In 1878 evolutionary theoretician Edward D. Cope published an eight-page paper filled with prescient ideas that clearly anticipated theoretical evolutionary topics that are actively being debated some 145 years later. An examination of these ideas and their modern counterparts is the primary objective of this essay. A proposal is also made to provide an answer to Cope’s Puzzle concerning the sequences of events involved in the evolution of adaptive animal structures. This article revisits Cope’s “The Relation of Animal Motion to (...) Animal Evolution” (published in _The American Naturalist_, volume 12, number 1, January 1878, pp. 40–48) for _Biological Theory_’s “Classics in Biological Theory” collection; Cope’s original paper is available as supplementary material in the online version of this article. (shrink)

Edward Dinker Cope (1840-1897) był jednym z najbardziej wpływowych przyrodników XIX wieku, który doprowadził do rozwoju amerykańskiej paleontologii oraz popularyzacji teorii ewolucji Lamarcka. Teorię tę rozwinął pod postacią autorskiej koncepcji psycholamarkizmu. Jednym z pomijanych wątków jego biografii są jego poglądy filozoficzne. Zdaniem Cope’a teologia naturalna powinna zostać zreformowana przez wprowadzenie do niej nowych założeń filozoficznych, zgodnych z formującą się nauką ewolucjonizmu. Cope proponował stworzenie nowej „teologii”, która miała się opierać na jego koncepcji ewolucji kierowanej świadomością, jak również doborem naturalnym. W (...) artykule przeanalizowano filozoficzne propozycje Cope’a oraz ukazano, w jaki sposób zreinterpretował mechanizm selekcji, wpisując go w swoją teleologiczną wizję procesu ewolucyjnego. Zdaniem Cope’a człowiek, posiadając wolną wolę, jest w stanie kierować swoją ewolucją, lecz nie ma gwarancji tego, że będzie w stanie przetrwać. Teza ta miała charakter teologiczny w dziełach Cope’a, który w nieprzystosowaniu widział odpowiednik grzechu, a ten z kolei eliminowany był przez dobór naturalny. W ten sposób akceptacja Boga stawała się jedyną drogą gwarantującą przetrwanie. Jednak ta konkluzja doprowadziła Cope’a do racjonalizacji rasizmu, gdyż widział on w wyzysku innych ras skutki ich ewolucyjnej degeneracji. Poglądy Cope’a odzwierciedlają współczesne problemy, jakie można zauważyć w naukach społecznych, jeśli odwołują się do mechanizmu doboru naturalnego. --------------- Zgłoszono: 29/08/2021. Zrecenzowano: 11/10/2021. Zaakceptowano do publikacji: 25/10/2021. (shrink)

Throughout the history of evolutionary theory a number of scientists have argued that evolution proceeds along a limited number of definite trajectories, a concept and group of theories known as “orthogenesis”. Beginning in the 1880s, influential evolutionists including Theodor Eimer, Edward Drinker Cope, and Leo Berg argued that a fully causal explanation of evolution must take into account the origin and nature of variation, an idea that implied orthogenesis in their views. This paper argues that these orthogenesis developed theories that (...) were more than highly technical and theoretically dubious hypotheses accessible only to elite specialists, as certain histories of these ideas might suggest. Some orthogenesists made their case to a non-specialist audience to gain support for their ideas in the face of widespread controversy over evolutionary theory. Through a case study analysis of three major books by Eimer, Cope, and Berg, this paper contends that they sought to re-orient the central tenets of the science of evolution to include the causal impact of variation on evolutionary outcomes. These orthogenesists developed novel and synthetic evolutionary theories in a publishing platform suited for non-specialist audiences in an effort to impact the debates over evolutionary causation prevalent in the late-19th and early 20th centuries. (shrink)

We analyze the relationship between evolutionary theory and classification of higher taxa in the work of three ichthyologists: Albert C.L.G. Günther (1830–1914), Edward Drinker Cope (1840–1897), and Theodore Gill (1837–1914). The progress of ichthyology in the early years following the Origin has received little attention from historians, and offers an opportunity to further evaluate the extent to which evolutionary theorizing influenced published views on systematic methodology. These three ichthyologists held radically different theoretical views. The apparent commensurability of claims about relationships (...) among groups of fishes belies differences in what the relationships actually were supposed to be. As well, interpreting classification as genealogical did not lead to agreement about taxonomic methodology; instead, applying evolutionary theory raised new axes of disagreement. (shrink)

This essay is an attempt to explain why Charles Sanders Peirce’s evolutionary metaphysics would not have seemed strange to its original 1890s audience. Building on the pioneering work of Andrew Reynolds, I will excavate the scientific context of Peirce’s Monist articles—in particular “The Law of Mind” and “Man’s Glassy Essence,” both published in 1892—focusing on the relationship between protoplasm, evolution, and consciousness. I argue that Peirce’s discussions should be understood in the context of contemporary evolutionary and physiological speculations, many of (...) which were featured in late- 1880s issues of Open Court, sister journal to the Monist. (shrink)

The Modern Synthesis (MS) gene-centered population model of evolution is currently being challenged by the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (ESS) organism-centered developmental model of evolution. The predictions of the EES are here examined with respect to the arguments of Edward Drinker Cope (1840–1897) for an organism-centered evolutionary process in which organisms both shape and are shaped by their environments such that the activities of the organisms themselves play a role in their own evolution.

Throughout the last quarter of the nineteenth century, researchers became increasingly interested in explaining the ways in which mammalian teeth, especially molars, and their complex arrangements of cusps arose along both developmental and evolutionary timescales. By the 1890s, two theories garnered special prominence; the tritubercular theory and the concrescence theory. The tritubercular theory was proposed by Edward Drinker Cope in 1883, and later expanded by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1888, while the concrescence theory was developed by Carl Röse in 1892. (...) Reviews concerning the evolution of mammalian molar teeth tended to paint the two theories as occupying opposing sides, and debates arose between their main proponents; however, their tenets do not seem logically incompatible. Throughout this paper, I argue that the conflict that arose was due not to the content of the theories, but to a diverse array of commitments Cope, Osborn, and Röse held, which turned into background assumptions within the setting of these theories. This history traces the context in which Cope, Osborn, and Röse developed the tritubercular and concrescence theories, and the ways in which the assumptions that these investigators held influenced their perceptions of their theories. (shrink)

In the years of the post-Darwinian debate, many American naturalists invoked the name of Lamarck to signal their belief in a purposive and anti-Darwinian view of evolution. Yet Weismann’s theory of germ-plasm continuity undermined the shared tenet of the neo-Lamarckian theories as well as the idea of the interchangeability between biological and social heredity. Edward Drinker Cope, the leader of the so-called “American School,” defended his neo-Lamarckian philosophy against every attempt to redefine the relationship between behavior, development, and heredity beyond (...) the epigenetic model of inheritance. This paper explores Cope’s late-career defense of neo-Lamarckism. Particular attention is dedicated to the debate he had with James Mark Baldwin before the publication of Baldwin’s own “A New Factor in Evolution”. I argue that Cope’s criticism was partly due to the fact that Baldwin’s theory of social heredity threatened Cope’s biologistic stance, as well as his attempt to preserve design in nature. This theoretical attitude had a remarkable impact on Baldwin’s arguments for the theory of organic selection. (shrink)