Gegenüber den Ansichten vonJ. Gross , der den Mendelismus für die Stütze der selektionsdarwinistischen Evolutionserklärung halten will, stellt der Verfasser die Argumente zusammen, die beweisen können, dass, im- Grunde genommen, beide Lehren identifiziert sein sollten, da sie mit gleichem Begriffe der allerkleinsten, von einander unabhängigen, hauptsächlich äusserlichen, unbestimmten und meistens nur geringere Lebensbedeutung zeigenden Varianten operieren, deren Ursachen, nachDarwin, öfters unbekannt, das Entstehen sogar zufällig bleiben, d.h. dass sie vollständig den Regeln der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung unterworfen sein müssen, was-im Mendelismus – gleichfalls (...) in dem freien Zusammentreffen und dem Kombinieren der mendelnden Merkmale sein Ausdruck findet, was inbezug auf die sich abspielenden Interaktionen der Genallele, und zwar in Folgte der Anteilnahme von immer zwei Elternseiten, mit allgemeiner Gleichung desNewtonschen Binoms ausgedruckt werden kann, wie das der Verfasser im Jahre 1938 entwickelte.Der alte Vorwurf somit, der seit langem dem Darwinismus gemacht wurde, es habe eine allzugrosse Bedeutung den zufälligen Variationen beigemessen, sollte, im Grunde genommen, von dem Standpunkte der Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie für ein Argument zugunsten ebengleich des Darwinismus, als des Mendelismus angeführt werden. Umso mehr, wenn es gelingen könnte die Ansicht vonTh. H. Morgan zu bestätigen, dass die Entwickelung eines jeden beliebigen Merkmals, bloss kraft seines Anwachsens, die Chancen für die weitere Entwickelung desselben in der eingenom-. menen Richtung vergrössert.Zugleich wird jedoch ein deutlicher Vorbehalt gemacht, dass die erschlossene Identifizierung einstweilen nur die microevolutiven Vorgänge betreffen könnte, keineswegs aber die natürliche Zuchtwahllehre, die vor allem die Dynamik der Populationsänderungen behandelt.En s'opposant aux points de vue exprimés parJ. Gross que la doctrine mendélienne aurait pu être considérée comme le support de celle du sélectionisme darwinien, l'auteur avance des preuves que tous les deux devraient au fond s'identifier, parce qu'elles basent leurs déductions sur les variantes minimes, en majeure partie concernant les traits extérieurs, très souvent d'une importance vitale insignifiante, en même temps peu définies et réciproquement indépendantes, l'origine desquelles, selonDarwin, reste d'ordinaire inconnue, l'apparition même étant imprévue et fortuite, ce qui signifie, qu'elles doivent être assujetties complètement aux règles, requisitions et conséquences de la théorie de probabilité, tandis que dans le mendélisme la même chose se manifeste également dans les associations en majeure partie libres et indépendantes des caractères semblables, qui représentent les interactions combinatoires géniques entre les paires allélomorphiques, qui grâce à la participation de pas plus que deux partenaires parentals s'expriment dans une équation générale du binôme newtonien .De cette manière, l'objection faite jadis contre la doctrine darwinienne d'avoir assigné un poids trop grand au hasard des variations indéfinies, doit être au fond considérée, au point de vue de la théorie de probabilité, plutôt comme l'argument de l'appui en faveur de cette doctrine, aussi bien naturellement que du mendélisme même, lui aussi étant une expression de cette théorie. Cela d'autant plus s'il était possible de confirmer les idées deTh. H. Morgan , selon lequel le développement d'un trait quelconque, une fois commencé, acquiert, par la seule apparition, plus de chances pour son progrès consécutif dans le même endroit.Néanmoins, toute réserve est prise par l'auteur au fait, que cette identification déduite ne saurait être attribuée pour le moment du moins, qu'aux phénomènes microévolutifs et qu'elle ne pourrait jamais être appliquée à la théorie de la sélection naturelle, cette denière concernant avant tout les facteurs impliqués dans la dynamique des changements quantitatifs des populations. (shrink)

Cytogenetics was born of the confluence of two so-far independent fields: cytological studies and breeding studies, which merged through the identification of genes with chromosomes. In this paper I argue that genes were introduced as functional entities. Functional explanations are presented here as a subclass of inferences to the best explanation and I argue that abductive arguments do not offer conclusive proof for the existence of the entities postulated through them. However, functional explanations usually follow a scheme laid out by (...) Fodor (1968): there is a first phase where hypothetical entities are postulated and individuated through their effects; there is a second phase where the physical structures responsible for these effects are sought. I analyze the development of both phases in the construction of the chromosome theory of Mendelian inheritance. I will argue that first-phase theories are important to set conditions of identification for the functions played by a certain structure in a given containing system. (shrink)

T. H. Morgan (1866–1945), the founder of the Drosophila research group in genetics that established the chromosome theory of Mendelian inheritance, has been described as a radical empiricist in the historical literature. His empiricism, furthermore, is supposed to have prejudiced him against certain scientific conclusions. This paper aims to show two things: first, that the sense in which the term empiricism has been used by scholars is too weak to be illuminating. It is necessary to distinguish between empiricism as an (...) epistemological position and the so-called methodological empiricism. I will argue that the way the latter has been presented cannot distinguish an empiricist methodology from a non-empiricist one. Second, I will show that T. H. Morgan was not an epistemological empiricist as this term is usually defined in philosophy. The reason is that he believed in the existence of genes as material entities when they were unobservable entities when they were unobservable entities introduced to account for the phenotypic ratios found in breeding experiments. These two points, of course, are interrelated. If we were to water down the meaning of empiricis, perhaps we could call Morgan an empiricist. But then we would also fail to distinguish empiricism from realism. (shrink)

Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) offers both an account of developmental processes and also new integrative frameworks for analyzing interactions between development and evolution. Biologists and philosophers are keen on evo-devo in part because it appears to offer a comfort zone between, on the one hand, what some take to be the relative inability of mainstream evolutionary biology to integrate a developmental perspective; and, on the other hand, what some take to be more intractable syntheses of development and evolution. In this (...) article, I outline core concerns of evo-devo, distinguish theoretical and practical variants, and counter Sterelny's recent argument that evo-devo's attention to development, while important, offers no significant challenge to evolutionary theory as we know it. (shrink)

Kyle Stanford has recently given substance to the problem of unconceived alternatives, which challenges the reliability of inference to the best explanation (IBE) in remote domains of nature. Conjoined with the view that IBE is the central inferential tool at our disposal in investigating these domains, the problem of unconceived alternatives leads to scientific anti-realism. We argue that, at least within the biological community, scientists are now and have long been aware of the dangers of IBE. We re-analyze the nineteenth-century (...) study of inheritance and development (Stanford’s case study) and extend it into the twentieth century, focusing in particular on both classical Mendelian genetics and the studies by Avery et al. on the chemical nature of the hereditary substance. Our extended case studies show the preference of the biological community for a different methodological standard: the vera causa ideal, which requires that purported causes be shown on non-explanatory grounds to exist and be competent to produce their effects. On this basis, we defend a prospective realism about the biological sciences. (shrink)

Philosophy of biology is often said to have emerged in the last third of the twentieth century. Prior to this time, it has been alleged that the only authors who engaged philosophically with the life sciences were either logical empiricists who sought to impose the explanatory ideals of the physical sciences onto biology, or vitalists who invoked mystical agencies in an attempt to ward off the threat of physicochemical reduction. These schools paid little attention to actual biological science, and as (...) a result philosophy of biology languished in a state of futility for much of the twentieth century. The situation, we are told, only began to change in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when a new generation of researchers began to focus on problems internal to biology, leading to the consolidation of the discipline. In this paper we challenge this widely accepted narrative of the history of philosophy of biology. We do so by arguing that the most important tradition within early twentieth-century philosophy of biology was neither logical empiricism nor vitalism, but the organicist movement that flourished between the First and Second World Wars. We show that the organicist corpus is thematically and methodologically continuous with the contemporary literature in order to discredit the view that early work in the philosophy of biology was unproductive, and we emphasize the desirability of integrating the historical and contemporary conversations into a single, unified discourse. (shrink)

Der Artikel führt den Begriff der epistemischen Konkurrenz ein. Im Gegensatz zu „wissenschaftliche Kontroverse“ beschreibt er eine Situation, in der sich zwei Forschungsfelder gegenseitig als mit demselben Bereich von Phänomen befasst wahrnehmen, wobei ihre methodischen Ansätze und theoretischen Erklärungen jedoch so unterschiedlich sind, dass ein offener Konflikt über die Wahrheit oder Falschheit bestimmter Aussagen oder die Genauigkeit in der Anwendung einer Methode nicht stattfindet. Nichtsdestotrotz streben beide Parteien danach, die maßgebliche Erklärung der entsprechenden Phänomene anzubieten. Indem die erweiterte Gemeinschaft der (...) Forschenden oder die Öffentlichkeit einen Ansatz als maßgeblich anerkennt, handeln sie als eine dritte, gewissermaßen neutrale Partei, die einen Preis vergibt, um den die anderen Parteien konkurrieren. Der Artikel beschreibt das Verhältnis von Genetik und Entwicklungsbiologie um 1900 als epistemische Konkurrenz. Diese Forschungsfelder geben unterschiedliche Erklärungen für die Phänomene der organischen Reproduktion. Die Erklärungen unterscheiden sich bezüglich der Formbegriffe und entsprechend hinsichtlich der Begriffe der Vererbung von Aspekten der Form eines Organismus. Zudem basieren die Erklärungen der beiden Felder auf unterschiedlichen Arten kausalen Schließens, die in unterschiedliche experimentelle Ansätze eingebettet sind. Diese Unterschiede können als Instanzen eines allgemeineren Unterschieds zwischen der Tradition der Naturgeschichte, die sich mit Unterschieden zwischen Organismen auseinandersetzt, und der Tradition der Anatomie, die sich mit den Teilen der Organismen beschäftigt, angesehen werden. Dieses Bild der Genetik und Entwicklungsbiologie als Zweige unterschiedlicher fest verankerter Traditionen widerspricht dem Narrativ der Trennung des Begriffs der Vererbung von dem der Entwicklung im Zuge einer Trennung der Disziplinen der Genetik und der Embryologie, das in der Historiographie der Biologie nach wie vor weit verbreitet ist. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungDer Artikel führt den Begriff der epistemischen Konkurrenz ein. Im Gegensatz zu „wissenschaftliche Kontroverse“ beschreibt er eine Situation, in der sich zwei Forschungsfelder gegenseitig als mit demselben Bereich von Phänomen befasst wahrnehmen, wobei ihre methodischen Ansätze und theoretischen Erklärungen jedoch so unterschiedlich sind, dass ein offener Konflikt über die Wahrheit oder Falschheit bestimmter Aussagen oder die Genauigkeit in der Anwendung einer Methode nicht stattfindet. Nichtsdestotrotz streben beide Parteien danach, die maßgebliche Erklärung der entsprechenden Phänomene anzubieten. Indem die erweiterte Gemeinschaft der (...) Forschenden oder die Öffentlichkeit einen Ansatz als maßgeblich anerkennt, handeln sie als eine dritte, gewissermaßen neutrale Partei, die einen Preis vergibt, um den die anderen Parteien konkurrieren. Der Artikel beschreibt das Verhältnis von Genetik und Entwicklungsbiologie um 1900 als epistemische Konkurrenz. Diese Forschungsfelder geben unterschiedliche Erklärungen für die Phänomene der organischen Reproduktion. Die Erklärungen unterscheiden sich bezüglich der Formbegriffe und entsprechend hinsichtlich der Begriffe der Vererbung von Aspekten der Form eines Organismus. Zudem basieren die Erklärungen der beiden Felder auf unterschiedlichen Arten kausalen Schließens, die in unterschiedliche experimentelle Ansätze eingebettet sind. Diese Unterschiede können als Instanzen eines allgemeineren Unterschieds zwischen der Tradition der Naturgeschichte, die sich mit Unterschieden zwischen Organismen auseinandersetzt, und der Tradition der Anatomie, die sich mit den Teilen der Organismen beschäftigt, angesehen werden. Dieses Bild der Genetik und Entwicklungsbiologie als Zweige unterschiedlicher fest verankerter Traditionen widerspricht dem Narrativ der Trennung des Begriffs der Vererbung von dem der Entwicklung im Zuge einer Trennung der Disziplinen der Genetik und der Embryologie, das in der Historiographie der Biologie nach wie vor weit verbreitet ist. (shrink)

Since the discovery of the double helical structure of DNA, the standard account of the inheritance of features has been in terms of DNA-copying and DNA-transmission. This theory is just a version of the old theory according to which the inheritance of features is explained by the transfer at conception of some developmentally privileged material from parents to offspring. This paper does the following things: (1) it explains what the inheritance of features is; (2) it explains how the DNA-centric theory (...) emerged; (3) it clarifies the relation between the DNA-centric theory and the ‘unfolding’ theory of development; (4) it argues that (given what we now know about developmental processes and genetic activity) the DNA-centric theory should be abandoned in favour of a pluralistic (but not holistic) theory of the inheritance of features. According to this pluralistic theory, the reliable reoccurrence of phenotypes must be explained by appealing not only to processes responsible for the reliable reoccurrence of genetic developmental factors but also to processes responsible for the reliable reoccurrence (or persistence) of nongenetic developmental factors. (shrink)

En esta trabajo se analiza la relación existente entre las propuestas de Mendel, de los "redescubridores" -de Vries, Correns y Tschermak-, de Bateson y colaboradores y de Morgan y discípulos, e.e. la historia de la genética "clásica", en términos de "inconmensurabilidad", de forma tal de capturar y precisar tanto la idea de que entre éstas se dan ciertas discontinuidades y rupturas como de que éstas tienen "algo" que ver de algún modo entre sí. En particular, se introducen, con ayuda del (...) marco conceptual de la metateoría estructuralista, y aplican al presente caso, los conceptos de "inconmensurabilidad teórica" y "comparabilidad empírica". In this paper the existing relationship between the proposals of Mendel, the "rediscoverers" -de Vries, Correns and Tschermak-, Bateson and collaborators and Morgan and disciples, e.g. the history of "classical" genetics is analyzed in terms of "incommensurability", in such a way to capture and to precise so much the idea that among them take place some discontinuities and ruptures as well as that they have "something" to do with each other. In particular, the concepts of "theoretical incommensurability" and "empirical comparability" are introduced with the help of the conceptual framework of the structuralist view of theories and applied to this case. (shrink)

What are scientific theories and how should they be represented? In this article, I propose a causal–structural account, according to which scientific theories are to be represented as sets of interrelated causal and credal nets. In contrast with other accounts of scientific theories (such as Sneedian structuralism, Kitcher’s unificationist view, and Darden’s theory of theoretical components), this leaves room for causality to play a substantial role. As a result, an interesting account of explanation is provided, which sheds light on explanatory (...) unification within a causalist framework. The theory of classical genetics is used as a case study. 1 Introduction2 The Theory of Classical Genetics3 Three Philosophical Accounts of the Theory of Classical Genetics3.1 The structuralist account3.2 Kitcher’s unificationism3.3 Darden and theory change in science4 A Common Lacuna: Where is Causality?5 Woodward’s Interventionist Account of Causation6 Causal Bayes Nets and Their Interrelations6.1 Causal Bayes nets6.2 Relations among causal nets6.3 Credal nets and their interrelations7 The Theory of the Gene and its Causal Graph8 A First Exemplar: Stem Length in Pea Plants8.1 Three crosses on stem length in pea plants8.2 The causal graph for stem length in pea plants8.3 Morgan’s explanatory principles and the credal net for stem length in pea plants9 Explaining Mendel’s Crosses: A Causal–Structural Account10 Monohybrid Crosses with Complete Dominance11 Exemplars,Explanatory Patterns, Generic Credal Nets, and Mechanism Schemas12 Incomplete Dominance13 Anomalies14 Multi-hybrid Crosses with Independent Assortment15 Multi-hybrid Crosses with Linkage and Crossing-Over16 Double Crossing-Over and the Linear Order of the Gene17 Causal–Structural Explanation18 Explanatory Unification19 Concluding Remarks. (shrink)

Today, mechanisms and mechanistic explanation are very popular in philosophy of science and are deemed a welcome alternative to laws of nature and deductive‐nomological explanation. Starting from Mitchell's pragmatic notion of laws, I cast doubt on their status as a genuine alternative. I argue that (1) all complex‐systems mechanisms ontologically must rely on stable regularities, while (2) the reverse need not hold. Analogously, (3) models of mechanisms must incorporate pragmatic laws, while (4) such laws themselves need not always refer to (...) underlying mechanisms. Finally, I show that Mitchell's account is more encompassing than the mechanistic account *Received August 2008; revised January 2010. †To contact the author, please write to: Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, B‐9000 Belgium; e‐mail: [email protected]. (shrink)

The theory of niche construction adds a second general inheritance system, ecological inheritance, to evolution . Ecological inheritance is the inheritance, via an external environment, of one or more natural selection pressures previously modified by niche-constructing organisms. This addition means descendant organisms inherit genes, and biotically transformed selection pressures in their environments, from their ancestors. The combined inheritance is called niche inheritance. Niche inheritance is used as a basis for classifying the multiple genetic and non-genetic, inheritance systems currently being proposed (...) as possibly significant in evolution . Implications of niche inheritance for the relationship between evolution and development are discussed. (shrink)

The paper analyzes the early theory building process of Thomas Hunt Morgan from the 1910s to the 1930s and the introduction of the invisible gene as a main explanatory unit of heredity. Morgan’s work marks the transition between two different styles of thought. In the early 1900s, he shifted from an embryological study of the development of the organism to a study of the mechanism of genetic inheritance and gene action. According to his contemporaries as well as to historiography, Morgan (...) separated genetics from embryology, and the gene from the whole organism. Other scholars identified an underlying embryological focus in Morgan’s work throughout his career. Our paper aims to clarify the debate by concentrating on Morgan’s theory building—characterized by his confidence in the power of experimental methods, and carefully avoiding any ontological commitment towards the gene—and on the continuity of the questions to be addressed by both embryology and genetics. (shrink)

Mendel's work in hybridization is ipso facto a study in inheritance. He is explicit in his interest to formulate universal generalizations, and at least in the case of the independent segregation of traits, he formulated his conclusions in the form of a law. Mendel did not discern, however, the inheritance of traits from that of the potential for traits. Choosing to study discrete non-overlapping traits, this did not hamper his efforts.

Genetics was established on a strict particulate conception of heredity. Genetic linkage, the deviation from independent segregation of Mendelian factors, was conceived as a function of the material allocation of the factors to the chromosomes, rather than to the multiple effects (pleiotropy) of discrete factors. Although linkage maps were abstractions they provided strong support for the chromosomal theory of inheritance. Direct Cytogenetic evidence was scarce until X-ray induced major chromosomal rearrangements allowed direct correlation of genetic and cytological rearrangements. Only with (...) the discovery of the polytenic giant chromosomes in Drosophila larvae in the 1930s were the virtual maps backed up by physical maps of the genetic loci. Genetic linkage became a pivotal experimental tool for the examination of the integration of genetic functions in development and in evolution. Genetic mapping has remained a hallmark of genetic analysis. The location of genes in DNA is a modern extension of the notion of genetic linkage. (shrink)

The distinction between phenotype and genotype is fundamental to the understanding of heredity and development of organisms. The genotype of an organism is the class to which that organism belongs as determined by the description of the actual physical material made up of DNA that was passed to the organism by its parents at the organism's conception. For sexually reproducing organisms that physical material consists of the DNA contributed to the fertilized egg by the sperm and egg of its two (...) parents. For asexually reproducing organisms, for example bacteria, the inherited material is a direct copy of the DNA of its parent. The phenotype of an organism is the class to which that organism belongs as determined by the description of the physical and behavioral characteristics of the organism, for example its size and shape, its metabolic activities and its pattern of movement. (shrink)