Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA14724 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 10 Aug 2001 22:11:28 +0100 Message-ID: <003e01c121d9$9a0f5340$0502bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <200108100549.f7A5nBb14655@unix03.wehi.edu.au> Subject: Re: Logic + universal evolution Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 21:37:03 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> On Friday, August 10, 2001, at 02:26 PM, Scott Chase wrote:
> >> 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).
<< Chris you are about Lamarck.
Lamarck did not use the word transformism neither the word
evolution, because that last didnot have the meaning which we give
Lamarcks aim was far more greater than just come up with an idea
about the transformation of species. He tried to lay down the very
foundations of a biology as an autonomic part of science and above
all a psychology to go with it.
Lamarck did coin the term biology thought !!
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 22:31:28 BST