Chicago U.P. 1991) on the students of Louis Agassiz.
If I had, you could have looked up Clarence King.  I made a feeble
start at collecting the material, and there is no question a
well-researched list would be a useful tool for a variety of people.
But I just didn't have time to do all the research such a list would
require: lots.  Anyone know someone who will take it on?  Meanwhile, be
warned: Agassiz rose to such fame and glory (only a very few people
counted his opposition to evolution a demerit) that for the rest of the
19th century, anyone with any relation to him told and retold the story
of that connection, and their obituaries uncritically repeat it.  Thus
we ought to notice whether we have first-hand evidence or just hearsay.
For example, I know that William James accompanied Agassiz to Brazil
as collecting assistant, but whether he took a course from him, I
don't know.  What I do suggest in my book was how patchy Agassiz's
teaching was.  Certainly we want to make distinctions between people
who did a degree under his supervision and people who attended a
public lecture, or simply read the "Essay on Classification" and
admired his ideas.
Polly Winsor
mwinsor@epas.utoronto.ca

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:127>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Mon May  9 00:22:13 1994

Date: Mon, 09 May 1994 01:22:29 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: May 9 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

MAY 9 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1892: WALTER ZIMMERMANN is born at Walldurn, Germany.  Following study at the
Karlsruhe Technical University and at Berlin and Freiburg, as well as military
service in the First World War, Zimmermann will be made a lecturer in botany
at the University of Tubingen, and will remain at Tubingen for the rest of his
career.  Zimmermann will publish many works on plant physiology and algology,
but he will be best remembered for his work in phylogeny and phylogenetic
theory.  His comprehensive _Die Phylogenie der Pflanzen_ will appear in 1930,
and his lengthy theoretical paper "Arbeitsweise der botanischen Phylogenetik"
(1931) will influence the later writings of Willi Hennig, and through Hennig,
much of modern systematics: "The task of historical phylogenetics is to find
out 'how it was.'  This task would be completely solved if we could...erect a
gigantic phylogenetic tree of genealogical affinities for all organisms which
ever existed and enter all transformations by which descendants are
distinguished from their ancestors."

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
network discussion group for professionals in the historical sciences.  For
more information about Darwin-L send the two-word message INFO DARWIN-L to
listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu, or gopher to rjohara.uncg.edu (152.13.44.19).

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:128>From sarich@qal.berkeley.edu  Mon May  9 07:34:40 1994

From: Prof Vince Sarich <sarich@qal.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 05:28:38 -0700
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: behavioral creationism

The June 1993 issue of Scientific American had an article by John Horgan
(one of their staff writers) entitled Eugenics Revisited (and teased on the
cover as the Dubious Link between Genes and Behavior). It inspired a
lengthy (2500 words) response from me. I have the feeling that putting it
on Darwin-L would produce a real meltdown -- and it's really too long in
any case -- but I would be happy to e-mail it to anyone who might be
interested in my thoughts as to why it is of supreme importance to take
an evolutionary perspective on human behavior, and what the proven dangers
of not doing so might be.

At the possible expense of annoying some of you, I include a bit from my
response:

Horgan manages to avoid using the dreaded "e-word", and no reader could
learn from his article that we have an evolutionary, non-human past. Put
that past out-of-sight and hope that it remains out-of-mind. Join forces
with the Institute for Creation Research and take us back to that idyllic
pre-1859 existence when we stood alone and unconnected to the rest of
God's creation.  My students will greatly appreciate so concise a collection
of muddled, misleading nonsense in their eternal quest to inform and
improve themselves through the mistakes of their elders.  It reminds me
of perhaps the all-time winner in this genre:

<As far as I am aware, there is as yet no evidence that male/female
differences in sexual activity have a biological rather than cultural
basis.> (Doug Futuyma)

and echoes the statement of Barry Schwartz:

<But it is just as imporatnt to understand that the modern world is this way
because we, not God or Darwin, have made it this way.>

In these visions, and they are the ones dominant today in what pass for our
academic and intellectual communities, the creator is neither a god nor
gods, nor the evolutionary process (here code-worded Darwin), but, with
the ultimate in hubris, us.  In it human nature is seen as being created anew
in every human society and culture -- through writing on the blank slate
that is, for them, every child, the rules for that society and culture. In
other words, deep down we are all the same blanks, and we become a collection
of written-upon, ideally interchangeable slates, with the differences as do
develop among us created by our imperfect societies in not inscribing the
correct messages. Sidney Webb caught the spirit perfectly when he wrote:

<The perfect and fitting development of each individual is not necessarily
the utmost and highest cultivation of his own personality, but the filling,
in the best possible way, of his humble function in the great social
machine.>

And most of us need no lessons in where that kind of thinking leads.
Horgan includes the obligatory connection of eugenics (incorporating the
dubious link between genes and behavior) and the Nazis, but why do we hear
nothing of what might be termed "eumemics"?  After all, Stalin and Mao,
in the name of "eumemics", each systematically murdered far more human
beings than Hitler did. Human beings can do nasty things to one another
appealing to most any ideology, but surely the entirety of human
evolutionary history tells us that knowledge is preferable to ignorance.
Whether or not some of us might believe otherwise, natural selection
could not.  We may get it wrong sometimes; and we may even get it right,
yet misapply our knowledge; but it is going to be very difficult to
sustain the argument which says that we are better off not knowing. How
can we be better off not knowing? How can you do something with nothing?
And ignorance, by definition, is nothing.

......................

I shall return presently to Linda Wolfe's comments about incest, and just
note here the fact of a current witch hunt mentality in this country --
differing from past witch hunts in the fact that most of the witches are
males. One of my students works at something called the Jubilee West
Youth Activities Program, whose prospectus for volunteers says, among
other things in its What JWYP Will Expect section:

<Male staff/volunteers are not to allow any female children to sit on
their laps.>

--scratch the W&

Which is followed by the sentence:

<The youth staff/volunteers are expected to be a positive role model and
grow professionally and personally.>

Another true tale in this realm has to do with a friend of mine who works
at home and has two sons.  He told me once that since this current witch
hunt climate began he has had a firm rule that his sons' friends cannot
play there when only he and the sons are present. This has gotten to be
one sick society, hasn't it, when you have to see his behavior as prudent??

That, I suppose, is more than enough for now.

Vincent Sarich

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:129>From junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu  Mon May  9 08:25:14 1994

Date: Mon, 09 May 94 08:23:30 EDT
From: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Parallel universes/time lines

In message <01HC3T3OMR3C90O5AM@delphi.com> you write:

>Thanks for the comments so far on my initial question.  Contrasted with the
>Greek Stoic's cyclical time, in which "parallel" universes *follow* each
>other, my query has to do with similar, but not identical, universes each
>following their time lines in true parallel: viz, at the same time, but in
>different, well, universes.

What earthly meaning can "at the same time" have in two different universes?

Peter D. Junger

Case Western Reserve University Law School, Cleveland, OH
Internet:  JUNGER@SAMSARA.LAW.CWRU.Edu -- Bitnet:  JUNGER@CWRU

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:130>From LKNYHART@macc.wisc.edu  Mon May  9 08:49:13 1994

Date: Mon, 09 May 94 08:48 CDT
From: Lynn K. Nyhart <LKNYHART@macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: eumemics, history of historical sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Two questions:  In reply to Vincent Sarich's recent message on the need to take
evolution into account when discussing behavior:  What is this term eumemics?
Did you just make it up, and if so, why?  Does anyone else use it?  Is there
some etymological trick I missed?  Am very curious. {that's the first
question}.

Second question, preceded by a comment.  I've been reading Darwin-L for about 3
weeks now, and have been very impressed by the variety (and quantity!) of
discussion, as well as the occasional true interdisciplinary moments.  This
semester I've revamped my History of Modern Science survey course ("modern" in
the history of science's sense of "since Newton") sos that the middle unit,
covering ca. 1780-1880, focuses on the emergence of the historical sciences. We
used Toulmin and Goodfield's Discovery of Time, along with numerous primary
sources and a few supplementary secondary sources.  I found it quite difficult
to work with T∧G's book because so much has changed in the last 30 years of
historiography, although I liked the issues they dealt with.  So here's the
question:  is there anyone out there who is working on a history of the
historical sciences--preferably a survey-type text that would be useable in an
introductory course?  Or should I start thinking about writing one myself
(something I contemplate with trepidation)?

Lynn Nyhart
History of Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison
lknyhart@macc.wisc.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:131>From sturkel@cosy.nyit.edu  Mon May  9 09:13:15 1994

Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 10:10:58 -0400
From: sturkel@cosy.nyit.edu
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: phylogeny

Didn't Arthur Keith propose Gibbon or gibbon like ancestor?

spencer turkel
sturkel@cosy.nyit.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:132>From ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu  Mon May  9 09:43:05 1994

Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 10:45:39 -0400
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu (Jeremy Creighton Ahouse)
Subject: Hx of Cladistics in Plant Systematics?

        Last week (thanks to interlibrary loan) _Trees of Life_ arrived.
This weekend I read with great interest Robin Craw's essay on the many
sources and places of cladistic reasoning.  I was struck by the absence of
plant sytematics in this story.  The entomologists seem to have done most
of the work (though Craw does mention Walter Zimmerman a paleobotanist).
Is this really the case?  And if it is, do any of you have suggestions as
to why this discipline should be the source of these ideas.  (This may
relate to the ongoing discussion of the (relatively) late arrival of these
ideas in anthropology.)  One might suggest that the desire to place species
in the correct place on the _scala naturae_ was stronger for
anthropologists (since people obviously (!?) topped the list.  This might
make seeing the relevance of monophyletic groupings (and thus namings) more
difficult.  In this way I can rationalize how the entomologists view is
clearer.  But the botanists should have had the same benefit (i.e. distance
from Homo).
        So are there any studies of the emergence of cladistics in botany
or discussions of the residue that its emergence in entomology might have
left?

        Thanks,

        Jeremy

reference:
       Craw, Robin.  "Margins of Cladistics: Identity, difference, and
place in the emergence of phylogenetic systematics, 1864-1975." in _Trees
of life : essays in philosophy of biology_, edited by Paul Griffiths,
Dordrecht ; Boston : Kluwer Academic Publishers, c1992. (276 p. : ill. ; 23
cm.)  Australasian studies in history and philosophy of science ; v. 11
(QH371.T72 1992)

____________________________________________________________________
Jeremy Creighton Ahouse (ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu)
Biology Dept.
Brandeis University
Waltham, MA 02254-9110
(617) 736-4954

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:133>From phlkcs@gsusgi2.gsu.edu  Mon May  9 11:56:19 1994

Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 12:42:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Kelly C. Smith" <phlkcs@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Evolution of bodies but not minds
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

On Thu, 5 May 1994 ANWOLFE@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU wrote:

>   To Kelly Smith.  Frank Livingstone did a series of articles probably
> in the 1960's on inbreeding.  It also seems to me that if there was
> an incest avoidance "gene" in humans that there would not be all of
> father-daughter incest that there is in the US and we would not be
> having this discussion.  However, incest is common in the US which
> to me is evidence against the notion that there is in humans a genetic
> bases for incest avoidance.  Finally, I have always heard that Darwin was a
> product of a cousin marriage.  Linda Wolfe

To Linda Wolfe.  One should be careful not to confuse the possible
existence of inbreeding avoidance bahaviors (whether genetically based or
not) with DETERMINATION of behavior.  The fact that there is incest in
the US is not necessarily evidence against an "inbreeding avoidance
gene", though if it could be shown that incest was as common or more
common than, say, rape of unrelated individuals that would be
suggestive.  Similarly, the generality of inbreeding depression should
not be taken as evidence that ALL inbred individuals are morons.  There
is certainly a "gene for" (more appropriately, a genetic basis of) many
diseases such as hypercholesterolemia, but this doesn't mean that
everyone with the gene exhibits the disease or that the offspring of any
union between gene carriers will have it.
  If I understand the thrust of your comments - that we should be careful
talking about genes for complex traits - I am very sympathetic (in fact,
I've made that argument in print).  However, caricatures of the opposition
(gene jocks) are ultimately unhelpful.
Kelly Smith
phlkcs@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:134>From mwinsor@epas.utoronto.ca  Mon May  9 12:17:35 1994

From: mwinsor@epas.utoronto.ca (Mary P Winsor)
Subject: Vince Sarich
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu (bulletin board)
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 13:17:09 -0400 (EDT)

I was interested in V. Sarich's comments, and would like to reply to
him, but his e-mail address did not appear on my screen.  Please
supply, since I do not want to give my reactions on the bulletin
board, for this reason:

My Victorian parents (really! both were born before the Queen's death
in 1901) told me that in polite conversation one did not raise these three
topics: politics, religion, unions.  That does not mean there aren't plenty
of good times and places to discuss these important issues, but those of us
who value the exchanges of ideas about the historical sciences we get on
Darwin-l might want to minimize extraneous subjects that people have
strong opposing feelings about.

Polly Winsor
mwinsor@epas.utoronto.ca

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:135>From streelma@chuma.cas.usf.edu  Mon May  9 13:30:33 1994

Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 14:23:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Jeffrey Streelman (BIO)" <streelma@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Subject: gould
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

for a treatment of gould's opinions on human
evolution, see ontogeny and phylogeny, last part.
seems this is gould's statement that everyone is
looking for.

for a reference on the evolution of culture in
animals, see evolution of culture in animals by j.t.
bonner.

i have hypothesized in an undergraduate honors thesis
that human evolution proceeded
via the synergistic pressures of group selection for
culture and individul selection for increased
cranial capacity.

todd streelman
u south florida

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:136>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Mon May  9 13:35:00 1994

Date: Mon, 09 May 1994 14:35:10 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: More on Walter Zimmermann
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Most of the Today in the Historical Sciences messages are compiled from
standard biolgraphical sources such as the _Dictionary of Scientific
Biography_, but today's note on the systematist Walter Zimmermann was
specially indebted to an excellent paper by Darwin-L member Mike Donoghue:

  Donoghue, M. J., & J. W. Kadereit.  1992.  Walter Zimmermann and the
  growth of phylogenetic theory.  _Systematic Biology_, 41(1):74-85.

Zimmermann is a fascinating figure, and as Donoghue and Kadereit remark
he deserves further study.  Much attention has been given to the history
of the Modern Synthesis and other process-oriented developments in 20th
century evolutionary biology, but comparatively little attention has been
paid to the history of 20th century studies of phylogeny and phylogenetic
theory.  Any graduate students in the history of science (particularly if
fluent in German) might find in the history of phylogenetics some very
interesting terrain to explore.

Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner

Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology
100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:137>From gessler@anthro.sscnet.ucla.edu  Mon May  9 16:53:55 1994

From: "Gessler, Nicholas (G)   ANTHRO" <gessler@anthro.sscnet.ucla.edu>
To: DARWIN - postings <DARWIN-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: Evolut'n Serial/Parallel Language/Though
Date: Mon, 09 May 94 14:47:00 PDT

Some years ago, Jay Forrester, in "The Counterintuitive Behavior of Social
Systems," argued that the human mind has not evolved to be able to
effectively process the complexity of systemic interactions in which we find
ourselves today.  His solution to this limitation, was of course simulation.
Although I agree with computational modeling, my question here is whether or
not there is any substantive research into his original assertion?

To rephrase this, why has natural language evolved an essentially serial
channel of cummunication, either as natural speech, or as sub-vocalized
thought in words?  A number of people, including myself, have expressed
difficulty in describing complex, parallel interactions in what is basically
a serial, sentential language structure.  Now, I will readily admit that
arm-waving, facial expressions, body language, intonation, clothing, and the
like offer parallel channels which can accentuate, elaborate, or contradict
spoken language, but despite this, natural language is foundationally
sequential.

Evolutionarily, I suppose we have to grant serial communication as having the
higher fitness value.  But that can arise for at least two different reasons:
Serial communication can be more adaptive because the mechanisms to create a
parallel version (with perhaps multiplexing) cannot be built by the add-on
strategy of natural selection.  Or, serial communication can be more adaptive
because, even if parallel communication could be implemented through natural
selection, it would still have the advantage.

The same arguments and questions could probably be framed for thought.  Given
the pros/cons of serial/parallel in computer communications and processors,
has anyone considered transposing those observations into the arena of human
evolution?  Is there any research directly related to the problem?

Nick Gessler

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:138>From Kim.Sterelny@vuw.ac.nz  Mon May  9 17:26:04 1994

Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 10:26:24 +1200
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: Kim.Sterelny@vuw.ac.nz
Subject: Re: behavioral creationism

Re Sarich:
                Of course Sarich is right in thinking that humans are the
products of an evolutionary history, and that history had and has impacts
on human behaviour. It really is crazy to think that we are social and
cultural constructs in the sense that arbitarily great differences between
human cultures are possible. Sadly and strangely, there really does seem to
be such a view about in some areas of the social sciences. But the real
issue is not whether we should factor in an evolutionary dimension into an
account of human psychology and behaviour, but how to. In particular:
should we in the first instance attempt to give evolutionary explanations
of particular patterns of behaviour (eg incest avoidance) or should we
attempt to explain the psycholgical mechanisms whose interactions generate
behaviour. What is the right grain - for these are different grains, since
first psycholgical modules do not stand to behaviours one:one, and secondly
many behavioural patterns are probably generated by more than one cognitive
module. Incest and its avoidance MIGHT be under the control of a rather
specialised reflexlike cognitive structure, but i doubt it: its more likely
(see Cosmides/Tooby's recent collection The Adapted Mind, which is broadly
on the right track despite many faults of  detail) to be one of many
behaviours generated by a more general mate choice/evalutation mechanisms.
If so, the question "Why did incest avoidance mechanisms evolve?" is not
the right question; rather it should be "Why did mechanisms of mate choice
and evalutation evolve that amongst other things, sometimes result in
incest avoidance evolve?" These are different questions and require
different spreads of evidence, esp when we remember a point Dawkins made in
the Extended Phenotype: we cannot assume that the replicator/environment
develomental processes work now in the same way that they worked when our
replicators established themselves. A gene complex which now, in typical
western environments and in company with other common genes, results in
incest avoidance might have had quite different developmental consequences
25,000 years ago.

kim sterelny
philosophy
victoria university of wellington
new zealand
kimbo@kauri.vuw.ac.nz

ps i have a long review of the adapted mind canvassing some of these
questions forthcoming in biology and philosophy that i'll e-mail to anyone
who wants it.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:139>From ANWOLFE@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU  Mon May  9 20:25:44 1994

Date: Mon, 09 May 94 21:25:08 EDT
From: ANWOLFE@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU
Subject: Re: Evolution of bodies but not minds
To: Multiple recipients of list <darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>

To Kelly Smith.  I completely agree with you.  I did not call anyone
a "gene jock."  I thought what I was doing was responding to someone
who overestimated the power of genes.  Linda

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:140>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Tue May 10 00:08:01 1994

Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 01:08:16 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Human biology groups, vacations, and digests (varia from
         the list owner)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Darwin-L members with special interest in human evolutionary issues might
like to know about the existence of the following network discussion groups.
All are run by standard listserv software and accept the same subscription
commands that Darwin-L accepts.  For example, to subscribe to the JWA list
you would send the message SUBSCRIBE JWA JOHN SMITH to LISTSERV@UBVM,
replacing "JOHN SMITH" with your own name.

ANTHRO-L@UBVM     General Anthropology Bulletin Board
ANTHRO-L@UCSBVM   Anthropology Graduate Students' List Server
ASAONET@UICVM     Oceanic Anthropology Discussion Group
ENVBEH-L@POLYVM   Forum on Environment and Human Behavior
HUMEVO@GWUVM      Human Evolutionary Research Discussion List
JWA@UBVM          The Journal of World Anthropology
PAN@GWUVM         Physical Anthropology News List

Since the academic year is coming to a close for many subscribers, and a
number of us may be going on vacation at some point in the next month or
two, I thought it might be useful to review some of the ways you can deal
with Darwin-L mail in your absence.  If you are going away for an extended
period you may simply cancel your subscription and re-join the group when
you return.  To cancel your subscription send the message:

     UNSUB DARWIN-L

to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu.  Alternatively, you may postpone your
mail delivery temporarily by sending the message:

     SET DARWIN-L MAIL POSTPONE

to the same address.  If you postpone your mail in this way your address
still appears in the subscriber list, but no messages are sent to you;
when you return and wish to resume mail delivery just send the message:

     SET DARWIN-L MAIL ACK

or:  SET DARWIN-L MAIL DIGEST

depending on whether you wish to receive your Darwin-L messages as they
are posted (one at a time) or in digest format (each day's messages bundled
together in a single long message).  If you ever feel burdened by the mail
volume on Darwin-L you can always set your mail to digest format and then
you will never receive more than one message from the group each day,
although that message may occasionally be rather long.

If you are leaving town for an extended period please don't just
abandon your subscription, because your mailbox may fill up and start
bouncing messages back to me.  For each message posted to the list now I
receive about 4-5 bounced copies back from addresses that are no longer
working.  I have to track these down and manually delete each address from
the subscriber list.  Similarly, if your e-mail account is going to be
closed, please try to cancel all your listserv subscriptions before your
account goes away.  Automated "reply" programs that send formulaic "Sorry
I am out of town" messages in response to e-mail sent to your address can
also cause problems for listserv subscriptions; please either cancel or
postpone your mail before activating such an automatic reply program.

I appreciate your help in keeping our group running smoothly, and am
grateful to you all for your continuing interest.

Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner

Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology
100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A.

_______________________________________________________________________________
Darwin-L Message Log 9: 101-140 -- May 1994                                 End

© RJO 1995–2016