C.H. Waddington’s differences with the creators of the modern evolutionary synthesis: a tale of two genes
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 39 (3):18 (2017)
Abstract
In 2011, Peterson suggested that the main reason why C.H. Waddington was essentially ignored by the framers of the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1950s was because they were Cartesian reductionists and mathematical population geneticists while he was a Whiteheadian organicist and experimental geneticist who worked with Drosophila. This paper suggests a further reason that can only be seen now. The former defined genes and their alleles by their selectable phenotypes, essentially the Mendelian view, while Waddington defined a gene through its functional role as determined by genetic analysis, a view that foresaw the modern view that a gene is a DNA sequence with some function. The former were interested in selection, while Waddington focused on variation. The differences between the two views of a gene are briefly considered in the context of systems biology.DOI
10.1007/s40656-017-0143-4
My notes
Similar books and articles
So far like the present period’: a reply to ‘C.H. Waddington’s differences with the creators of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis: a Tale of Two Genes.Erik L. Peterson - 2017 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 39 (3):19.
Epigenetic landscaping: Waddington's use of cell fate bifurcation diagrams. [REVIEW]Scott F. Gilbert - 1991 - Biology and Philosophy 6 (2):135-154.
Waddington’s Legacy to Developmental and Theoretical Biology.Jonathan B. L. Bard - 2008 - Biological Theory 3 (3):188-197.
Waddington’s Unfinished Critique of Neo-Darwinian Genetics: Then and Now.Adam S. Wilkins - 2008 - Biological Theory 3 (3):224-232.
Complexities in genome structure and evolution.Michael Purugganan - 2010 - In Massimo Pigliucci & Gerd Muller (eds.), Evolution – the Extended Synthesis. MIT Press. pp. 117--134.
Evolutionary Chance Mutation: A Defense of the Modern Synthesis' Consensus View.Francesca Merlin - 2010 - Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 2 (20130604).
Progress through evolution? An inquiry into the thought of C.h. Waddington.Kai Hahlweg - 1981 - Acta Biotheoretica 30 (2):103-120.
Genes `for' phenotypes: A modern history view.Jonathan Michael Kaplan & Massimo Pigliucci - 2001 - Biology and Philosophy 16 (2):189--213.
What will result from the interaction between functional and evolutionary biology?Michel Morange - 2011 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42 (1):69-74.
Do we need an extended evolutionary synthesis?Massimo Pigliucci - 2007 - Evolution 61 (12):2743-2749.
Mendelian-Mutationism: The Forgotten Evolutionary Synthesis.Arlin Stoltzfus & Kele Cable - 2014 - Journal of the History of Biology 47 (4):501-546.
The fate of Darwinism: evolution after the modern synthesis.David J. Depew & Bruce H. Weber - 2011 - Biological Theory 6 (1):89-102.
Analytics
Added to PP
2017-10-14
Downloads
37 (#317,909)
6 months
1 (#451,971)
2017-10-14
Downloads
37 (#317,909)
6 months
1 (#451,971)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
The environment: An ambiguous concept in Waddington's biology.Laurent Loison - 2022 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 91 (C):181-190.
References found in this work
The excluded philosophy of evo-devo? Revisiting CH Waddington's failed attempt to embed Alfred North Whitehead's" organicism" in evolutionary biology.Erik L. Peterson - 2011 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 33 (3).
Waddington’s Legacy to Developmental and Theoretical Biology.Jonathan B. L. Bard - 2008 - Biological Theory 3 (3):188-197.