Darwin-L Message Log 37: 56–91 — September 1996
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 September 1996. 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 37: 56-91 -- SEPTEMBER 1996 ------------------------------------------------ DARWIN-L A Network Discussion Group on the History and Theory of the Historical Sciences Darwin-L@raven.cc.ukans.edu is an international network discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences. Darwin-L was established in September 1993 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 academic professionals in these fields. Darwin-L is not restricted to evolutionary biology nor to the work of Charles Darwin but instead addresses the entire range of historical sciences from an interdisciplinary perspective, including evolutionary biology, historical linguistics, textual transmission and stemmatics, historical geology, systematics and phylogeny, archeology, paleontology, cosmology, historical anthropology, historical geography, and related "palaetiological" fields. This log contains public messages posted to Darwin-L during September 1996. 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 some administrative messages and personal messages 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 on the Darwin-L Web Server at http://rjohara.uncg.edu. For instructions on how to retrieve copies of this and other log files, and for additional information about Darwin-L and the historical sciences, connect to the Darwin-L Web Server or send the e-mail message INFO DARWIN-L to email@example.com. Darwin-L is administered by Robert J. O'Hara (firstname.lastname@example.org), Center for Critical Inquiry in the Liberal Arts and Department of Biology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A., and it is supported by the Center for Critical Inquiry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and the Department of History and the Academic Computing Center, University of Kansas. _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:56>From ggale@CCTR.UMKC.EDU Wed Sep 11 14:56:17 1996 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:56:22 CST From: ggale@CCTR.UMKC.EDU To: DARWIN-L@RAVEN.CC.UKANS.EDU Subject: evolutionary thinking in archeology In this week's _Science_ (30 August 96) is a review of book, _Zapotec Civilization_, which might interestDarwin-Listers. Here is a salient passage from the review: "Building on the theoretical foundation laid by his anthropological predecessors at the University of Michigan--Leslie White, Elman Service, and Marshall Sahlins, among others--Flannery made the concepts of adaption and selection from the theory of biological evolution central to explaining why, under certain environmental and cultural conditions, some forms of social, political, and economic institutions tended to develop while others withered away." (p. 1178) g _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:57>From email@example.com Thu Sep 12 11:24:03 1996 Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 12:24:36 -0400 To: firstname.lastname@example.org (Darwin List) From: email@example.com (Jeremy C. Ahouse) Subject: Re: source of Borges taxonomy? Dear DarwinL, As you recall I was trying to track down Borges' *invented* taxonomy. I mentioned that I had tracked Franz Kuhn to a book written by Daniel Balderston. Well I found Prof Balderston and he offered the following. >Dear Jeremy Ahouse: >My take on the "invention" question is that Borges did not really invent >very many people or titles out of thin air, but that he did sometimes >attribute things that he had written himself to others (see the end of >"Pierre Menard" on "erroneous attribution," as well as the texts at the end >of "Universal History of Infamy"). Franz Kuhn certainly existed, but as far >as I know the famous reference to the Chinese encyclopedia is invented. You >should look at Kuhn's works, though--whenever I have done extended research >on Borges's sources I have been amazed to find fairly accurate sources >eventually, though it sometimes takes a lot of looking. See the discussion >of the "Deutsche Chinesische Hochschule" and other issues in my "Out of >Context" (Duke University Press, 1993). Hope this helps. Daniel Balderston > >Daniel Balderston, Chair >Department of Spanish and Portuguese >Tulane University >New Orleans, LA. 70118 >USA So now we just need to find someone who has read Franz Kuhn... - Jeremy Jeremy C. Ahouse Biology Department Brandeis University Waltham, MA 02254-9110 ph: (617) 736-4954 fax: (617) 736-2405 email: firstname.lastname@example.org web: http://www.rose.brandeis.edu/users/simister/pages/Ahouse _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:58>From email@example.com Thu Sep 12 11:58:47 1996 From: "Dr. William C. Kimler, History" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 12:58:15 EST Subject: Population increase A couple of recent postings asked about "Malthusian" ideas of population increase before Malthus. As Lila Harper pointed out, talk about population and famine was "in the air." Discussion of famine was nothing new for Europeans; the new element was some sense of mathematical laws of inevitable increase [and suffering]. Or would Progress eliminate such woes? Malthus's goal was to interject a note of pessimism into the optimistic vision of the materialist Enlightenment. He was opposed to those who would see the growth of prosperity of the eighteenth century as natural and continuing. The context was the usually accepted contention that national stature, wealth, and welfare is tied to maximizing population. There's an old but useful survey of population ideas and economic theories by Charles Stangeland -- Pre-Malthusian Doctrines of Population: A Study in the History of Economic Theory (1904, reprinted in 1966). His point is that Malthus was hardly original in his calculation of the tendency to increase nor in his contention that the result always outstrips food supply. From 1750-1800, it was almost universally accepted that increase would overwhelm food supply. It was a common theme among Enlightenment philosophes and Physiocrats. Even the idea that the population tendency is a geometrical ratio whereas food supply increases more slowly is found in several authors. Generally, the math calculations derived from studying birth rates and mortality tables, which cities and states were collecting with more regularity after the late 1600s. Malthus himself said that the facts of population's tendency to increase had long been noted, but that its "natural and necessary effects" had been overlooked. Malthus developed a view of society as dependent on the operation of natural cause and effect: this "cause" is "immediately united with the very nature of man." Thus he is tracing a derivation from human nature to certain inevitable laws of society -- and using history for his data. William ******************************** Dr. William Kimler Department of History - Box 8108 North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-8108 (919) 515-2483 FAX 515-3886 firstname.lastname@example.org _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:59>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Sun Sep 15 15:23:47 1996 Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 16:23:43 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: History of economics (fwd from HOPOS-L via George Gale) (long) To: email@example.com Organization: University of NC at Greensboro --begin forwarded message-------------- Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 10:09:25 MDT Sender: A Forum for Discussion of the History of the Philosophy of Science <HOPOS-L@LSV.UKY.EDU> From: "Ross B. Emmett" <emmer@CORELLI.AUGUSTANA.AB.CA> Organization: Augustana University College Subject: What defines a legit contribution to 'The History of [a science]' What follows is the first of a set of monthly editorials from the list HES, sponsored by the History of Economics Society. The editorial is written by E. Roy Weintraub from Duke University and discusses "What defines a legitimate contribution to the subdiscipline 'The History of Economics'?." Future editorials will include: Phil Mirowski on the nature of cyborg science (October), and Wade Hands on the contribution of SSK to the history of economics (January). The topics Professor Weintraub addresses are ones that occasionally appear on HOPOS-L, and I thought the subscribers might be interested in the editorial and the ensuing discussion. The editors of HES have established homepages for the editorials, which provide links to the editorial, to the ensuing discussion on HES, and to related links (in this case, to a longer version of the editorial available from Professor Weintraub's own homepage, and related papers by Ross Emmett and Greg Ransom). The homepage is accessible at: http://cs.muohio.edu/~HisEcSoc/Resources/Editorials/Weintraub If you wish to join the discussion on HES, please send the message SUBSCRIBE HES <your name> to firstname.lastname@example.org. You will be contacted shortly about your subscription request. ============ HES GUEST EDITORIAL ======================= What defines a legitimate contribution to the subdiscipline `The History of Economics'? In late twentieth-century departments of economics, all individuals who resort on occasion to modes of argument which employ historical devices or who in their work quote or comment on Keynes, Marx, Veblen, et al., are regarded by their economics departmental colleagues as de facto historians of economics; sometimes even those individuals believe themselves to be historians of economics if they quote or comment upon Keynes, Marx, Veblen, et al. I submit that such individuals should not be so regarded, and that their work, however valuable as economics, does not constitute a legitimate contribution to the history of economics. In her 1992 HOPE essay "Breaking Away," Margaret Schabas wrote "there is now, however, an entire generation of professional economists who have probably never read Marshall or Keynes, and who probably only have a superficial understanding of either the history of economics or economic history. This suggests that economists, at least in the United States, are now no more likely to develop historical intuitions than physicists or physiologists. In short, the umbilical cord has been broken. Economists, by insisting on technical progress, have lost the means to think historically and thus will no longer cultivate an affinity for the history of economics, or at least a non-Whiggish history of economics. Historians of economics must someday come to terms with this conceptual barrier. As I see it, they might as well break away and form an alliance with historians of science." (page 197) Yet whether or not the community of historians of economics breaks away from the community of economists to seek a home, as the historians of physics have, within departments of history or history of science programs, the standards by which a piece of work in the history of economics must be judged are the standards by which a piece of work in the history of physics should be judged or by which a piece of work in the history of molecular biology should be judged: specifically, the standards are those employed by professional historians to evaluate and appraise historical writing. In order to graduate with a doctoral degree from a recognized history program, one must demonstrate in the written work a command of the research skills of an historian, and the craft to write, that is to interpret, the various primary and secondary sources. As Ted Porter noted, in his comment on Schabas's piece: "[T]echnical history, after all, has often served an apologetic function. This, I must emphasize, is by now greatly attenuated in historical studies of natural science. I regret to add that history as legitimation is still very strong in the history of economics. And this, I think, may be the decisive reason why historical work on recent economics has made so little impression on a generation of historians who insist on their autonomy from science. Unfortunately, many historians of economics are so completely socialized as economists, and so little as historians, that the genre of historical study is not fully distinct from that of the review essay. The review essay surveys a field and assigns credit, almost always on the assumption that knowledge is steadily progressing. Far too much history of economics, still, aims to extend the review back twenty or fifty years by presenting the ideas of the economist on some modern question. The precursor, long dismissed as a category mistake in history of science, is still alive and well in economics, and this is almost inevitable so long as history of economics is written to meet the standards and presuppositions of ahistorical economists." (page 235) It is not as if the perspective I urge is alien to economists, for it is precisely the model that has been established in the subdiscipline of economic history. That is, many economic historians hold joint appointments in departments of economics and departments of history. Sometimes economic historians have their primary affiliation with history departments. Nonetheless, the standards for writing and publishing and professional acceptance in the discipline of economic history are different from the standards of the subdisciplines of labor economics or international trade, or economic demography, or Post Keynesian economics. Informed by the historians' notions of evidence and modes of employing evidence in argument, for economic historians the standards of scholarship conform to historians' ideas of research, researchability, and rhetoric which employ those research results in the construction of argument. And I observe that Robert Fogel, Gavin Wright, and Robert Gallman have a position within the field of American history which appears not to not tarnish their standing within the economics profession. I retain the hope that over time writing and research in the history of economic thought will approach the standards of historical writing in the history of physics or the history of mathematics or the history of medicine, for I believe that only then will the interests of economists be engaged by the history of their discipline, and their discipline's ideas, in the same respectful way that physicists and mathematicians purchase and read histories of physics and mathematics. Thus I look forward to a time when as many economists have read Groenewegen's biography of Alfred Marshall, or Ingrao and Israel's history of equilibrium theory as physicists have read Westfall's biography of Newton, or statisticians have read Stigler's history of statistics, or biologists have read Judson's history of molecular biology. E. Roy Weintraub, Professor of Economics Director, Center for Social and Historical Studies of Science Duke University, Box 90097 Durham, North Carolina 27708-0097 Phone and voicemail: (919) 660-1838 Fax: (919) 684-8974 E-mail: email@example.com URL: http://www.econ.duke.edu/~erw/erw.homepage.html ======== Message posted to history-ideas by Ross B. Emmett ====== Ross B. Emmett Editor, HES and CIRLA-L Augustana University College Camrose, Alberta CANADA T4V 2R3 voice: (403) 679-1517 fax: (403) 679-1129 e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com URL: http://www.augustana.ab.ca/~emmer --end forwarded message---------------- _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:60>From peter@usenix.ORG Mon Sep 16 07:06:09 1996 Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 05:08:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "Peter H. Salus" <peter@usenix.ORG> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: source of Borges taxonomy? Jeremy, This thread (and Balderston's response) leads me to yet another complication in Borges' attributions. In several cases they are ``correct,'' but designed to appear as though B made them up. In 1979, while working on animal communication, I was reading ``The Book of Imaginary Beings.'' There, to my surprize, I found [s.v. `Hochigan'] the comment on monkey speech, attributed [falsely] to Descartes, but which does stem from Antoine Le Grand (1694, Book III, Part 1, p. 237a): ``An Entire Book of Philosophy According to the Principles of the Famous Renate Des Cartes'' [London]. My brief note appeared in The Explicator 38.3 (Spring 1980) 13f. Peter ________________________________________________________________ Peter H. Salus #3303 4 Longfellow Place Boston, MA 02114 +1 617 723-3092 _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:61>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Fri Sep 20 13:38:14 1996 Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:37:47 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: September 20 -- Today in the Historical Sciences To: email@example.com Organization: University of NC at Greensboro SEPTEMBER 20 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES 1811: PYOTR SIMON PALLAS dies at Berlin, Germany. A natural historian and geographer of great breadth, Pallas had spent most of his life in Russia, and had investigated topics as diverse as the systematics of corals (_Elenchus Zoophytorum_, 1766), the formation of mountain ranges (1777), animal variation (1780), and phytogeography (_Flora Rossia_, 1784-1788). 1863: JACOB (LUDWIG CARL) GRIMM dies. With his brother Wilhelm Carl, Jacob Grimm will be remembered as one of the founding fathers of comparative Indo- European philology. Together they edited collections of fairy tales (1812- 1815), and Jacob produced one of the earliest comprehensive works on comparative grammar (_Deutsche Grammatik_, 1819-1837). In 1822 Jacob will characterize what is today known as Grimm's law, the regular pattern of consonantal replacement (the replacement of 'p' by 'f', for example) that occurred during the history of the Indo-European languages. Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international network discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences. Send the message INFO DARWIN-L to firstname.lastname@example.org or connect to the Darwin-L Web Server (http://rjohara.uncg.edu) for more information. _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:62>From HANSS@sepa.tudelft.nl Wed Sep 18 10:21:42 1996 From: "Hans-Cees Speel" <HANSS@sepa.tudelft.nl> Organization: TU Delft To: email@example.com Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 17:21:20 MET Subject: language genes analogy Dear Darwinners, At http://cogsci.ucsd.edu:80/~sereno/scheme.html is a nice picture from the best essay on analogy between biology and other evolutionary sciences that I currently know. check it out if it interests you. greeitngs, Hans-Cees Theories come and go, the frog stays [F. Jacob] ------------------------------------------------------- |Hans-Cees Speel School of Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and management |Technical University Delft, Jaffalaan 5 2600 GA Delft PO Box 5015 The Netherlands |telephone +3115785776 telefax +3115783422 E-mail firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.sepa.tudelft.nl/~afd_ba/hanss.html featuring evolution and memetics! _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:63>From WCalvin@U.Washington.edu Mon Sep 16 15:52:57 1996 Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 13:39:57 -0700 From: William Calvin <WCalvin@U.Washington.edu> Organization: University of Washington To: email@example.com Subject: The Darwinian Process Darwiners, I'm gearing up to do some radio interviews and talk shows on my two new books, HOW BRAINS THINK (BasicBooks) and THE CEREBRAL CODE (MIT Press), and both lead the interviewers to ask about evolution and how it comes about. For the gradualism of evolution per se, Dawkins' new book CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE is very helpful with examples and metaphors, though nothing is really brief enough to fit the 20-second sound bites of radio (the maximum time between interruptions that change the topic!). What I hope to do is to deflect the discussion into talking about the darwinian process itself -- that the immune response shows the same copying-with-variation etc as species evolution, just on the time scale of days to weeks. And both new books address the issue of how the brain could engage in a similar copying competition with spatiotemporal patterns, but on the time scale of thought and action, milliseconds to minutes. Instead of shaping up a better antibody, you shape up a better thought, plan of action, sentence to speak, etc. The main distraction that arises, taking that talk show path, is that so many of the things called "Darwinian" are merely carving processes, ones which lack the algorithmic nature of Darwin's quality-bootstrapping process. Yet they're part of the story. In THE CEREBRAL CODE, I list six essential features of a full-fledged Darwinian process: 1) a pattern which is 2) copied with 3) occasional variation, where the variant patterns 4) compete with one another for a limited workspace, their success biased by 5) a multifaceted environment, and where 6) the variants of the next generation are preferentially done from the more successful variants of the present one (Darwin's inheritance principle). Lack any one of the six, and the shaping-up process runs out of gas. I also discuss stability and a series of optional catalysts that speed evolution (recombination, climate change, parcellation, emptied niches). [THE CEREBRAL CODE is all about how this darwinian process (and its catalysts) can be implemented in the superficial layers of our cerebral cortex by the known circuitry (see http://weber.u.washington.edu/~wcalvin/bk9toc.htm).] [HOW BRAINS THINK is really about intelligence on a far broader scale, leading up to the great versatility conferred by being able to shape up novel courses of action offline before acting in the real world. See http://weber.u.washington.edu/~wcalvin/bk8toc.htm] But my question is: Anyone know some nice, quick (!) selectionist examples that dead end because they lack all six essentials of the darwinian algorithmic process? Thanks. William H. Calvin WCalvin@U.Washington.edu http://weber.u.washington.edu/~wcalvin/ Just to confuse everyone, I have *two* new books this autumn, HOW BRAINS THINK (BasicBooks) and THE CEREBRAL CODE (MIT Press) _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:64>From RUSHTON@SSCL.UWO.CA Tue Sep 17 19:38:36 1996 Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 20:36:22 -0500 (EST) From: RUSHTON@SSCL.UWO.CA Subject: Race, Evolution, and Behavior To: DARWIN-L@RAVEN.CC.UKANS.EDU Phil Rushton here picking up less well trod aspects of the race question than the one on IQ and brain size. The racial ordering of Africans, then Europeans, then Orientals shows up on 60 different anatomical, physiological, and social variables. Pertinent to evolutionary theorizing in particular is reproductive physiology. Whereas the average woman ovulates and produces an egg once every 28 days some women double and triple ovulate thereby increasing chances of a pregnancy. For example, the rate of dizygotic twinning based on a double ovulation is less than 4 per 1,000 births among East Asians, 8 among Europeans, and 16 or greater among Africans. Blacks average more testosterone than Whites and Whites average more testosterone than Orientals. The African-American marriage pattern (unstable monogamous relations) is found throughout the Black Caribbean. It is Not due to the legacy of slavery because it is also common throughout sub-Saharan Africa and among Africans who have moved to Western Europe. Sex ratios also differ by race at birth. Males are least likely among Africans (45%), next least among Europeans (53%), and most among Orientals (55%). Sexually transmitted diseases are commonest among Blacks, next Europeans, and least among Asians. Ever since record keeping began, Africa as a continent has been unusual in having STDs as the major source of infertility. The latest figures on HIV and AIDS from WHO and CDC are truly stunning. Two out of every 100 sexually active Black American men is living with HIV. the same or even higher figures are found throughout the Black Caribbean and Black Africa. Full details of all these data and more (international crime rates, brain size) along with the evolutionary processes thought responsible are to be found in my book Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995, Transaction Publishers, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. $34.95 66 illustrations. FAX 908-445-3138. Telephone 908-445-2280. _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:65>From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue Sep 17 22:23:51 1996 Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 21:22:16 -0600 From: Arthur Wouk <email@example.com> To: DARWIN-L@raven.cc.ukans.edu Subject: from Vince Sarich I notice that the brain size/intelligence thread developed quite nicely and apparently reached a point of closure while I have been on the road. I offer the bit of personal history on the subject as my contribution for today. Jon Marks, in the following, laid out the apparent problem: <<<It's been a while since I felt the urge to invoke Fisher's "fundamental theorem of natural selection" for anything, but the Sarich/Davis quotation makes it sound appropriate. If the action of natural selection reduces genetic variation, it strikes me that this argument has precisely the opposite import as it was intended to. If the argument is that we have just been through a period of intense directional selection for intelligence / brain size, then I do believe it follows that there should be relatively little genetic variance remaining and thereby worth arguing about.>>> Jon's argument does of course make a good deal of sense. There is, after all, no perpetual motion machine out there generating unlimited variation for selection to work on and intense directional selection should reduce the amount of genetic variation. I used this sort of argument in the same context for many years in my teaching at Berkeley -- ignoring for far longer than I should have the obvious fact of the huge amount of intellectual variation in my students -- never mind the 90% of the California population from which they did not derive. In other words, when I actually thought about it even a little, variation in human intellectual ability certainly didn't reduced, constrained, or canalized. This was the apparent conundrum that I raised with a seminar group of mine at Berkeley back in 1988. Natural selection was supposed to reduce genetic variation; presumably our brain increased in size so rapidly as a result of natural selection; and yet brain size variability was still pretty much in the usual realm for a volume character; not to mention the variability of mind so evident to any teacher. One of the brighter students in the seminar immediately saw the weak point in the argument, asking: "WhereUs the evidence that genetic variation is reduced by selection?" I told I didnUt really know of any, but as she was a genetics major, why didnUt she look into the literature on the issue. Well, she did -- not that there seemed to be all that much of it -- and found, as I remember, an experiment on Drosophila specifically designed to test the question which found no reduction in variability in a trait under quite intense (artificial) selection. That same semester James Crow published in Science (sometime in the fall of 1988) a review of the proceedings of a conference and spent a fair bit of space documenting the retention of variation even in the face of intense longterm selection. His best example was a study at the Univ. Of Illinois on increasing oil content in corn which had been going on for more than 100 years, with an almost perfectly linear with time rise of oil content from 4% to 21% over that period. He also provided some animal husbandry examples. So "selection reduces variation" is another of those factoids that "everyone" "knows"and which thus finds itself in textbook after textbook; but for which there is precious little evidence, and where abundant evidence against it has been present since time immemorial from human efforts in agriculture and animal husbandry. The lesson? I'm not sure, but two germane ones might be: ask "where's the evidence?", and "don't let the way you think things ought to be lead you to a conclusion as to how they are not." The latter is my sense as to how the is/ought issue has been converted when the connection between the evolutionary perspective and human variation is concerned. The history of the factoid and its recent uses to buttress the arguments against a substantial, highly heritable variation in intelligence among modern humans might form a fascinating research enterprise. Vincent Sarich _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:66>From firstname.lastname@example.org Fri Sep 13 23:50:55 1996 From: Danny Fagandini <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Significance of density of neuron connectivity Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 20:47:32 BST Sheldon Klein <email@example.com> wrote: > I've read, in another context, that dolphins, for example, have a > higher average number of connections per neuron than do humans > (perhaps related to sonar abilities). More probably to cope with continuous movement in three dimensions. -- danny firstname.lastname@example.org _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:67>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Fri Sep 20 23:29:13 1996 Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 00:29:07 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: An interruption from the list owner: Back to the historical sciences To: email@example.com Organization: University of NC at Greensboro I rarely exert a heavy editorial hand on Darwin-L, but I do try to keep us on-topic whenever possible. I am going to interrupt at this point and end the thread on intelligence and race: most of the participants have had several opportunities to express their views now and their respective positions are clear. I'll return any further posts to their original senders. Darwin-L is not a group devoted to psychology nor human biology nor even to evolutionary biology per se, but rather to historical inference in a comparative context. Good discussion groups survive by staying focused on the topics that they are chartered to cover; when they drift away they begin to lose subscribers who joined on the assumption that the group would cover the topics it announces it will cover. There are a great variety of discussion groups available on the net, and people interested in finding groups devoted to human biology, psychology, or any other field may wish to browse the interest group directory at: http://catalog.com/vivian/interest-group-search.html Usenet newsgroups also cover a wide range of topics; ask your local computer center how to access them if you don't know how. Back to the historical sciences. Robert J. O'Hara (firstname.lastname@example.org) | Cornelia Strong College, 100 Foust Building | http://rjohara.uncg.edu University of North Carolina at Greensboro | http://strong.uncg.edu Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A. | _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:68>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Sat Sep 21 01:21:31 1996 Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 02:21:25 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: Founder effect in cosmology To: email@example.com Organization: University of NC at Greensboro George Gale recently wrote: >Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 13:28:11 -0600 (CST) >From: ggale@CCTR.UMKC.EDU > >Re: Founder Effect > >Niall Shanks and I use the Founder Effect to explain the rather odd >evolution of cosmology in the period 1935-1965 in a forthcoming article >in _Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics_. Would you care to enlighten us on some of the details, George? (Maybe if the paper has an abstract you could send it along.) I take it you are applying the founder effect idea to the history of cosmology during this period, and not the history of the cosmos. Bob O'Hara (firstname.lastname@example.org) _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:69>From email@example.com Sat Sep 21 09:14:48 1996 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Founder effect in cosmology : optical activity Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 10:21:00 EDT From: Joshua Lederberg <email@example.com> Is the following to the point? Not quite cosmic in impact, but nearly: The orientation of organic matter to D-glucose and L-amino acids. Cf: Halpern B., Westley J.W., Levinthal E.C., Lederberg J. The Pasteur Probe: an assay for molecular asymmetry in Life Sciences and Space Research (COSPAR). COSPAR p. 239-249. (1967) Florkin M.,Dollfus A. (Eds.) === There is likewise a constraint on the conservation of genetic codes: it would be very hard to evolve a major leap from one mapping of RNA triplets to another, with all the baggage of foundered proteins that would have to be recoded. Almost any example of engineered technical standards, e.g. MS-DOS or FORTRAN or the Morse Code would fall in the same category. === Since anti-matter and matter cannot co-exist in near proximity, something like that might also be contrived for our cosmic neighborhood. Think of any other chaotic complex, where infinitesimal alterations of initial conditions can profoundly affect the final outcome. _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:70>From firstname.lastname@example.org Sat Sep 21 12:56:02 1996 From: Joe Felsenstein <email@example.com> Subject: Re: Founder effect in cosmology To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 11:05:52 -0700 (PDT) > George Gale recently wrote: > >Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 13:28:11 -0600 (CST) > >From: ggale@CCTR.UMKC.EDU > > > >Niall Shanks and I use the Founder Effect to explain the rather odd > >evolution of cosmology in the period 1935-1965 in a forthcoming article > >in _Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics_. One ought to add that, in biology, the Founder Effect is not a different phenomenon from random genetic drift. It caused by the small population size at the time of founding, which leads to a burst of genetic drift. Genetic drift is, one should recall, genetic changes owing to the random happenstances of who dies and who reproduces. In evolution of parts of human culture (such as cosmology), if the number of cosmologists remained small for a while, there might have been ongoing effects of cultural drift. Certain ideas might have happened to have no champions and have died out, simply because of accidental predilections of the existing cosmologists. May I assume that in explaining the evolution of cosmology, Shanks is really using "genetic" drift rather than purely a founder effect (i.e. that the drift was ongoing)? -- Joe Felsenstein email@example.com (IP No. 220.127.116.11) Dept. of Genetics, Univ. of Washington, Box 357360, Seattle, WA 98195-7360 USA _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:71>From peter@usenix.ORG Sat Sep 21 08:18:47 1996 Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 06:21:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Peter H. Salus" <peter@usenix.ORG> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: The Darwinian Process I have recently gotten Calvin's THE CEREBRAL CODE from MIT Press for review. While this is not that review, I want readers of the list to know that CODE is an absolutely first-class piece of work and an exemplary instance of what theoretical neurophysiology can do where darwinian processes are concerned. Peter H. Salus _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:72>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Sun Sep 22 01:12:15 1996 Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 02:11:50 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: September 22 -- Today in the Historical Sciences To: email@example.com Organization: University of NC at Greensboro SEPTEMBER 22 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES 1711: THOMAS WRIGHT, author of _An Original Theory or New Hypothesis of the Universe, Founded upon the Laws of Nature, and Solving by Mathematical Principles the General Phaenomena of the Visible Creation; and Particularly the Via Lactea_, is born at Byers Green, near Durham, England. In his contemplation of cosmological time he will write: "In this great Celestial Creation, the Catastrophe of a World, such as ours, or even the total Dissolution of a System of Worlds, may possibly be no more to the great Author of Nature, than the most common Accident in Life with us, and in all Probability such final and general Doom-Days may be as frequent there, as even Birth-Days, or Mortality with us upon the Earth." Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international network discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences. Send the message INFO DARWIN-L to firstname.lastname@example.org or connect to the Darwin-L Web Server (http://rjohara.uncg.edu) for more information. _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:73>From ggale@CCTR.UMKC.EDU Sun Sep 22 12:46:38 1996 Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 12:47:08 CST From: ggale@CCTR.UMKC.EDU To: DARWIN-L@RAVEN.CC.UKANS.EDU Subject: Founder's Effect in Cosmology, ABS. Bob asked for an abstract to our paper. Here 'tis: METHODOLOGY AND THE BIRTH OF MODERN COSMOLOGICAL INQUIRY by George Gale University of Missouri-Kansas City Niall Shanks East Tennessee State University To appear: 1996: _Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Physics_ The central concern of this paper is with the ways in which issues, questions and debates in the domain of the philosophy of science can influence the birth, and subsequent development of a science. The case study to be discussed is that of modern cosmology. We will argue that the study of events in the early history of modern cosmology affords ample evidence of the many ways in which philosophy of science and science are inextricably intertwined. To the extent that we are able to make our case we will (a) provide evidence against the adequacy of rationalist reconstructions of the history of science that pretend that science develops in a philosophical vacuum, without regard to the conceptual and methodological debates that are standard fare among philosophers of science; and (b) provide evidence against the intellectual adequacy of (currently popular) social constructivist attempts to "sociologize" the analysis of events in the history of science in ways that downplay or eliminate the role of philosophy of science and its history as factors shaping the development of science. It turns out that the following two questions are central to understanding the nature of modern cosmology:  Why were events surrounding the birth of modern cosmology marked by vigorous indeed, sometimes downright raucous philosophical debates?  Why was the subsequent development of modern cosmology so long affected by the outcome of the debate? The discussion which follows attempts to answer these questions, in large part, by providing an historical narrative. Since many of the elements of the historical narrative are still not widely known, the narrative should be of some intrinsic interest, independently of its interest as part of the answer to the two questions. In our discussion of the second question, we will argue that there is an interesting explanatory analogy to be drawn between certain features of the initial community of cosmologists, and certain features of initial biological-species communities. Our proposed analogy trades upon principles developed by evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, and called by him the "founder effect." We claim that events in the early history of cosmology manifest analogs of biological "founder effect" phenomena. We conclude by suggesting that the situation in modern cosmology's origin may be generalizable. If this is correct, then to the extent that modern cosmology manifests founder effect phenomena, so also will the many scientific communities which originate as it did, in initially small populations of investigator -- populations that need not reflect the conceptual and methodological diversity found in larger, more mature branches of science. In order to discuss the first of our two questions, we begin with a brief historical prologue. _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:74>From email@example.com Tue Sep 17 08:02:32 1996 Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 09:02:02 -0400 To: firstname.lastname@example.org (Darwin List) From: email@example.com (Jeremy C. Ahouse) Subject: Wallace as an independent test of Darwin Dear DarwinL, In trying to understand Darwin's "Debt to Malthus", Mayr(1991, pg 86) suggests that Wallace is a good comparison since he shares many of the internal and external factors that predisposed Darwin thought to be catalyzed by Malthus. Nothing illustrates better how important the general attitude and conceptual framework of the marker of a theory is than the simultaneous, independent proposal of the theory of natural selection by A. R. Wallace. He was one of the few people, perhaps the only one, who had a similar set of past experiences: a life dedicated to natural history, years of collecting on tropical islands, and the experience of reading Malthus. Is this an uncotroversial claim? Who has defended it (Mayr offers no citation)? Will you all take exception? It is an interesting mix of internalist and externalist claims (maybe just the right mix). thanks, Jeremy Mayr, Ernst (1991) One long argument : Charles Darwin and the genesis of modern evolutionary thought. Harvard University Press. QH371 .M336 1991 Jeremy C. Ahouse Biology Department Brandeis University Waltham, MA 02254-9110 ph: (617) 736-4954 fax: (617) 736-2405 email: firstname.lastname@example.org web: http://www.rose.brandeis.edu/users/simister/pages/Ahouse _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:75>From email@example.com Sun Sep 22 05:25:37 1996 Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:11:35 +0000 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: Andrew Brown <email@example.com> Subject: George Price Volume 1 of the collected papers of W.D. Hamilton ("The narrow Roads of gene land") has just been published, in this country. Each paper is preceded by a foreword describing something of the circumstances of its composition, and through two of the forewords appears the extraordinary story of George Price and the equation for altruism. Price was an American science journalist and passionate sceptic who came across Hamilton's 1964 kin selection papers in the late Sixties and was deeply shocked by their implication that we cannot hope to have evolved more than a limited, local forom of altruism. He set himself to do the work again. Instead of finding flaws in it, he managed to reformulate the equations in a more general and powerful form, so that they would apply at all levels of selection. Shortly thereafter, he underswent a sudden and profound religious conversion. He became an absolutist Christian. This did not alter his scientific beliefs at all, though he came to believe that his discovery of the equations for altruism was a miracle, and that Godmeant him to spread this discovery. However, it impressed on him theneed for personal altruism. he sold what he had, and gave the fruits to the poor. He lost his flat after inviting derelicts home, and ended up sleeping on the floor in an office he was allowed to use at London University. He was driven out of there by one of the tramps he had tried to help, who would stand on the pavement below, shouting obscenities and threats. he ended up in a squat in off the Euston Road, where he killed himself shortly after Christmas 1974. The death certificate suggests January. I suspect he lay dead for some time before being found. It is a completely extraordinary story, which has colonised my imagination to the point where I got hold of a copy of the death certificate. Apart from anything else, it seems to me throw into very high relief the differences between the sociobiological use of "altruism" and the religious or novelistic uses of the term. Neither, incidentally, is to be confused with niceness. Price was obviously in many ways a completely impossible man who could quarrel with anyone. Professor Hamilton, in conversation, decribed him as "an intolerable saint" Do any readers of this list know more about this man? Do reply privately if it would othersie clutter the list. Andrew Brown Religious Affairs Correspondent, The Independent, London Not in the office right now. firstname.lastname@example.org / email@example.com _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:76>From firstname.lastname@example.org Sat Sep 21 22:06:18 1996 Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 22:06:05 -0500 From: Sheldon Klein <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: "Significance of density of neuron connectivity" Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Danny Fagandini, citing SK>> I've read, in another context, that dolphins, for example, have a SK>> higher average number of connections per neuron than do humans SK>> (perhaps related to sonar abilities). stated, DF>More probably to cope with continuous movement in three dimensions. If spatial relations abilities are linked to other cognitive factors, including language, then my comment and question might be restated as a research imperative: "Research trends in AI, and neurophysiology might suggest that the density of neural connectivity in the brains of members of a species is potentially a significant factor in comparative intelligence-- ... "Anyone know of any research on species/neural density connectivity and comparative 'cognitive' ability? Sheldon Klein email@example.com _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:77>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Sun Sep 22 14:30:59 1996 Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 15:30:52 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: More on coin evolution To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: University of NC at Greensboro Polly Winsor posted a message a while ago with an intriguing quotation from one John Evans about the evolution of coin types in ancient Britain. Rather than doing it the old fashioned way (by going to the library), I send a copy of the message to a numismatics list, and received the following reply from one of the few authorities in the world on ancient Celtic coin evolution. Here is an extraordinary example of the Internet at its best. I would still be interesting to learn more about Evans' background and whether he made other specific applications of evolutionary ideas to numismatic history. Bob O'Hara (email@example.com) --begin forwarded message-------------- Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 13:04:08 -0600 From: John Hooker and Carin Perron <writer@CADVISION.COM> Subject: Re: John Evans on coin evolution, ca.1875 To: Multiple recipients of list NUMISM-L <NUMISM-L@VM.SC.EDU> >The following message appeared recently on another list. I wonder if >anyone on NUMISM-L can provide a citation for the paper by John Evans >that is mentioned? > >Bob O'Hara (firstname.lastname@example.org) > >>From: Mary P Winsor <email@example.com> >>Subject: evolution of coins >>To: firstname.lastname@example.org (bulletin board) >> >>In 1875 John Evans gave a talk entitled "The coinage of the ancient Britons, >>and natural selection" in which he said "...the succession of the types of >>the coins followed certain laws, to a great extent analogous with those >>by which the evolution of successive forms of organic life appear to be >>governed..." ... "the reduction of a complicated and artistic design into >>a symmetrical figure of easy execution, was the object of each successive >>engraver of the dies for the coins, though probably they were themselves >>unaware of any undue saving of trouble on their part, or of the results >>which ensued from it." >> >>I take this from a xerox copy in my possession. This seems like a >>wonderful topic some member of the list may want to follow up. I >>can give no more information (not even a citation!). Well here's a surprise for the first thing on a Saturday morning. I had been thinking of unsubscribing to this list! Let's get the citation out of the way first: Evans, J 'The coinage of the ancient Britons and natural selection' _Proc. Royal Soc._, 1875, p.476-487 The subject of design evolution in Celtic Coins has been my raison d'etre for more than a decade. I am the only person working in this field. My book, whenever I get around to getting it published, will be entitled: _Celtic Improvisations - A Case Study in Iron Age Art._ It is the most detailed and comprehensive typological analysis of a Celtic coinage that has ever been attempted. Now, on to Evans and the topic at hand: If we had half the intelligence, and a tenth the zeal of these Victorians, then we might accomplish amazing things. Actually, Evans was wrong, but his wrongness was not absolute, and his powers of observation cannot be faulted. There is a design evolution at play in many series of Celtic coins, but this evolution follows principles that are very different from what we might imagine. The design evolution within a series is irrelevant to the copying of types by other people. For example, certain bronze coins of Massilia were copied, and these are found up the Loire Valley, and even in Britain. The simplification of the design is partly due to the copies being rather poor casts. The quality of the 'dies', in any case, was not great. Evans might have been thinking of similar coins when he made his observation. In these cases, from a 'natural selection' point of view, we are seeing, not the evolution of the coins themselves, but the evolution of the use of die engravers. When Celtic coins were first produced, they used certain Greek coins as their models. People today often make the mistake of thinking that Celtic artists were no good, and their creations were 'crude'. This attitude was also dominant in the time of Evans. What was actually happening was that the Celtic artists were trying to deal with a very different form of art than they were used to. I will give you an example to make this very clear. If you were a poet, and I gave you a number of Japanese words and told you to use them to write Haiku, the results would be laughed at by all Japanese critics. You might be the best poet working in the English language, but you would not be a Japanese poet. As time went on, some Celtic artists who had been working in metal decided to use their talents to produce coin dies. Remember, most Celtic artists would not have appreciated Classical art. They would have thought it simplistic and lacking spiritual content. The work of blindly copying such designs was left to the less talented. Coins, after, all were functional objects like chisels. They did not have the status of captured gold torcs, even if they were made of the same substance. This situation began slowly to change, and that change was driven by many factors. It varied region to region. As the more talented Celtic artists took over die engraving in one area, their neighbours became jealous, and had their artists work on the coins, as well. Some areas were not so influenced: if they thought little of their neighbours, they would not copy their ideas. Part of the change was due to new attitudes. A torc captured from a rival chieftain had status that the same weight in gold paid to you for mercenary services did not have. Eventually, the insidious nature of gold had its way, and people began to realize, as we do today, <shameless sociological commentary> that if you could not be honorable, you could at least be rich. Now, gold coins were in the possession of the wealthy, and they were not used for trade in the way that our currency is used. They certainly had use for tributes both political and religious, and they were a form of wealth and were paid as originally, for military favors. You would not buy bread with them! As the status of coins changed, they became worthy of the attention of the artists. The best of these artists were Armorican, although certainly, superb work was done elsewhere--look at Class I staters of the Parisii. We cannot equate Armorican art with their other art for two reasons: first, there are no examples of Armorican art other than the coins. There are no Celtic torcs, no shields, no decorated scabbards, no nothing. The second reason applies to other regions as well: the status of artists working on coin dies varied region to region. We might find that in some places great examples of metalwork were being created along with abysmal coin designs! This is more likely to be the case than not. As the status of coinage changed, the coin designs of some regions began to follow the tenets of the finest Celtic art. There is a very small window of time where this happens. In many areas this window is only a few decades, and sometimes it is only a few years. Then a new trend happens. After Caesar's tour of Gaul, the Roman way of life was foisted on the Celts. This was great for Joe Peasant, who found that he actually did not owe his soul to his masters anymore. Britain set out on its long path to become a nation of shopkeepers, and the world changed. The best of the Celtic artists vanished with the chieftains--you see, they were also part of the elite. Their status was sometimes as high as that of a chieftain. According to an Irish story, one blacksmith even had his own fort and retainers! There was no room anymore for Celtic artists. Their work was not understood by the masses that now had political and economic sway. Coin designs began to follow Roman models, and gem and die engravers flocked to Gaul and Britain from everywhere to take advantage of the new economy. The bulk of the coinage shifted to using two or three metals in the more 'civilized'(in the true sense of the word - e.g. civitas) areas. Within this narrow window of Celtic numismatic art, coins can provide an insight into the tenets of Celtic art that no other objects have been able to do. The reason being that, although a number of Celtic art objects are known, very few of them can be securely attributed to a specific artist. These few items do not give us enough information to show us how the designs were developed by their creators. I have shown the design development for the Coriosolite series, and have identified three individuals that were responsible for the bulk of that coinage. I have arranged the dies in their correct chronological order (this sometimes differs from the order in which they were struck) and have been able to reconstruct tenets of both Celtic art and Celtic religion. There is some very exciting stuff here! These artists' abilities in abstract design are remarkable. They used variations on a theme in visual art in the same way that musicians use this today. They treated a run of dies as a work in itself and developed designs as an end in themselves. When a design was 'perfected', they abandoned it at once and set out on a new quest! Less talented die engravers would 'forge' the methods of those that knew, but although this could not be detected by looking at one or two coins, it became apparent after a run of several dies. Those that produced the Unelli issue that is commonly believed to be Class II Coriosolite are a case in point. These are genuine coins but fake art! I am working on an expert sytem for identifying Coriosolite coins by my new classification system. This will appear on the Internet in the near future. It will also contain articles on my techniques for reconstructing the tenets of Celtic art and iconography, together with full length articles on the boar and lyre symbols, problems with current numismatic classification systems and much more. (I have over forty web pages finished so far.) I will be posting its arrival on britarch and arch-theory (both @mailbase.ac.uk.), as well as HWG, and other web design lists. I will notify anyone else who expresses an interest. To Mary Winsor: Thanks for such an interesting and unexpected posting, and greetings from Calgary! Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. To Bob O'Hara: Thank you for passing it along! feel free to repost this reply to your members of email@example.com I had requested help with illustrations for this system to this list, alas, no one wanted to help in return for a link. On reflection, I will probably approach the Smithsonian and other institutions, as this is perhaps more politic. Regards, John Hooker <firstname.lastname@example.org> member: HTML Writer's Guild Societe Jersiaise --end forwarded message---------------- _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:78>From email@example.com Wed Sep 11 11:10:12 1996 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 10:10:10 -0600 (MDT) From: Bryant <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Creationism in NM schools Darwin-ers: Chris Frazier, here at UNM's biology dept., has set up a web page for anybody interested in the recent stealth creationist move by the NM board of education. Evolution was excluded from state-wide science curricula. Bryant http://redtail.unm.edu/BOE/ _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:79>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Thu Sep 26 12:23:57 1996 Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 13:23:27 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: John Evans biography (coin evolution; fwd) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: University of NC at Greensboro John Hooker of NUMISM-L who very kindly supplied us with details about the "evolutionary numismatics" of John Evans has just sent me the following biographical information about Evans which I am pleased to share with the group. Interestingly, John Evans the evolutionary numismatist was the father of Arthur Evans, the Minoan archeologist. Bob O'Hara (email@example.com) --begin forwarded message-------------- Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 14:43:38 -0600 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (John Hooker and Carin Perron) Subject: John Evans Bio. To: Bob O'Hara <email@example.com> Hi Bob, Mary Winsor responded to my little article and suggested that I include a brief biography of John Evans, as you like to include such on your list. This proved more difficult than I expected, as most references are to his son, Arthur John Evans -- The excavator of Knossos. I did find this reference. It unfortunately omits birth and death dates. I am limited by what I have at home today. The following is an excerpt from _Iron Age Coinage in South-East England: The Archaeological Context, Part i_ by Colin Haselgrove, BAR British Series 174(i), 1987, pp.2-3. ---------------------- "A firm and secure foundation": the work of Sir John Evans, [the period discussed by Haselgrove:] 1860-c.1910 ... Evans personified the values of the Victorian era; a polymath and an F.R.S., his interest extended byond coins to many other aspects of archaeology, from Bronze Age artefacts to Roman villas. Much of his work was based on his own coin collection, which passed on his death either to the British Museum as the nucleus of the national collection or to the Ashmolean Museum in 1941 in the bequest of his son, Sir Arthur Evans. Evans had the means and contacts, practical as well as social, to obtain "first refusal" on many finds and information about others from fellow collectors such as Latchmore or Kennard. ... Evans' interest and approach must be seen in the perspective of nineteenth century developments. Numismatics itself came of age in 1836 with the publication of _Numismatic Chronicle_ and Taylor Combe's British Museum catalogue. ... Evans' methods of spatial and temporal ordering are described in his book and in a lesser known address to the Royal Society (Evans, 1875). With his paleontological and scientific interests, Evans readily assimilated the revolution brought about by Darwin's _Origin of the Species_ (1859) and recognised in natural selection, 'the theory of descent with variation', a theoretical analogy for principles which were also discernible in the evolution of human material culture and of coinage in particular. In this, he was significantly influenced by the views of Pitt-Rivers, a major archaeological contemporary (Thompson, 1977). Evans' success in marrying typological degradation and the genesis of new varieties to Darwinian ideas is shown in the choice of Iron Age coin typology to illustrate the distortion of images during copying (Blakemore, 1977). Evans also suggested another major principle for the chronological arrangement of coinage: - "Besides the succession of types, there is another ....law that appears to be natural to all absolute governments which strike coins, if not indeed to other ruling powers. This is the great law of effecting economy at the expense of others.... by striking coins of the same denomination as those already in circulation, but either of less weight, or of baser alloy, or of both" (Evans, 1875, 485) Evans' chronology for uninscribed coin types still provides the essentials of the modern framework. ------------------------- I hope this is helpful. Regards, John <firstname.lastname@example.org> --end forwarded message---------------- _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:80>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Thu Sep 26 12:45:21 1996 Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 13:45:10 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: September 26 -- Today in the Historical Sciences To: email@example.com Organization: University of NC at Greensboro SEPTEMBER 26 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES 1687: During the Venetian seige of Athens a bomb falls on the Parthenon, which is being used by the Turks for munitions storage. The roof, parts of the frieze, and many of the columns, which had lasted for more than two thousand years, are destroyed. Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international network discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences. Send the message INFO DARWIN-L to firstname.lastname@example.org or connect to the Darwin-L Web Server (http://rjohara.uncg.edu) for more information. _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:81>From email@example.com Mon Sep 23 15:52:56 1996 Date: 23 Sep 96 15:29:00 +0200 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Friedrich Steinle) Subject: Postdoc-Stipendien To: email@example.com Postdoktoranden-Stipendien in Wissenschaftsgeschichte Das Institut fur Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Goettingen schreibt zwei einjaehrige Postdoktoranden-Stipendien der Volkswagen-Stiftung im Fach Wissenschaftsgeschichte aus. Die Stipendien sollten am 1. Januar 1997 angetreten werden; eine Verlaengerung ueber den 31. Dezember hinaus ist nicht moeglich. Hoehe der Stipendien: 2600,- DM monatlich zuzueglich Reise- und Forschungsmitteln. Forschungsprojekte in Goettinger Archiven und Bibliotheken werden bevorzugt. Bewerbungen mit Lebenslauf, Projektbeschreibung und zwei Empfehlungsschreiben sind zu senden an: Prof. Dr. N.A. Rupke Institut fuer Wissenschaftsgeschichte Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen Humboldtallee 11 37073 Goettingen Bewerbungsschluss ist der 15. November 1996. _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:82>From wilkins@wehi.EDU.AU Mon Sep 23 19:47:46 1996 Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 10:47:44 +1000 From: John Wilkins <wilkins@wehi.EDU.AU> Subject: Founder's Effect in Cosmology To: firstname.lastname@example.org Regarding George Gale's paper, it should be noted (and he may have noted) that David Hull's _Science as a Process_ (University of Chicago Press, 1988) explicitly makes a "founder effect" argument for the early development of scientific theories. Hull's argument is that science is increasingly organised from the early history of modern science into "demes", which promote intrademic cooperation and extrademic competition, in what he calls "conceptual inclusive fitness" maximising behaviour. Demes need not be organised on the basis of theoretical identity (indeed, Hull argues that theory interpretation is as individual as organic phenotypic variation), but they must have some common interests. These demes are intended as a replacement for Lakatosian research programmes and Kuhnian paradigms, and are neither entirely defined in terms of theory content nor social structure. _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:83>From email@example.com Tue Sep 24 11:57:53 1996 Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 10:57:20 -0700 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com (Ellery Lanier) Subject: ancient coins Thank you Bob O'Hara, Mary Winsor, and John Hooker for the delightful material on Celtic coins. I also would like to share some coin information. This is about early American cents. I have just completed my dissertation on William H. Sheldon and Somatotypes. Sheldon was faced with the problem of creating a taxony for the human species. He chose early American copper pennies as an example of seeming random organization in the colonies that could be given form. I have been unsuccessful in obtaining his book on Early American Cents, but the professional numismatic societies have been most helpful. I learned that for a time the Sheldon standard was a worldwide tool for coin evaluation. It may have been replaced by now. Sheldon used the same methodology in classifying humans. (He also used Mendeleef's card sorting system that gave us the Periodic System). In my opinion Sheldon's greatest insight was associating morphology with the Temporal Horizon. I tested the concept experimentally. My results were very positive and I am waiting for someone to replicate my research. Indeed, ". . .this is an extraordinary example of the Internet at its best". Best wishes Ellery firstname.lastname@example.org http://crl.nmsu.edu/users/WWW/somatotyping.html _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:84>From email@example.com Wed Sep 25 09:28:18 1996 Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 10:32:51 -0400 (EDT) From: William Montgomery <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Wallace as an independent test of Darwin Frank Sulloway has discussed the similarities between Darwin and Wallace in his forthcoming "Born to Rebel." In addition to the points made by Mayr, he notes that both men were younger sons. This bears on Mayr's list of similarities in complex ways, and Darwin-L readers will certainly want to consider his views. Bill Montgomery WMontgom@nasc.mass.edu _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:85>From WirtAtmar@aol.com Mon Sep 23 13:00:56 1996 Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 14:00:17 -0400 From: WirtAtmar@aol.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: The Darwinian Process Please allow me to apologize in advance for the length of this reply, but two different questions were recently raised that I feel are close enough in subject to warrant a slightly longer answer. 1. DEAD-END DARWINIAN-LIKE PROCESSES William Calvin asks: >Anyone know some nice, quick (!) selectionist examples that dead >end because they lack all six essentials of the darwinian algorithmic >process? The answer is yes, and it is a very simple and common phenomenon: human technological manufacturing. But an aside, before I begin the example, allow me to say that when I write of the Darwinian algorithm, I list only five components of the process. The difference in count isn't the important attribute. More important I believe are the differences in emphasis that Dr. Calvin and I place on the process. Dr. Calvin's list more or less describes the process from the point of view of the code. The list that follows below instead emphasizes evolved phenotypic behavior -- to the point that the nature of the underlying code becomes essentially irrelevant, so long as it exists. The following is a very brief extract of the philosophical setting that I generally draw when I attempt to explain the mechanism of Darwinian evolution. The following (although slightly modified in this presentation) appeared in "Notes on the simulation of evolution," (Atmar, 1994. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks. 5:130-148), an article written with an engineering audience in mind: =================================== o Darwinian evolution is an optimization algorithm. It is not a predictive theory, nor is it a tautology ( p. 519,  p. 112), as has often been claimed (e.g., ,). As in most optimization processes, the point(s) of solution wait to be discovered by simple trial-and-error search. o Reproduction in natural biota is generally very nearly replication, but it is not, nor can it be, perfect replication. In a thermodynamically "cold" universe, replication occurs without error. But in such circumstance evolution would be impossible. Error in replication is fundamental to the evolutionary process. However, at all temperatures greater than absolute zero, error in replication is guaranteed and evolutionary optimization thus becomes inevitable in any self-replicating population constrained by a bounded arena. o Darwinian evolutionary theory is composed of only five components: (i) a bounded arena, (ii) a replicating population which must eventually expand beyond the bounds of the arena, (iii) thermodynamically inescapable replicative error, (iv) competition for space in that arena among the inevitable variants, and (v) consequential competitive exclusion of the lesser fit. o Given self-reproduction, the properties and processes of Darwinian evolution are the inescapable consequences of thermodynamically governed self-reproduction in a finite, positively entropic universe. o The Darwinian evolutionary algorithm exists without any sense of predetermined goal-directedness. The ultimate "goal of evolution" is determined solely by the shape and nature of the adaptive topography (the fitness function drawn as a "landscape") and is wholly external to the basic evolutionary processes of variation and selection. o Selection acts only to statistically cull the least appropriately behaving variants of the current trial set from the inevitable excess population. o Evolution optimizes behavior, not the encoding genetics per se, other than by consequence . The specific nature and mechanisms of the genetical code are basically irrelevant to the process of Darwinian evolution so long as they provide the necessary minimal complexity for a functional code set. o Several naturally-evolved mechanisms operate to greatly increase the speed of optimization and general behavioral appropriateness of a population to its current environment. They are: (i) the evolution of recombinant code (sex), (ii) the evolution of the processes of error repair and error expungement from the germline (including sexual selection), (iii) the evolution of hierarchical levels of modularity (cellular tissue differentiation, metamerism and colonialism), and (iv) the evolution of individually adaptive behaviors (ontogenetic intelligence). o Evolution is not a force but a process . The most overt attribute of the process is the accumulation of increasingly appropriate behaviors within an evolving lineage of trials. o Learning is a matter of selectively retained behaviors, accumulated through stochastic trial-and-error, and is inherent to -- and indistinguishable from -- the evolutionary process itself -. Three distinct modes of learning are evident in natural evolution: (i) "phylogenetic learning" (where adaptive behaviors are accrued within the lifetime of a phyletic lineage. The reservoir that accumulates phylogenetically learned behavior is the species' aggregate germline; the least unit of change in this reservoir is a base pair), (ii) "sociogenetic learning" (where adaptive behaviors are accumulated within the lifetime of the group. The reservoir of learned behavior is social culture; the least unit of change is a shared experience), and (iii) "ontogenetic learning" (where appropriate behaviors are learned through trial-and-error during the lifetime of an individual. The reservoir of learned behavior is aggregate neuronal and hormonal memory; the least unit of change is neurotransmitter titer and/or receptor site sensitivity). o The cell is the only engine of life. It is also the minimum atom of life; no smaller unit exists capable of self-sustained metabolism and reproduction. o All organisms large enough to be seen with the unaided eye are composed of complexly interacting colonies of (nearly-) genetically identical cells. The concept of the individual is somewhat deceptive. All higher levels of cellular organization acquire the attributes of a colony where differentiated units are recruited into synchronized behaviors, operate to a common purpose, and are evaluated as a whole. o Only three forms of knowledge reservoirs have been evolved under natural circumstance within a phyletic lineage. They are: (i) the reservoir of phylogenetic knowledge inherent to germline DNA, (ii) socially communicated and remembered experience (culture), and (iii) the hormonal and neuronal memory of individuals. ==================================== To answer Dr. Calvin's question directly, there is a simple example, and that is any manufacturing process. Five of his six processes are intact in the human manufacture of any complex artefact, but the "boot-strapping" attribute characteristic of Darwinian evolution fails because the critical sixth is missing. That missing sixth is "self-reproduction." Without this final item, the process cannot, on its own, adapt or learn. Rather the reproductive mode employed must be one of merely constant clonal reproduction from an original copy. Two forms of error are inherent to every manufacturing process: design error and manufacturing error. Design error is essentically genotypic error, where the resultant product will be simply inappropriate for its intended function or environment due to fundamental misdesign. Manufacturing error is a form of epigenetic error. The basic blue-print against which the product is being manufactured is intact and appropriate, but the end-result is flawed due to a thousand different sources of manufacturing error, most of which are environmentally induced. The first error is corrected by constant re-design until the product matches the demands of the environmental marketplace in which it must compete. The second error is suppressed by an altogether different process: the imposition of strict quality controls at every stage of the manufacturing process and the intense culling selection of malformed components before they get to far along in the manufacturing stream. A resistor that can be declared defective before it is put into a subassembly only costs a penny or so to dispose of. But once the defective resistor has been integrated into a subassembly, it costs hundreds of times as much to isolate and dispose of the subassembly -- partly due to the difficulty of determining the subassembly is defective, and partly due to the investment that has been made to this point in its assembly. But these costs are minor as compared to shipping a defective product to a customer and having to retrieve it through the warranty process -- especially if the end-product costs only a few tens of dollars to originally manufacture. As the behavioral complexity of the manufactured device increases, the necessities of implementing extremely strict quality assurance standards concomitantly increases. The best examples of the implementation of such strict quality controls are, of course, in the manufacture of integrated circuits. The first integrated circuits were independently invented in 1954 by Texas Instruments and Fairchild Semiconductor; both original circuits contained only seven components. In comparison, today's microprocessors contain four to ten million transistors on a single chip. If a single transistor is defective, the entire chip may be rendered valueless. The rub lies in trying to find those single-point defects in such a complex device before it is shipped to the customer -- and that difficultly is part of the reason that every chip is subjected to rigorous testing during a burn-in period. If defective variants exist in the currently manufactured cohort, they must be weeded out. But the circuits have grown so complex that every VLSI (very large scale integration) chip maker now acknowledges the fact that he is ocassionally shipping undetected defective product -- it's just that quite often he doesn't know how much. "Yield" is the percentage of chips that pass these rigorous selective tests. When integrated circuits were first manufactured, yields were miserably low, even though the complexity of the chips was minute by today's standards. The poor yields were due to the presence of a great variety of imperfections and contaminants in the manufacturing process. To the manufacturer, who plays the role of the evolving phyletic lineage in this analogy, the value of correcting and suppressing these forms of variational error is as an important a part of the design process as is optimizing the functional behavior of the chip itself. Profitablity, to the manufacturer, is not only determined by the product's goodness-of-fit to market demands but just as much by his capacity to deliver a product at the lowest possible cost (resource utilization efficiency). The minimization of phenotypic wasteage is as important to a circuit manufacturer as it is to a biological species. The behavioral complexity of the most complicated circuits now rivals at least that of the most primitive Metazoa. But what keeps this process from being completely Darwinian, by Dr. Calvin's six criteria, is not the lack of reproduction, but the lack of self-reproduction. Without this critical sixth step, nothing can be learned, no sources of error can be autonomously suppressed, nor is there an accumulating reservoir of knowledge within the mechanical process itself. The manufactured circuits only become "honorary living things" (to use Dawkin's term) when human marketers, engineers, and accountants are included in the product's iterated evolution. Only when the entirety of the manufacturing and design process is included in the consideration does the process, as a whole, contain the necessary feedback loop and becomes an accurate recapitulation of evolution. But even then, the process is "fueled" parasitically off of the evolved biological metabolism of the human engineers who drive the process, no different in essence than those extrinsic processes that allow the existence and evolution of viruses. 2. THE "SELECTION REDUCES VARIATION" FACTOID Vincent Sarich writes, "...'selection reduces variation' is another of those factoids that 'everyone knows' and which thus finds itself in textbook after textbook; but for which there is precious little evidence, and where abundant evidence against it it has been present since time immemorial from human efforts in agriculture and animal husbandry." Let me vigorously disagree with Dr. Sarich. If there were no profound or fundamental value in the reduction of variation through intense selection, then there would be no reason for us to either expect or observe (i) the persistence evolutionary re-invention of error repair and suppression mechanisms, nor (ii) the evolution of prolonged demonstrations of competitive vigor prior to mating (sexual selection). The evolution of DNA or tissue error repair mechanisms requires the prior auxiliary evolution of error detection and recognition mechanisms. Without first evolving such mechanisms, error repair cannot be evolved. The evolution of recognition mechanisms represents the first great step in a process of selective culling that wholly serves to reduce variation in the genotype. Similarly, the evolution of prolonged contests among males of evolutionarily enhanced pugnacity and aggressiveness, prior to mating, represents a second primary method of culling selection offered to the species in order to identify and expurgate weak or congentially defective individuals from the breeding population. Both mechanisms operate to profoundly reduce phenotypic variation, and by direct consequence, genotypic variation. What makes Dr. Sarich's comment apparently correct -- at least on the surface -- is the nature of point defects. A single-point defect may render the phenotype completely inviable or significantly competitively debilitated -- or it may have no effect at all. Unexpressed mutational variation (or variation below a selective threshold) that it is imposed on a genome has the freedom to vary as it will. On a percentage basis, in a complex organism, such variation will numerically swamp the very small amount of variation that can be tolerated in the expressed code, particularly so in critically expressed code, where variation becomes essentially intolerable and the conservation of such code over a billion year span is not unimaginable. At core of the problem lies the persistent problem of the proper interpretation of the allelic variation that is observed in electrophoretic gels. The active sub-unit(s) of an enzyme generally consume only a very small portion of the bulk protein. A certain amount of variation must reasonably be tolerable in the non-active framework of the protein. But the interpretive problem remains that all that electrophoresis is measuring is the Reynold's number of various allelic variants as they are electrically dragged through a viscous gel. The variation that is being measured is one of the distribution of surface charge and mechanical conformation. There is no overwhelming a priori reason to presume that such variation actually translates into direct differences in biological activity, no more than the color of a race car can be presumed to indicate its performance. Variations in the colors of the race cars and in such molecular dispersions are clearly useful identifying tags, allowing one to separate and distinquish the various players, but that is as much of a conclusion that can be drawn with that information alone. Wirt Atmar _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:86>From email@example.com Thu Sep 26 14:13:48 1996 Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:13:42 -0500 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com (Frog Hollow) Subject: John Evans For a succinct biography of Sir John Evans (1823-1908) see the 11th edition - in many ways, the best of them - of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. If only ed. 11 of the EB were available on-line or on CD-ROM.... Cheers, Betsy Shaw _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:87>From firstname.lastname@example.org Fri Sep 27 17:17:35 1996 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 17:17:25 -0500 (CDT) From: Gregory Mayer <email@example.com> Subject: Peters projection To: firstname.lastname@example.org In response to an inquiry a while back concerning how cartographers viewed the so-called Peters projection, I had posted some information from John Campbell's text to the effect that it was not well thought of by cartographers. Quite accidentally I have just come across a book on cartographic controversies by Mark Monmonier (a geographer) entitled _Drawing the Line_ which has a whole chapter on Peters and his campaign to publicize his projection (which was devised 100 years earlier by someone named Gall). As I had gathered from Campbell, Peters is not well-regarded by cartographers, and his efforts are seen as essentially political. In fact, cartographers seem to think that Peters is doing what he accuses everyone else of doing: producing distorted maps so as to make political points. Gregory C. Mayer email@example.com _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:88>From firstname.lastname@example.org Fri Sep 27 05:05:11 1996 Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 21:29:38 -0500 To: email@example.com From: Jane Camerini <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: darwin and wallace I find Mayr's statement on the similarities somewhat facile. There were resources such as Malthus' s Essay common to both men, but their backgrounds were vastly different, as were their constraints. For a fascinating analysis of Wallace's 'Malthusian Moment' see a new essay by Jim Moore in a forthcoming volume from Chicago : Contexts of Victorian Science, B. Lightman, ed. _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:89>From GRANSOM@ucrac1.ucr.edu Sun Sep 29 08:19:14 1996 Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 6:18:28 -0700 (PDT) From: GREG RANSOM <GRANSOM@ucrac1.ucr.edu> To: DARWIN-L@RAVEN.CC.UKANS.EDU Subject: Bowler's _Life's Splendid Drama_. In his new book _Life's Splendid Drama: Evolutionary Biology and the Reconstruction of Life's Ancestry, 1860-1940_ (Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1996) Peter Bowler advances an important thesis about the acceptance of Darwin's mechanism of natural selection, and the interanimation between the tranformation caused by Darwin's work on that of biologists working on phylogenetic research, paleontology, and bio- geography -- and the eventual acceptance not only of Darwin's hypothesis of modification by descent, but also of Darwin's explanation of adaptive features and behaviors by the hypothesis of natural selection. How close does Bowler come to the mark when he makes these claims: "[In my book] I ask how significant the new [Darwinian approach] was: Did it constitute a revolution, or merely a transformation of existing disciplines? My argument is that the attempts to reconstruct life's ancestry fall into the latter category .." (p. 4) "In the end, I hope to show that the emergence of twentieth-century Darwinisim was encouraged by profound modifications that had taken place in evolutionists' views on the history of life in the period from the 1870s to the 1930s." (p. 5) "If Simpson was able to make important contributions to the modern synthesis, he did so because he could draw upon important innovations, both techinical and conceptual, made by the previous generation of paleontologists. They had, in effect, become more 'Darwinian' in their overall view of the history of live, even though many still accepted a role for mechanisms other than natural selection." (p. 5) "As morphology turned away from phylogenetic reconstruction, paleontology and biogeography become more active. We shall see that this transition promoted a greater awareness of the extent to which the history of life on earth could be explained in terms of changing environments through geological time." (p. 5) "A neumber of non-Darwinian mechanisms of evolution were abandoned [after the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis of the 1930s] with important consequences for ideas on the pattern of evolutionary change. But the rejection of these non-Darwinian ideas should not be seen as a sudden revolution precipitated by events outside the realm of paleontology. As suggested above, this study will show that the path toward modern Darwinism had already been broken by an earlier generation of evolutionists asking new questions about the forces that shape the history of life on earth." (p. 5) Bowler seems to suggest a major revision of our understanding of the factors involved in the acceptence of the Darwinian picture, and seems also to provide further support to Ghiselin's argument against the Kuhnian picture of scientific 'revolutions'. For my own part, for some time I have been especially convinced by Bowler's argument, re-emphasized in his new book, that we must re-think the relationship between Darwin and 19th ideas of evolution and evolutionary processes both inside, and especially _outside_ biology. As Bowler puts it, "If Darwin converted the scientific world to evolutionism despite being unable to convince his contemporaries that he had solved the problem of how evolution worked, we need to reassess our understanding of his impact on both science and society." (p. 2) Greg Ransom Dept. of Philosophy UC-Riverside email@example.com http://members.gnn.com/logosapien/ransom.htm _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:90>From firstname.lastname@example.org Sun Sep 29 21:24:31 1996 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 12:28:10 +0000 (WET) From: "Yigal Zan, R.L. H-Anderson" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Wallce and Darwin Reading David Quammen's Song of the Dodo made me want to read early Wallace; in SotD much interesting detail is given re these two men's differing personal experiences with the natural world due for one thing to differences in their economic circumstances; Quammen also touches on the delicate matter of how much Darwin knew and when he knew it vis a vis now missing letters from Wallace, etc. R. Hunter-Anderson _______________________________________________________________________________ <37:91>From email@example.com Mon Sep 30 08:03:01 1996 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 08:02:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Gregory Mayer <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: Bowler's _Life's Splendid Drama_. To: email@example.com It is difficult to grasp the thesis of an unseen book from a few paragraphs, but, to quote Bowler, the cited claims seem to be > merely a transformation of existing views, rather than a major revolution. What I found interesting is the notion that paleontology had become, in part, Darwinian prior to Simpson. Gould has argued that the synthesis was grafted on to paleontology by Simpson. But the interpretation that seems to be urged by Bowler would be revisionary, perhaps even more traditional, rather than revolutionary. Gregory C. Mayer firstname.lastname@example.org _______________________________________________________________________________ Darwin-L Message Log 37: 56-91 -- September 1996 End
© RJO 1995–2016