DOCSLIB.ORG

The Relationship of Teilhard De Chardin's Law of Complexity/Consciousness to the Mechanism/Vitalism Debate in Biology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Relationship of Teilhard De Chardin's Law of Complexity/Consciousness to the Mechanism/Vitalism Debate in Biology AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF ANDRE JEAN WEIERICH for the DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Name) (Degree) in GENERAL SCIENCE presented on r),, j/ (7 7 (Major) (Date) Title: THE RELATIONSHIP OF TEILHARD DECHARDIN'S LAW OF COMPLEXITY/CONSCIOUSNESS TO THE MECHANISM/ VITALISM DEBATE IN BIOLOGY Abstract approved:Redacted for Privacy Dr. DoniArdlexi Hump //The vitalism/mechanism debatjas it is exemplified in the writings of Loeb, Bergson and Teilhard"isA a central theme in the his- tory and philosophy of biology.This debate focuses on how we are to understand the relationship between the living and non-living.The discussions of the vitalists and mechanists attempt toshow how the ostensibly living and non-living things of the world arerelated.For Loeb, this issue is a purely scientific one which can beresolved by the techniques of a mechanistic experimental science.On the other hand, for Bergson and Teilhard this issue is a metaphysical onewhich can be resolved by an evolutionaryvitalism which is a world hypothe- sis.Bergson presents a dualistic vitalism which is acontextualistic world hypothesis whereas Teilhard presents a monistic andtheological vitalism which is an organicist world hypothesis. A major part of this thesis presents a description and criticism of Teilhard's vitalism.The description of his views shows that the ultimate foundation of his system of thought is his fundamental cate- gory of synthesis (integration) and itsembodiment in his adoption of the human personality as the model of the universe.The criticism centers on his arguments for his law ofcomplexity/consciousness and the notion of conscious matter which it presupposes.Indeed, these are the key elements of his vitalism.Teilhard claims that he has established them in a scientific manner. The main conclusion of this paper is that his claim is not justified. The Relationship of Teilhard de Chardin's Law of Complexity/Consciousness to the Mechanism/Vitalism Debate in Biology by Andre Jean Weierich A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy June 1971 APPROVED: Redacted for Privacy Professor of Biologt Gerneral S Redacted for Privacy Head of Department of General Science Redacted for Privacy Dean of Graduate School / 4.77(,<-; Date thesis is presented (1C1,1',_ -,( , 19 t'-,:k 'i / 0'' --kr -I CYc2 ) / Typed by Donna L. Olson forAndre Jean Weierich ACKNEYWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincerest appreciation to my major professor, Dr. Donald G. Humphrey, whose suggestions and di- rection made this work possible. Also, I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Margaret Os ler whose courses in the history and philosophy of science provided a con- ceptual framework which was incorperated in many of the discussions of this thesis. Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to my loving wife, Mary, without whose encouragement this work would never have been attempted, nor completed. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I.INTRODUCTION II.JACQUES LOEB (1858-1924) AND MECHANISM 8 Introduction 8 Living (Teleological) as Opposed to Non-Living (Non-Teleological) Systems are Those Whose Components Cause Them to Realize Either Fixed or Changing Goals 8 In Loeb's Biology, the Individual Organism is the Teleological System and Its Principle Goal Which Differentiates It From Non-Teleological Systems is its Chemical Synthesis of Macromolecules From Lower Molecular Weight Compounds 10 Biological Behavior and Consciousness are Explainable in Terms of the Laws of Physical Science and Hence These Characteristics Cannot be Used to Differentiate Teleological From Non- Teleological Systems 11 A Clarification of the Vitalism/Mechanism Debate Requires the Identification of a Central Question and the Criteria for an Adequate Answer to It 14 Loeb's Central Question in the Vitalism/ Mechanism Debate is:What is the Integrator of the Vast Mosaic of Individual Physiological and Morphological Processes that Occur in the Developing Embryo? 15 Driesch's Vitalistic Answer to Loeb's Central Question is that there Exists a Non-Physical Agent, an Enfelechy, Which Integrates the Vast Mosaic of Individual Physiological and Morphological Processes that Occur in the Developing Embryo 16 Loeb's Mechanistic Answer to His Central Question is that the Cytoplasm of the Unfertilized Egg Contains a Preformed Embryo Which is a Physical Integrator of the Vast Mosaic of Indi- vidual Physiological and Morphological Processes that Occur in the Developing Embryo 17 Chapter Page Loeb Rejected Driesch's Vitalistic Answer to the Central Question of the Vitalism/ Mechanism Debate Because It Failed to Fulfill His Three Criteria for an Adequate Answer to This Question 19 Loeb's Three Criteria for an Adequate Answer to His Central Question of the Vitalism/ Mechanism Debate are Derived from His Mechanistic General Conceptual System 19 Summary of Loeb 22 Footnotes for Chapter II 24 III.HENRI BERGSON (1859-1941) AND VITALISM 34 Introduction 34 The Main Characteristic Which Differentiates a Living (Teleological) System From a Non-Living (Non- Teleological) One is the Possession of Real Time or Duration 35 Real Time or Duration is the Fundamental Reality of the World and It has the Properties of Simplicity, Indivisibility and Creativity 36 Bergson's Central Question in the Vitalism/ Mechanism Debate is: What is the Nature of the Evolving Life of the Universe? His Defense of His Vitalistic Answer to this Question is Found in His Description and Criticism of Mechanism and Certain Forms of Vitalism 37 The Underlying Premise in a Mechanistic Understanding of Life is the Metaphysical Assumption that What is Most Real in the World is Eternal and Unchangeable and Hence Real Time (Duration) Must be Eliminated From Any Mechanistic Explanation of Life 37 Bergson Rejects Mechanism as a Metaphysical Explanation of the Nature of Life Because of Its Elimination of Real Time (Duration) From Its Explanations 38 Chapter Page Bergson's Rejection of Mechanism as a Meta- physical Explanation is Ultimately Based on His View that There are Two Distinct, But Complementary Ways of Knowing, Metaphysical and Intellectual, the Two Kinds of Reality in the World, Life (Duration) and Matter 39 Intellectual Knowing Must Eliminate Duration (Real Time) Because It Provides Us with the Pragmatic and Rational Knowledge We Need in Order to Manipulate the Physical World 41 Metaphysical Knowing Produces an Intuitive (Non-Rational) and Non-Pragmatic Knowledge of the Fundamental Reality of the World, Dura- tion (Life) 41 Metaphysical and Intellectual Knowing Comple- ment Each Other Because the Former Attains an Absolute Knowledge of Life (Duration) Whereas the Latter Can Attain an Absolute Knowledge of Matter; Matter and Life are the Two Kinds of Reality in the World 43 The Basic Error of Mechanism as a Meta- physical Explanation is Its Illegitimate Attempt to Understand Life (Duration) Through the Rational Concepts of Intellectual Knowing 43 Bergson Rejects Leibnizian Vitalism Because of Its Logical Inconsistencies 44 Bergson Rejects the Vitalism of Ends Because of Its Attempt to Understand the Nature of Life Through the Concepts of Intellectual Knowing 46 A Premise Which is Common to Both Mechanism and the Vitalism of Ends is that the Real Process of Change Which Occurs in the Evolving Tree of Life Resembles the Process of Manufacturing 47 Bergson Rejects the Preceding Common Premise of Mechanism and the Vitalism of Ends Because It is Based Upon Intellectual Conceptions Which do not Present What is Most Real in the Biologi- cal World 48 Chapter Page The Perceptions and Conceptions of Intel- lectual Knowing do not Enable Us to Know What is Most Real in the Biological World 48 Even Though Intellectual Knowing Fails to Understand What is Most Real in the World of Life It is a Mode of Knowing Which is, Nevertheless, Necessary for The Sciences of Life which Successfully Manipulate the World of Living Things 49 When the Intellectual and Metaphysical Ways of Knowing Life are Compared We Find that the Former Presents us with a Static and Complex Symbolic Represen- tation of Life Whereas the Latter Enables us to Feel the Simplicity and Indivisibility of What is Most Real in Life 50 The Real Process of Change Which Occurs in the Biological World Cannot Resemble the Process of Manufacturing Because the Latter is Highly Complex Whereas the Real Process of Change, Duration, Which Can Only be Known in a Metaphysical In- tuition is Simple and Indivisible 52 The Real Process of Nature Which is the Underlying Cause of the Evolution of the Biological World Re- sembles the Thrust of a Moving Hand into a Bucket of Sand.The Vital Impetus is Analogous to the Thrust of the Moving Hand Whereas the Resistance of Inert Matter to the Thrust of the Vital Impetus is Analogous to the Resistance Which Sand Exerts on the Moving Hand 53 The Vitalism/Mechanism Controversy is Generated by the Attempt to Understand the Nature of Evolving Life in Terms of the Concepts Which are Generated by Intellectual Knowing and this Issue can only be Resolved when Intellectual Understanding is Re- placed by the Metaphysical Intuition of Life (Duration) 57 Summary of Bergson's Vitalism 59 A Comparison of Bergson and Loeb 61 Chapter Page A Comparison of Bergson and Loeb on the Contral Question of the Vitalism/Mechanism Debate 61 A Comparison of the General Conceptual Sys- tems (g.c.s.) of Bergson and Loeb 62 A Comparison of Bergson and Loeb on the Problem of Consciousness 63 The Limitations of Loeb and Bergson 65 A Valid Internal Criticism of Loeb and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The 'Crisis of Noosphere'
    The ‘crisis of noosphere’ as a limiting factor to achieve the point of technological singularity Rafael Lahoz-Beltra Department of Applied Mathematics (Biomathematics). Faculty of Biological Sciences. Complutense University of Madrid. 28040 Madrid, Spain. [email protected] 1. Introduction One of the most significant developments in the history of human being is the invention of a way of keeping records of human knowledge, thoughts and ideas. The storage of knowledge is a sign of civilization, which has its origins in ancient visual languages e.g. in the cuneiform scripts and hieroglyphs until the achievement of phonetic languages with the invention of Gutenberg press. In 1926, the work of several thinkers such as Edouard Le Roy, Vladimir Ver- nadsky and Teilhard de Chardin led to the concept of noosphere, thus the idea that human cognition and knowledge transforms the biosphere coming to be something like the planet’s thinking layer. At present, is commonly accepted by some thinkers that the Internet is the medium that brings life to noosphere. Hereinafter, this essay will assume that the words Internet and noosphere refer to the same concept, analogy which will be justified later. 2 In 2005 Ray Kurzweil published the book The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology predicting an exponential increase of computers and also an exponential progress in different disciplines such as genetics, nanotechnology, robotics and artificial intelligence. The exponential evolution of these technologies is what is called Kurzweil’s “Law of Accelerating Returns”. The result of this rapid progress will lead to human beings what is known as tech- nological singularity.
    [Show full text]
  • Foucault's Darwinian Genealogy
    genealogy Article Foucault’s Darwinian Genealogy Marco Solinas Political Philosophy, University of Florence and Deutsches Institut Florenz, Via dei Pecori 1, 50123 Florence, Italy; [email protected] Academic Editor: Philip Kretsedemas Received: 10 March 2017; Accepted: 16 May 2017; Published: 23 May 2017 Abstract: This paper outlines Darwin’s theory of descent with modification in order to show that it is genealogical in a narrow sense, and that from this point of view, it can be understood as one of the basic models and sources—also indirectly via Nietzsche—of Foucault’s conception of genealogy. Therefore, this essay aims to overcome the impression of a strong opposition to Darwin that arises from Foucault’s critique of the “evolutionistic” research of “origin”—understood as Ursprung and not as Entstehung. By highlighting Darwin’s interpretation of the principles of extinction, divergence of character, and of the many complex contingencies and slight modifications in the becoming of species, this essay shows how his genealogical framework demonstrates an affinity, even if only partially, with Foucault’s genealogy. Keywords: Darwin; Foucault; genealogy; natural genealogies; teleology; evolution; extinction; origin; Entstehung; rudimentary organs “Our classifications will come to be, as far as they can be so made, genealogies; and will then truly give what may be called the plan of creation. The rules for classifying will no doubt become simpler when we have a definite object in view. We possess no pedigrees or armorial bearings; and we have to discover and trace the many diverging lines of descent in our natural genealogies, by characters of any kind which have long been inherited.
    [Show full text]
  • Synthesis of Phylogeny and Taxonomy Into a Comprehensive Tree of Life
    Synthesis of phylogeny and taxonomy into a comprehensive tree of life Cody E. Hinchliffa,1, Stephen A. Smitha,1,2, James F. Allmanb, J. Gordon Burleighc, Ruchi Chaudharyc, Lyndon M. Coghilld, Keith A. Crandalle, Jiabin Dengc, Bryan T. Drewf, Romina Gazisg, Karl Gudeh, David S. Hibbettg, Laura A. Katzi, H. Dail Laughinghouse IVi, Emily Jane McTavishj, Peter E. Midfordd, Christopher L. Owenc, Richard H. Reed, Jonathan A. Reesk, Douglas E. Soltisc,l, Tiffani Williamsm, and Karen A. Cranstonk,2 aEcology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; bInterrobang Corporation, Wake Forest, NC 27587; cDepartment of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; dField Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL 60605; eComputational Biology Institute, George Washington University, Ashburn, VA 20147; fDepartment of Biology, University of Nebraska-Kearney, Kearney, NE 68849; gDepartment of Biology, Clark University, Worcester, MA 01610; hSchool of Journalism, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824; iBiological Science, Clark Science Center, Smith College, Northampton, MA 01063; jDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045; kNational Evolutionary Synthesis Center, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705; lFlorida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; and mComputer Science and Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843 Edited by David M. Hillis, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, and approved July 28, 2015 (received for review December 3, 2014) Reconstructing the phylogenetic relationships that unite all line- published phylogenies are available only as journal figures, rather ages (the tree of life) is a grand challenge. The paucity of homologous than in electronic formats that can be integrated into databases and character data across disparately related lineages currently renders synthesis methods (7–9).
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution a Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused by Dr
    Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution A Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused By Dr. Mike Webster, Dept. of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University ([email protected]); February 2010 The current debate over evolution and “intelligent design” (ID) is being driven by a relatively small group of individuals who object to the theory of evolution for religious reasons. The debate is fueled, though, by misunderstandings on the part of the American public about what evolutionary biology is and what it says. These misunderstandings are exploited by proponents of ID, intentionally or not, and are often echoed in the media. In this booklet I briefly outline and explain 10 of the most common (and serious) misunderstandings. It is impossible to treat each point thoroughly in this limited space; I encourage you to read further on these topics and also by visiting the websites given on the resource sheet. In addition, I am happy to send a somewhat expanded version of this booklet to anybody who is interested – just send me an email to ask for one! What are the misunderstandings? 1. Evolution is progressive improvement of species Evolution, particularly human evolution, is often pictured in textbooks as a string of organisms marching in single file from “simple” organisms (usually a single celled organism or a monkey) on one side of the page and advancing to “complex” organisms on the opposite side of the page (almost invariably a human being). We have all seen this enduring image and likely have some version of it burned into our brains.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution: from Big Bang to Nanorobots Grinin, Leonid; Korotayev, Andrey
    www.ssoar.info Evolution: From Big Bang to Nanorobots Grinin, Leonid; Korotayev, Andrey Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Sammelwerk / collection Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Grinin, L., & Korotayev, A. (2015). Evolution: From Big Bang to Nanorobots. Volgograd: Uchitel Publishing House. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-57761-1 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer Basic Digital Peer Publishing-Lizenz This document is made available under a Basic Digital Peer zur Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu den DiPP-Lizenzen Publishing Licence. For more Information see: finden Sie hier: http://www.dipp.nrw.de/lizenzen/dppl/service/dppl/ http://www.dipp.nrw.de/lizenzen/dppl/service/dppl/ RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES INSTITUTE OF ORIENTAL STUDIES The Eurasian Center for Big History and System Forecasting VOLGOGRAD CENTER FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH EVOLUTION From Big Bang to Nanorobots Edited by Leonid E. Grinin and Andrey V. Korotayev ‘Uchitel’ Publishing House Volgograd ББК 28.02 87.21 ‘Evolution’ Yearbook Editors Council: H. Barry III (USA), Yu. Е. Berezkin (Russia), M. L. Butovskaya (Russia), R. L. Carneiro (USA), Ch. Chase-Dunn (USA), V. V. Chernykh (Russia), H. J. M. Claessen (Netherlands), D. Christian (Australia), S. Gavrilets (USA), А. V. Dybo (Russia), K. Yu. Es'kov (Russia), I. V. Ilyin (Russia), N. N. Iordansky (Russia), P. Herrmann (Ireland), A. A. Kazankov (Russia), E. S. Kul'pin (Russia), G. G. Malinetsky (Russia), A. V. Markov (Russia), A. Yu. Militarev (Russia), M. V. Mina (Russia), V. de Munck (USA), А. P. Nazaretyan (Russia), E. B. Nay- mark (Russia), A. D. Panov (Russia), Zh. I. Reznikova (Russia), B.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin's “Tree of Life”
    Icons of Evolution? Why Much of What Jonathan Wells Writes about Evolution is Wrong Alan D. Gishlick, National Center for Science Education DARWIN’S “TREE OF LIFE” mon descent. Finally, he demands that text- books treat universal common ancestry as PHYLOGENETIC TREES unproven and refrain from illustrating that n biology, a phylogenetic tree, or phyloge- “theory” with misleading phylogenies. ny, is used to show the genealogic relation- Therefore, according to Wells, textbooks Iships of living things. A phylogeny is not should state that there is no evidence for com- so much evidence for evolution as much as it mon descent and that the most recent research is a codification of data about evolutionary his- refutes the concept entirely. Wells is complete- tory. According to biological evolution, organ- ly wrong on all counts, and his argument is isms share common ancestors; a phylogeny entirely based on misdirection and confusion. shows how organisms are related. The tree of He mixes up these various topics in order to life shows the path evolution took to get to the confuse the reader into thinking that when current diversity of life. It also shows that we combined, they show an endemic failure of can ascertain the genealogy of disparate living evolutionary theory. In effect, Wells plays the organisms. This is evidence for evolution only equivalent of an intellectual shell game, put- in that we can construct such trees at all. If ting so many topics into play that the “ball” of evolution had not happened or common ances- evolution gets lost. try were false, we would not be able to discov- THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION er hierarchical branching genealogies for ells claims that the Cambrian organisms (although textbooks do not general- Explosion “presents a serious chal- ly explain this well).
    [Show full text]
  • A Transhumanist Manifesto Gregory E
    A peer-reviewed electronic journal published by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies ISSN 1541-0099 15(1) - February 2006 Review of Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto Gregory E. Jordan, Ph.D University of South Florida ([email protected]) http://jetpress.org/volume15/jordan.htm Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto, by Simon Young. (2006). New York: Prometheus Books. Those expecting this book to be the definitive statement of transhumanist philosophy and ideas will be disappointed. “A Transhumanist Manifesto,” with an emphasis on the indefinite article, is just that – an idiosyncratic, personal statement by a broad- minded, well-read “layman” – “a piano player, even!” The book breathlessly tries to cover transhumanist art, immortality, Romanticism, Postmodernism, memetics, Buddhist anatta, Prometheus, genetic engineering, Star Trek, Enlightenment, evolution, ecology, humanism, socialism, liberalism, economics, ethics, homosexuality, eugenics, psychology, psychiatry, Jungian personality typology, Nietzsche’s will to power, existentialism, Frankenstein, Superman, robots, epistemology, nihilism, science, consilience, oris, monism, schizophrenia, zombies, Descartes, uploading, egalitarianism, sublimation, Orpheus, Maslow, original sin, creative living, selfish genes, the Sermon on the Mount, Prozac, Epsilonia, libertarianism, Camille Paglia, the noosphere, the meaning of life, ‘agnostoskepticism,’ ‘sciphobia,’ ‘bispectism,’ ‘eugoics,’ and countless other needlessly neologized topics. Much as one might
    [Show full text]
  • The Rooting of the Universal Tree of Life Is Not Reliable
    J Mol Evol (1999) 49:509–523 © Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1999 The Rooting of the Universal Tree of Life Is Not Reliable Herve´ Philippe,1 Patrick Forterre2 1 Phyloge´nie et Evolution Mole´culaires (UPRESA 8080 CNRS), Baˆtiment 444, Universite´ Paris-Sud, 91405 Orsay-Cedex, France 2 Institut de Ge´ne´tique et Microbiologie (UMR 8621 CNRS), Baˆtiment 409, Universite´ Paris-Sud, 91405 Orsay-Cedex, France Abstract. Several composite universal trees connected terial rooting could be explained by an attraction be- by an ancestral gene duplication have been used to root tween this branch and the long branch of the outgroup. the universal tree of life. In all cases, this root turned out Finally, we suggested that an eukaryotic rooting could be to be in the eubacterial branch. However, the validity of a more fruitful working hypothesis, as it provides, for results obtained from comparative sequence analysis has example, a simple explanation to the high genetic simi- recently been questioned, in particular, in the case of larity of Archaebacteria and Eubacteria inferred from ancient phylogenies. For example, it has been shown that complete genome analysis. several eukaryotic groups are misplaced in ribosomal RNA or elongation factor trees because of unequal rates Key words: Root of the tree of life — ATPase — of evolution and mutational saturation. Furthermore, the Carbamoyl phosphate synthetase — Elongation factor — addition of new sequences to data sets has often turned tRNA synthetase — Signal recognition particle — Mu- apparently reasonable phylogenies into confused ones. tational saturation — Long branch attraction We have thus revisited all composite protein trees that have been used to root the universal tree of life up to now (elongation factors, ATPases, tRNA synthetases, car- bamoyl phosphate synthetases, signal recognition par- Introduction ticle proteins) with updated data sets.
    [Show full text]
  • Unifying Knowledge for Sustainability in the Western Hemisphere
    A New Dimension in Evolution: Impacts of Human Consciousness on Sustainability—and Beyond Charles M. McKenna, Jr. “The whole future of the Earth…seems to me to depend on the awakening of our faith in the future.” Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (Letters to Mme Georges-Marie Haardt) From de Chardin’s The Future of Man – 1964 Abstract—Starting with the concepts of the “noosphere” – the sphere of thought – and the evolution of consciousness developed by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in the first half of the last century, we will introduce a hypothesis declaring the interdependence of the noosphere with global systems, and extrapolate to new perceptions that these concepts, and others which seem to flow from them, could contribute to transforming historic views into more hopeful visions of the future of human development and life on Earth. Just as mental outlook plays an important part in each person’s life path, so also do the ideas and world-views – limiting or expanding – held by the global community affect the assumptions, boundaries, and decisions of the human family as we discover who we are in an ever-evolving existence of increasing knowledge and change. Approaching the issue of sustainability from an engineer’s point of view, we quickly see, as stated in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Implementation Plan for its newly promulgated Environmental Operating Principles, that it demands “…a new view of engineering that embraces the physical and biological sciences as well as those of the social and economic disciplines. …This shift in our understanding of engineering will be huge.” The paper will discuss three additional hypotheses as part of the movement toward sustainability; “moving from passive-reactive to active-creative world views,” “the breakdown of the false dualism between nature and human activity,” and “human thought and breaking the glass barrier between historical world views and a new paradigm that opens the door to new opportunities,” and will go on to discuss policy initiatives and technology development that would align with these new perspectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence for Evolution
    CHAPTER 3 Evidence for Evolution VOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY HAS PROFOUNDLY altered our view of nature and of ourselves. At the beginning of this book, we showed the practical application of Eevolutionary biology to agriculture, biotechnology, and medicine. More broadly, evolutionary theory underpins all our knowledge of biology, explains how organisms came to be (both describing their history and identi- fying the processes that acted), and explains why they are as they are (why organisms reproduce sexually, why they age, and so on). How- ever, arguably its most important influence has been on how we view ourselves and our place in the world. The radical scope of evolution- ary biology has for many been hard to accept, and this has led to much misunderstanding and many objections. In this chapter, we summarize the evidence for evolution, clarify some common misun- derstandings, and discuss the wider implications of evolution by natural selection. Biological evolution was widely accepted soon after the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859 (Chapter 1.x). Charles Darwin set out “one long argument” for the “descent with modification” of all liv- ing organisms, from one or a few common ancestors. He marshaled evidence from classification of organisms, from the fossil record, from geographic distribution of organisms, and by analogy with artificial se- lection. As we saw in Chapter 1, the detailed processes that cause evo- lution remained obscure until after the laws of heredity were established in the early 20th century. By the time of the Evolutionary Synthesis,in the mid-20th century, these processes were well understood and, cru- cially, it was established that adaptation is due to natural selection (Chapter 1.x).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 26 Phylogeny and the Tree of Life • Biologists Estimate That There Are About 5 to 100 Million Species of Organisms Living on Earth Today
    Chapter 26 Phylogeny and the Tree of Life • Biologists estimate that there are about 5 to 100 million species of organisms living on Earth today. • Evidence from morphological, biochemical, and gene sequence data suggests that all organisms on Earth are genetically related, and the genealogical relationships of living things can be represented by a vast evolutionary tree, the Tree of Life. • The Tree of Life then represents the phylogeny of organisms, the history of organismal lineages as they change through time. – In other words, phylogeny is the evolutionary history of a species or group of related species. • Phylogeny assumes that all life arise from a previous ancestors and that all organisms (bacteria, fungi, protist, plants, animals) are connected by the passage of genes along the branches of the phylogenetic tree. • The discipline of systematics classifies organisms and determines their evolutionary relationships. • Systematists use fossil, molecular, and genetic data to infer evolutionary relationships. • Hence, systematists depict evolutionary relationships among organisms as branching phylogenetic trees. • A phylogenetic tree represents a hypothesis about evolutionary relationships. • Taxonomy is the science of organizing, classifying and naming organisms. • Carolus Linnaeus was the scientist who came up with the two-part naming system (binomial system). – The first part of the name is the genus – The second part, called the specific epithet, is the species within the genus. – The first letter of the genus is capitalized, and the entire species name is italicized. • Homo sapiens or H. sapiens • All life are organize into the following taxonomic groups: domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. (Darn Kids Playing Chess On Freeway Gets Squished).
    [Show full text]
  • Transhumanism
    T ranshumanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T ranshum... Transhumanism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia See also: Outline of transhumanism Transhumanism is an international Part of Ideology series on intellectual and cultural movement supporting Transhumanism the use of science and technology to improve human mental and physical characteristics Ideologies and capacities. The movement regards aspects Abolitionism of the human condition, such as disability, Democratic transhumanism suffering, disease, aging, and involuntary Extropianism death as unnecessary and undesirable. Immortalism Transhumanists look to biotechnologies and Libertarian transhumanism other emerging technologies for these Postgenderism purposes. Dangers, as well as benefits, are Singularitarianism also of concern to the transhumanist Technogaianism [1] movement. Related articles The term "transhumanism" is symbolized by Transhumanism in fiction H+ or h+ and is often used as a synonym for Transhumanist art "human enhancement".[2] Although the first known use of the term dates from 1957, the Organizations contemporary meaning is a product of the 1980s when futurists in the United States Applied Foresight Network Alcor Life Extension Foundation began to organize what has since grown into American Cryonics Society the transhumanist movement. Transhumanist Cryonics Institute thinkers predict that human beings may Foresight Institute eventually be able to transform themselves Humanity+ into beings with such greatly expanded Immortality Institute abilities as to merit the label "posthuman".[1] Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence Transhumanism is therefore sometimes Transhumanism Portal · referred to as "posthumanism" or a form of transformational activism influenced by posthumanist ideals.[3] The transhumanist vision of a transformed future humanity has attracted many supporters and detractors from a wide range of perspectives.
    [Show full text]