Philosophy of Science 73 (5):918-929 (2006)
|Abstract||Although the construction of neo-Darwinism grew out of Thomas Hunt Morgan's melding of Darwinism and Mendelism, his evidence did not soley support a model of gradual change. To the contrary, he was confronted with observations that could have led him to a more "evo-devo" understanding of the emergence of novel features. Indeed, since Morgan was an embryologist before he became a fruit-fly geneticist, one would have predicted that the combination of these two lines of research would have resulted in early formulations of concepts relevant to evolutionary developmental biology. It is thus of interest to review Morgan's thought processes and arguments for at first rejecting both Darwinism and Mendelism, and then for later dismissing data that would have yielded a model of rapid morphological change in favor of a model of change based on the accumulation of minor mutations and their morphological consequences.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ingo Brigandt (forthcoming). From Developmental Constraint to Evolvability: How Concepts Figure in Explanation and Disciplinary Identity. In Alan C. Love (ed.), Conceptual Change in Biology: Scientific and Philosophical Perspectives on Evolution and Development. Springer.
R. Allen Gardner (2005). Animal Cognition Meets Evo-Devo. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (5):699-700.
Laura Nuño de la Rosa & Arantza Etxeberria, Pattern and Process in Evo-Devo: Descriptions and Explanations.
Stavros Ioannidis (2008). How Development Changes Evolution: Conceptual and Historical Issues in Evolutionary Developmental Biology. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 23 (4):567-578.
Scott F. Gilbert (2003). Evo-Devo, Devo-Evo, and Devgen-Popgen. Biology and Philosophy 18 (2):347-352.
Rasmus Grønfeldt Winther (2013). Evo-Devo as a Trading Zone. In Alan Love (ed.), Conceptual Change in Biology: Scientific and Philosophical Perspectives on Evolution and Development. Springer Verlag, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science.
Jason Scott Robert (2002). How Developmental is Evolutionary Developmental Biology? Biology and Philosophy 17 (5):591-611.
Lindsay R. Craig (2009). Defending Evo‐Devo: A Response to Hoekstra and Coyne. Philosophy of Science 76 (3):335-344.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #131,679 of 722,826 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,826 )
How can I increase my downloads?