Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id GAA12763 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 10 Aug 2001 06:51:38 +0100 Message-Id: <200108100549.f7A5nBb14655@unix03.wehi.edu.au> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 15:49:08 +1000 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) From: John Wilkins <wilkins@wehi.EDU.AU> To: firstname.lastname@example.org In-Reply-To: <F2255pneeFUtLch9wPi0000391a@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Logic + universal evolution Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Friday, August 10, 2001, at 02:26 PM, Scott Chase wrote:
>> From: John Wilkins <wilkins@wehi.EDU.AU>
>> Reply-To: email@example.com
>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Subject: Re: Logic + universal evolution
>> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:53:34 +1000
>> Buffon's view of transmutation of species was a degenerational one -
>> each species in a genus bar at most one was a degeneration from the
>> "prime stock" or "primary stem" (premiere souche). His pupil and friend
>> Lamarck applied a *generational* view to species transmutation, but
>> because he thought it was an internal impulse or drive that caused it,
>> he used the term "evolution", which Geoffroy, *his* pupil, carried on
>> into the 19th century debates.
> So Lamarck actually did utilize the word "evolution"? Can you square
> this with what Richard Burkhardt says in his intro to Lamarck's
> _Zoological Philosophy_ (1984. The University of Chicago Press.
> Chicago.)? On page xxii Burkhardt writes:
> (bq) "Lamarck never used the word "evolution" to refer to the process
> of the origin and successive transformation and development of organic
> beings over time. Nor for that matter did he use the word
> "transformism"." (eq)
Hmmm. I thought he did. I'll check my sources, but there's no reason to
doubt that you (ie, Burckhardt) may be right about that. Perhaps it's
one of those snide remarks thrown at transformists by Cuvier? I know
it's in Lyell (or at least I recall it being in Lyell... my memory isn't
as good as it should have been. Principles has been rereleased in
facsimile by Chicago, I think - I'll see if I can find a copy of vol 2).
Great. Now I have another thesis avoidance topic...
>> Pluralism rears its ugly head, but AFAICT MR need not apply. To quote
>> Gould, the pluralistic hedonist, himself on this (from "Kropotkin was
>> no crackpot" as found in _Bully for Brontosaurus_, 1992, paperback
>> edition, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p. 339):
> (bq) "I see no evidence for Teilhard's noosphere, for Capra's
> California style of holism, for Sheldrake's morphic resonance"(eq)
> Has anybody spoke to the infamous 100th monkey phenomenon yet?
Well they have now, damn you :-) Do we *really* have to go through that?
-- John Wilkins Head Communication Services, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne Australia Personal page: <http://users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 06:56:06 BST