Frankfurt evolution theory
Frankfurt evolution theory is a self-designation by representatives of a concept of the evolutionary change of the body structure and shape of organisms according to hydraulic-energetic principles. It goes back to Wolfgang Gutmann (1935–1997) from the Senckenberg Research Institute in Frankfurt am Main and his supporters at the time. It is not a fundamentally different, complete theory of evolution, but a heavily modified explanatory concept for a specific aspect of evolution, namely the modification of body shapes through the inner principles of organisms. The hydroskeleton structures (fluid-filled cavities that serve to stabilize the body) play an essential role here. Writings on this are published by the Senckenberg Society for Natural Research . Today's evolutionary biologists at the University of Frankfurt am Main are, contrary to what the name might suggest, not supporters of this concept, but some recognize the value of some food for thought.
The approach of the Frankfurt evolution theory
The proponents of the Frankfurt evolution theory saw this as a further development of the hydroskeleton theory developed by Wolfgang Friedrich Gutmann in the 1960s to 1980s and the so-called critical evolution theory . At the center of the concept were construction morphological studies of the structure and functionality of multicellular animal creatures. The starting point was the assumption that organisms are consistently constructed hydraulically, and that every expression of life is based on the change of energy according to the laws of thermodynamics and that all intermediate forms must always be able to survive during evolution. She understood organisms as the mechanical interplay of anatomical elements, watery-viscous fillings and tense structures.
From the point of view of the representatives at the time, this approach stood out from "classical biology" and from "old Darwinian adaptation concepts" in that it did not describe living beings on the basis of their appearance and characteristics in the sense of a static inventory, but in their function and ability, as hydraulic constructions to convert energy and thus to generate body shape and movements. The analysis of the body structure and hydraulic function was examined down to the level of tissues and cells. The reconstruction of evolutionary trajectories should not only exclude improbable, but above all physically impossible transformations (dysfunctional or uneconomical constructions). In this, from their point of view, strictly natural law approach, they justified their approach, which they judged to be fundamentally different from the reconstruction approaches of cladistics , whose justification and analysis they interpreted as primarily mathematical processes.
From this point of view, explanations and justifications for evolutionary-historical connections emerged, which, in particular, interpreted the importance of the environment and adaptation for evolution differently than previously usual. Gutmann and colleagues argued that organisms penetrate the accessible environments according to the efficiency of their body structure and play a key role in shaping them , for example through their metabolic activities. So it is not the environment that forms the body structure, as is usually the case, but the body structure of an organism determines which environments it can use. “Evolution without adaptation” was therefore a catchy paraphrase of the Frankfurt evolution theory. As a result, and above all because of its claim to absoluteness, the theory had a fundamentally critical relationship to the classic adaptation concept of Darwinism and the synthetic theory of evolution.
Self-presentation of the Frankfurt evolution theory
Historically, the Frankfurt theory of evolution was developed within evolutionary biology as a method for reconstructing blueprint evolution. This field of research has not been dealt with much from a historical perspective; it stands next to the modern Darwinism dominating research, synthetic theory, which primarily examines the change in species , ecology and population dynamics . However, evolution is not just a change in species, but in particular the gradual change in the structure on which every organism is based (in the sense of the “building plan”). Construction structures can only be changed as functional systems. I.e. In any form of evolutionary research, the evolutionary process must be understood and reconstructed as a change in functioning body structures. This field of construction morphology and the Frankfurt evolution theory is in contrast to classical or “idealistic” morphology, which describes shapes without their functional references. In addition, the Frankfurt theory of evolution introduces a new definition of evolution: only those changes in the structural structure that cannot be reversed (which are irreversible) are to be referred to as "evolution". However, the construction morphology is not a substitute for the species descriptions, but it justifies and opens up new fields of research within biology. The Darwinian, synthetic theory of evolution and the Frankfurt theory of evolution have different areas of application.
The Frankfurt evolution theory was primarily founded by Wolfgang Friedrich Gutmann (1935–1997), who, inspired by Wilhelm Schäfer, initially worked at the Senckenberg am Meer outstation in Wilhelmshaven on the structure and function of various groups of animals, especially the actinias ( Anthozoa ). Gutmann continued his work when he took over the Comparative and Functional Anatomy section, which was newly established at the Senckenberg Museum in Frankfurt in 1964 . Numerous colleagues (in particular Klaus Bonik, Jens Lorenz Franzen , Manfred Grasshoff, Dieter Mollenhauer , Stefan Peters and Michael Türkay ), who were also employed as scientists at the Senckenberg Institute, dealt with structural and functional morphological issues within various groups of organisms. A number of publications resulted from this collaboration (see literature). An essential step was the formulation of the hydroskeleton theory by Gutmann, which was initially not conceived as an evolutionary theory, but as an evolutionary model for the creation of the chorus data from metamerically structured precursors. The cooperation with the architect Frei Otto , in the DFG special research area “Biology and Building, Natural Constructions”, brought further insights into the peculiarities of organismic construction and their general validity. This “first generation” of construction morphologists laid the foundation for the later formulation of the Frankfurt theory of evolution; Its development ran from the beginning with the aim of creating a solid basis for the reconstruction of the construction plans of the animal kingdom (later referred to as the "main evolutionary lines of the animal kingdom").
The insights into evolutionary history research developed in this way were referred to in a book publication in 1981 as “Critical Evolution Theory” [7] and laid the foundation for the later formulation of the Frankfurt evolution theory. A closer collaboration between scientists developed both within the Senckenberg Research Institute and with the Zoological Institute and Paleontological Institute of the University of Frankfurt. Numerous joint research work was carried out and students were trained accordingly in lectures and internships.
Construction and functional morphological work at the Senckenberg Research Institute already had a long tradition there. Before Wolfgang F. Gutmann, Wilhelm Schäfer and Rudolf Richter had already carried out research in this direction and thus practically paved the way for the Senckenberg Institute to have space for a newly created research field and thus the development of their own theory of evolution. Wilhelm Schäfer referred - with recourse to the concepts of Jacob von Uexküll - in many of his works to the autonomy of organisms and determined the environmental relationships of the organism. Construction morphological research can therefore also be viewed as a continuation of actuopalaeontology , an original Senckenberg tradition .
After Gutmann's death in 1997, the Frankfurt evolution theory was further developed by a new working group at the Senckenberg Research Institute and made more precise in many ways. Michael Gudo , Mathias Gutmann , Tareq Syed and Michael Weingarten belong to this "second generation" of construction morphologists . In the first spin-off of the Senckenberg Research Institute, Morphisto GmbH, they are continuing the research started at Senckenberg. The company (Morphisto - Evolution Research and Application GmbH) works in cooperation with the Senckenberg Museum, the biology and humanities institutes at the Universities of Frankfurt and Göttingen and the Institute for Philosophy at the University of Karlsruhe on the further development of the Frankfurt theory of evolution.
Concepts, areas of work and terminology
Several areas of work can or could be differentiated within the Frankfurt evolution theory . These are or were:
- Morphology centered on the organism (= concept of organism, construction morphology)
- Reconstruction of evolutionary history (= evolutionary history research, tribal history, phylogenetics)
- Dynamic understanding of the evolutionary process ( morpho process )
The three working areas represent the central issues of evolutionary biology. Charles Darwin already worked on these areas in his research. He spoke of the fact that the scientist needs an idea of the organism in order to deal with questions about evolution (work area 1), he tried to reconstruct family relationships (ie to determine the breeding process documented in the stud books by analyzing characteristics, work area 2) and he treated questions about the reproduction and inheritance of existing and new properties (work area 3). The synthetic theory of evolution only deals with sub-areas, and it lacks a crucial component, namely the concept of organism, i.e. the idea of the actual subject of biology
Organism-centered morphology
An organism-centered morphology regards living beings holistically , ie as energy-converting, hydraulic constructions that (a) function, (b) reproduce themselves, (c) take care of themselves (are autopoietic ) and (d) create themselves (are autoformative ). It is a principle of life that all metabolic and life processes take place in an aqueous medium, and that these metabolic processes only work if they take place in an orderly and closed reaction space. According to this, even the smallest components of organisms, the cells, have to be regarded as independent hydraulic structures. In multicellular organisms, cells are located in a tissue network that (in animals) is held together by collagen fibers. This structure can only be recorded in its entirety and scientifically assessed with extensive histological and construction morphological investigations.
An essential finding of the construction morphological approach to organisms is that organisms in the thermodynamic sense are to be understood as operationally closed systems . This is in contrast to the classic approach, in which living beings are “open systems” through which energy simply flows.
As operationally closed systems, however, living beings can only acquire the energy and materials they need through their own efforts. The energy absorbed through food is converted in the organism in many stages and invested in movement, growth, reproduction and renewed energy supply (see Fig. Bionomie.jpg). The flow of energy through the organism does not run by itself, but through an active (energy-sapping) performance of the organism. Obtaining new energy (and food) always costs energy that must have been absorbed beforehand. This process determines the question of interest in an organism-centered morphology : How are living beings built as energy-converting body constructions and how do they work to provide the services necessary for survival and evolutionary continuation? (see adjacent figure).
The hydraulic construction of the organisms: A hydraulic body with a uniform, flexible shell would assume a spherical shape because the forces are then evenly distributed. Contrary to this tendency to spherical shape, the various specific body shapes of the organisms are created by tensile and contractile fibers and rigid elements. The construction principle of hydraulics means that every contraction that leads to deformation and thus movement must be balanced out by contractions elsewhere if a movement is to be controlled and not lead to dysfunctional deformations. Rigid elements made of organic or mineral substances, which are built in by the hydraulic system itself, stop parts of the body and maintain their shape without using energy; this reduces the contraction power and the system works more economically. The diversity of the arrangements of cells, fibers and rigid elements and their interaction corresponds to the diversity of the organism kingdom. In a nutshell: Construction morphology is the science of creating body shape. Construction morphology is the basis of the argumentation if one wants to determine the evolutionary course of a "construction plan", because evolution is the change of such body structures.
Environmental relevance of the organisms / autonomy of the organisms: Organisms are autonomous insofar as their structure decides what they absorb and use from the environment and where they can live. The change over the generations and the spreading into ever wider habitats lead to diversification: Originally uniform populations are drifting apart and new species are being formed. This is accompanied by increasing specialization in the specific acquisition of space, material and energy. The term adaptation is therefore replaced in the Frankfurt theory by the term specialization, which describes the organismic process more accurately: The organism is the driving part of change; Organisms are subjects of evolution, not the objects of their environment
Reconstruction of the evolutionary history
If organisms, as described above, are understood as hydraulic, thermodynamic, energy-converting, metabolism-changing, operationally closed systems, certain conclusions can be drawn about how such systems could change in the course of evolution. One of the central questions in evolutionary biology or evolutionary history research is how it is even possible that organisms change their construction over time - i.e. during operation - without the system as a whole having come to a standstill in between. There is no “closed due to renovation” state in evolution! Or, to make another comparison with the engineer: the question is: How can a bike be converted while someone is riding on it? The new insight of the Frankfurt evolution theory is that evolution only proceeds within the framework of functioning modifications. All intermediate stages must be fully functional, ie bionomic, over generations. They must be able to nourish, move and reproduce themselves, otherwise they are immediately eliminated from the evolutionary process. All dysfunctional variants, which in principle also arise in the mutative process of reproduction and individual development, are rooted in themselves, due to their mechanical inadequacy, they virtually select themselves from the evolutionary process. In this context, WF Gutmann spoke of "autodestruction", of self-destruction through dysfunctional body construction. Since construction morphological research provides a kind of technical functional description of living beings, possible changes can be determined (reconstructed) by gradually transforming two potentially evolutionarily related organisms into one another, whereby the bionomy and functionality of the reconstructed intermediate stages must be constantly checked. The direction of change must also be justified. Transformations are only successful if they lead to a differentiation or specialization of an existing body construction, or if the subsequent construction works more economically in some way, i.e. for certain services e.g. B. less energy or material is required than before. The decisive criteria of evolutionary reconstruction are optimization , economization , differentiation and specialization . The opposite way, ie changing a structure so that it functions more uneconomically in subsequent constructions (ie more material or energy-intensive), is excluded for thermodynamic reasons. The same goes for jumps. As mentioned before, there is no such thing as “closed due to renovation”, which means that each reconstructed intermediate stage must be functional on the one hand and more economical or more specialized than the previous stages on the other.
If, with the help of these reconstruction criteria, it is possible to represent plausible scenarios for the evolution of one animal construction into another, the result is an evolutionary line which explains and justifies the evolutionary history (in the broader sense also the tribal history). Here, the Frankfurt evolution theory also arrives at a new definition of evolution: only those changes that can no longer be reversed, that is, those that are irreversible , are evolutionary changes. Changes that turn out to be reversible (e.g. beak shapes or beak sizes of birds, body sizes, colors, etc.) do not represent evolution, but rather only a shift in characteristics within populations. Josef Reicholf describes this as the "background noise" or "surface ripple" of evolution.
In the past few decades, Wolfgang F. Gutmann and many other colleagues created and published corresponding derivations for the entire animal kingdom. In 1992 these individual derivations were published for the first time in a summarizing poster. In 2007, the 4th revised and supplemented edition of the poster appeared in which many more details and new evolutionary lines could be included (for individual derivations see section below: Further reading).
The construction morphological consideration of living beings thus allows evolutionary history research (= reconstruction of evolutionary lines ). by capturing the form and function of the organisms and making possible (= functional ). evolutionary changes of the impossible (= dysfunctional ). evolutionary changes.
“The division of the animal kingdom via the construction morphological derivation models is much more in line with the new phylogeny of animals based on molecular studies than with the traditional one” (Campbell / Reece 2003).
Morpho process of evolution
The morpho process area deals with the causes, mechanisms and factors of evolution. With reference to the work of the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, WF Gutmann had called for processual thinking for biology and biological evolution (Russian authors such as Vernadsky formulated such thinking as a “morpho process”). More precisely, a distinction is made here between conditions, mechanisms and factors that drive and influence the morpho process as a constantly changing shape of the organisms; (see adjacent figure). This renewed perspective aims to focus on all ontogenetic developmental stages, from functional germ cells to the reproductive organism. Since these stages can be very different (think of larval development, animals with metamorphosis), it is more accurate at this level of investigation to speak of “evolving morpho processes” (instead of evolving organisms). Recently, Harald Holz has presented a holistic philosophy of neo-transcendental foundation that goes beyond Whitehead and is capable of "philosophically giving adequate answers to questions of the 'origin' of life and reflective intelligence (spirit)".
Conditions, mechanisms and factors of the morpho process
Conditions of the process are the laws of nature, the chemical and physical conditions on planet earth and the properties of the substances of which the organisms consist; these properties also determine the mechanism of evolution, namely the change in energy. It keeps the organisms beyond the thermodynamic equilibrium (which would occur if all substances had reacted with each other as much as possible and were then in "chemical rest"; thermodynamically, that would mean that the system had reached the maximum possible entropy). In addition, the energy transition drives two further mechanisms: growth and thus also reproduction, which is a consequence of growth in that (in the simplest case of the cell) division becomes necessary. This means that the entire structure and reaction structure is passed on in the form of a cell. This gives rise to the “historicity” of life: Every individual is part and transitory stage of the morpho process. Factors influence the actual course of change, whereby one can differentiate between continuous and episodic factors. Continuous factors include the compulsion to create a shape through hydraulics and economization, namely that unused organs are left to decay. The episodic factors are generally better known: the mutation of the DNA, influences on embryonic development, finally the competition for food and space, for reproductive partners, as well as external influences such as climate, population shifts, or food shortages and changes, which are called Darwinian Adjustment appear
Life as a Morpho Process
With the constitution of living beings as bionome, hydraulic energy-converting constructions, organisms are not “real things”, but continuously changing and reproductive dynamic systems, or rather processes . In the reproductive process, completely viable sub-units are broken down and the hydraulic energy-converting construction is seamlessly passed on to the next generation. There is a constant process of structure and shape maintenance that follows general chemical, physical and organismic principles. At any point in time of individual existence, only those structures remain that are functional in accordance with what is generally referred to as natural laws . There is continuity over the generations in that in every organism developable subunits exist from the beginning ( germ lines ), which themselves represent hydraulic constructions (e.g. egg cells or totipotent cells that can develop into buds (= clones )). At no point in time are genetic information, cell components, force-generating and force-transmitting structures brought together in order to form a new organism (even with sexual reproduction there is always an egg cell structure that only contains one additional set of chromosomes). If all these kinetic processes take place within a certain framework, similarly constructed organisms arise again and again, which reproduce themselves and constantly change over many generations. In this respect, organisms are only artificial excerpts, snapshots, of a continuously running morpho process of life, consisting of growth, food intake, environmental development and reproduction.
Evolution as a change in morpho processes
Due to the indeterminacy of the entire universe, each process runs a little differently, even if the boundary conditions are identical. No object and no process is completely alike, because the entropy is different at every point in time. Every action in the organism is a change in the state of entropy. Therefore, organismic change is thermodynamically inevitable. Thus, biological reproduction is not the production of identical replicates , but rather similar but not identical morpho processes . In this way, new variants of the initial construction are constantly being created, of which, however, only those that are able to carry on the morpho process remain over many generations. In every following generation there are again deviations. The morpho process changes slowly and in many small steps. In this way, changes and splits in the morpho processes are established over many generations. Evolution is therefore the constant flow, as well as the change and splitting of morpho processes. The evolutionary change is therefore not the cause, but the consequence of the structure of the organisms. The structure of organisms is subject to the general conditions given by the laws of nature, and the material properties of substances create the mechanisms and factors of change. There cannot be organisms without evolution. The existence of organisms and the evolution of organisms are only two sides of the same thing. By constituting living beings as bionome energy-converting constructions and, in this sense, as organisms, they are continuously changing and propagating, ie dynamic, systems from this point of view, and they are part of the process that materializes them.
Boundary conditions of the morpho process
Physical, chemical and organismic principles determine the framework of evolutionary changes, ie the existing morpho process determines the subsequent morpho processes. So evolution is the normal state. It is not evolution that has to be explained, but non-evolution , ie the persistence of certain structures and ways of organization across the generations. Accordingly, evolution research is a determination of the organismic framework of the change of morpho processes, in short evolution research deals with the determination of invariances and transformative causalities (restrictions) in the history of life.
Central theses of the Frankfurt evolution theory
The central theses of the Frankfurt theory of evolution can be summarized (in their own terms and reasons) as follows:
- Organisms are hydraulic, mechanically coherent, energy-converting constructions that do not adapt to their environment, but open up living spaces themselves according to the performance of their body construction.
- Organisms are autonomous subjects of evolution, ie the existing body construction has a decisive influence on the result and the direction of evolution.
- The survival or demise of a living being is primarily determined by the functionality of the body structure and an economic energy balance in terms of shape retention, (movement) and reproduction.The influence of the environment is secondary and only takes effect when living beings have to assert themselves in their habitats.
- Evolution is irreversible, ie structures that have been changed (differentiated, dismantled or rebuilt) can no longer be "reverse engineered" because structural changes are due to an energetic gradient.
From the point of view of the representatives of the Frankfurt evolution theory, a fundamentally different understanding of the course of evolution arises: While from their point of view in the "synthetic evolution theory" every change, no matter how small, is already regarded as an evolutionary step (or even as evidence of evolution), according to their own way of looking at just such changes as evolutionary changes to consider, the irreversible ( irreversible are). Thus, the evolution from fish to quadruped is assessed as an irreversible structural change, while the shift in a characteristic expression in a population is seen as a generation of variance. The supporters doubt that the mechanisms and criteria according to which the generation of variances and evolution take place or can be researched are identical. Rather, different methods and test criteria would have to be used to reconstruct how one body construction could be changed into another than to explain and research evolution within populations and the change in characteristics.
The Frankfurt theory of evolution therefore does not regard living beings as pure bearers of characteristics, but as mechanically coherent, hydraulic energy-converting constructions, and just as no changes can be made to an engine that is in operation without it breaking down, there are possibilities for structural changes in organisms limited.
A central misunderstanding of the opponents of the Frankfurt evolution theory was and is from the point of view of its supporters to this day the scope of the descriptions and representations. While the "synthetic theory of evolution" is based on species, populations, reproductive communities or even individuals, the statements of the Frankfurt theory of evolution refer to the body constructions of the respective living beings. A construction is not to be equated with a taxonomic category. Organismic constructions are rather ways of describing living beings with regard to their structure and functioning.
Important research results from the perspective of the Frankfurt evolution theory
The supporters of the Frankfurt evolution theory consider a fundamentally revised conception of the (animal) architectural plan evolution as important research results, according to which one cannot speak of a gradual increase in complexity or higher development in the animal kingdom. The configuration and complexity of nervous systems are not a criterion for inferring a primordial or derived evolutionary position of an animal. In 1992 a graphical and pictorial overview of the evolution of the animal kingdom from the perspective of the Frankfurt evolution theory was published in the form of a poster ("The Evolution of Animals"), which biomechanically justified the relationships. There were no ramifications associated with the principle of “from simple to complex”; rather, there were secondary simplifications that were explained with the economization of body construction.
From the point of view of the proponents of the theory, the focus of the evolutionary history of animals is on gelatinous multicellular organisms ( gallertoids ), from which the main evolutionary lines of the animal kingdom can be derived. This first multicellular organism was seen as an already relatively complex animal construction, the body of which consisted of connective tissue and more or less differentiated cells, in a subsequent stage also of fluid fillings in the form of canals. A specific conclusion of this model was that the body structure of the animals was not understood through the traditional cotyledon theory ( ecto- , endo- , mesoderm ), but through an overall histological understanding of the organism. Cotyledons are seen as structures in embryogenesis, not as evolutionary steps. The classic division of animals into diplo- and triploblasts was therefore considered to be misleading.
Further conclusions concerned the derivation of the chordata from metameric rather than oligomeric precursors and a new sorting of the deuterostomies (in particular the exclusion of the tentaculata from the deuterostomia).
Reception and Criticism in the Life Sciences
Although construction morphological approaches in zoology have been presented since about the middle of the 20th century ( Hermann Weber , 1899–1956) and a biology based on both form and function has been called for on various occasions, the concept presented here is little known or where it is is known, rejected as a total theory building. The underlying, largely hypothetical reconstruction method for evolutionary transformations, without taking into account the aspects of modern evolutionary biology and developmental biology , is a decisive weakness. The development of the theory building and also many of the later arguments of the representatives of the Frankfurt evolutionary theory were based on the level of knowledge of the 1960s and were partly due to the fact that modern evolutionary biology was hardly known and little taught in the German-speaking world at that time. Figuratively speaking, at that time they pushed into a vacuum and shook - in retrospect not generally wrongly - the fixed concepts, also widespread among some German biologists, about the all-encompassing importance of evolutionary adaptation and "higher development" through evolutionary processes. This constellation also resulted in the following almost exclusively in Germany for the "Frankfurt theory of evolution", although some articles were also published in English.
Within Germany, the concept initially collided with variants of a strongly descriptive (non-functionally arguing) morphology, as represented by Adolf Remane (1898–1976), at the Phylogenetic Symposium in 1970. Soon afterwards, however, it also came up against the concept of phylogenetic Systematics by Willi Hennig (1913–1976), which was established internationally from the 1970s (interestingly, first in the Anglo-Saxon region). In all of these cases, the "Frankfurt evolution theory" retained an outsider position, which became increasingly stronger because it could not or did not want to incorporate newer methods and findings that had been gained after the 1960s into its theories.
There were various reasons why the concept was not at least partially integrated into the theoretical and teaching structure of evolutionary biology, but rather that inexorable fronts developed between supporters and opponents. They can be found on the theoretical level as well as on the sociological level. Polemic, ad hominem-oriented attacks against the new family tree proposals of the Frankfurt evolution theory initially came from established zoology, here primarily to save the criticized archicoelomatics concept. As a result, the tone of the discussion intensified on both sides. In terms of content, it remains to be stated that the critical objections of the Frankfurt theory of evolution proved to be fully justified in retrospect, because the archicoelomatics concept, which is now considered disproven, was based on questionable homologations, but even more on schematic assumptions of a general development and complication of construction plans, which were not even then corresponded to the state of modern evolution theory.
Confirmations of older (i.e. purely morphologically based) phylogenetic reconstructions are nowadays preferably assessed on the basis of kin research based on molecular biology. If this standard is accepted, it can be stated that the reconstructions of the Frankfurt theory are confirmed in a far more comprehensive way by genetic reconstructions than other family tree proposals. This applies on the one hand because there are no deeper contradictions to family trees determined by molecular system, and on the other hand because certain interpretations from the field of comparative developmental biology also provide highly specific support for the construction morphological arguments from Frankfurt (namely with regard to the hypothesis of a segmented original bilaterer). Since the comparative developmental findings have so far allowed several interpretations, this is not unanimously recognized as a confirmation of the Frankfurt family tree reconstructions.
literature
- WF Gutmann: The hydroskeleton theory. In: Essays and speeches by the Senckenberg Natural Research Society. Volume 21, 1972, pp. 1-91.
- WF Gutmann: The evolution of hydraulic constructions - organismic change instead of old Darwinian adaptation. Kramer, Frankfurt am Main 1989, ISBN 3-7829-1112-1 .
- WF Gutmann, K. Bonik: Critical Evolution Theory - A Contribution to Overcoming Old Darwinian Dogmas. Gerster, Hildesheim 1981, ISBN 3-8067-0874-6 .
- MM Gudo Grasshoff: The Origin and Early Evolution of Chordates: The 'Hydroskelett-Theory' and New Insights Towards a Metameric Ancestor. In: Senckenbergiana lethaea. Volume 82, 2002, pp. 325-346.
- T. Syed: How new is the "New Animal Phylogeny"? - A possible synthesis of morphological and molecular findings on blueprint evolution. In: Yearbook for the History and Theory of Biology. Volume IX, 2003, pp. 33-76.
- M. Grasshoff, M. Gudo: The evolution of animals. In: cross sections. No. 7, 2007, pp. 3-45.
- M. Gudo: The Frankfurt Evolution Theory: New Approaches to Evolution Research. In: cross sections. No. 6, 2007, pp. 3-37.
- M. Grasshoff, M. Gudo: The evolution of animals - poster in DIN A1 format. 4th edition. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagbuchhandlung, Stuttgart 2007.
- M. Grasshoff: Brief History of the Theories of Evolution - From the Beginnings to Darwin to the Frankfurt Theory. MORPHISTO Wissenschafts Verlag, 2014, ISBN 978-3-944005-02-7 . (itunes.apple.com)
- Detlef Weinich: Wolfgang Gutmann and the "organism- centered theory" in a more recent perspective. In: Würzburg medical history reports. Volume 22, 2003, pp. 323-330.
Web links
- Senckenberg website on the Frankfurt theory of evolution
- Extensive list of publications on construction morphology.
Individual evidence
- ^ Neil A. Campbell , Jane B. Reece : Biology. Spektrum-Verlag Heidelberg-Berlin 2003, ISBN 3-8274-1352-4 , page 564
- ^ Neil A. Campbell , Jane B. Reece : Biology. Spektrum-Verlag Heidelberg-Berlin 2003, ISBN 3-8274-1352-4 , page 564
- ↑ WF Gutmann: The hydroskeleton theory. In: Essays and speeches by the Senckenberg Natural Research Society. Volume 21, 1972, pp. 1-91.
- ↑ WF Gutmann: The evolution of hydraulic construction - organismic change instead of old Darwinian adaptation. Kramer, Frankfurt am Main 1989.
- ↑ WF Gutmann, K. Bonik: Critical Evolution Theory - A Contribution to Overcoming Old Darwinian Dogmas. Gerstenberg, Frankfurt am Main 1981.
- ↑ DS Peters: Adaptation - Core Point or Misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution? In: Ü.-M. Bremen (ed.): Building blocks of evolution. Edition Archaea, Gelsenkirchen / Schwelm 1997, pp. 73–82.
- ↑ M. Grasshoff: The Frankfurt evolution theory and the term “adaptation” and “selection”. In: Nature and Museum. Vol. 124, No. 6, 1994, pp. 196-198.
- ↑ Josef H. Reichholf : The origin of beauty - Darwin's greatest dilemma. CH Beck-Verlag, 2011, ISBN 978-3-406-58713-9 .
- ↑ H. Weber: Konstruktionsmorphologie (posthumously edited by Max Hartmann). In: Zoological Yearbooks, Dept. General Zoology and Physiology. Volume 68, 1958, pp. 1-112.
- ↑ M. Gudo, T. Syed: Construction morphological reconstruction as the basis of evolutionary history research. In: Hallesches Jahrb. Geowiss. Booklet. Volume 23, 2007, pp. 29-34.
- ↑ M. Gudo: The Frankfurter Evolutionstheorie: A short introduction. In: cross sections. No. 2, 2006, pp. 18-21.
- ↑ WF Gutmann: The hydroskeleton theory. In: Essays and speeches of the Senckenbergische Naturforschenden Gesellschaft. Volume 21, 1972, pp. 1-91.
- ↑ WF Gutmann: The hydroskeleton theory. (Reprint). In: Yearbook for the History and Theory of Biology. Volume 9, 2004, pp. 129-194.
- ↑ F. Otto (Ed.): Communications from the Institute for Lightweight Structures at the University of Stuttgart. Volume 9, 1977 and Volume 19, 1979.
- ↑ M. Gudo: The development of the critical theory of evolution: The scientific career of Wolfgang F. Gutmann. In: Theory of Biosciences. Volume 121, No. 1, 2002, pp. 101-137.
- ↑ M. Gutmann, M. Weingarten: Is there a Darwinian theory? Considerations for the reconstruction of theory types. In: R. Brömer, U. Hoßfeld, NA Rupke (ed.): Evolutionary biology from Darwin to today. VWB, Berlin 1999, pp. 105-130.
- ↑ M. Gutmann: The theory of evolution and its subject - contribution of methodological philosophy to a constructive theory of evolution. VWB, Berlin 1996.
- ↑ M. Weingarten: Organism theory and evolution theory. Publishing house Dr. Kovac, Hamburg 1992.
- ↑ E. Mayr: The development of the biological world of thought. Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg / New York / Tokyo 1984.
- ↑ M. Weingarten: Organisms - Objects or Subjects of Evolution? Philosophical studies on the paradigm shift in evolutionary biology. Scientific Book Society, Darmstadt 1993.
- ^ WF Gutmann: Autonomy and Autodestruction of Organisms. In: Yearbook for the History and Theory of Biology. Volume IV, 1997, pp. 149-178.
- ^ WF Gutmann: Globalization repercussions on the field of classical biology and paleontology. In: Nature and Museum. Volume 127, No. 7, 1997, pp. 209-218.
- ^ WF Gutmann: Evolution of organisms: the new paradigm of the Frankfurt theory. In: WK Alt, JC Türp (ed.): The evolution of teeth - phylogeny, ontogeny, variation. Quintessenzverlag, Berlin 1997.
- ↑ J. Reicholf: Is the Darwinian adaptation just the surface ripple of evolution. In: W. Feigl, K. Edlinger, G. Fleck (eds.): Beyond the mainstream. Alternative approaches to thinking and research in biology and medicine. Verlag P. Lang, Frankfurt am Main et al. 2004, ISBN 3-631-39850-6 .
- ^ M. Grasshoff, K. Bonik, K. Edlinger, WF Gutmann, DS Peters, KP Vogel: The evolution of animals. Poster. Senckenberg Museum Frankfurt am Main 1992.
- ↑ M. Grasshoff, M. Gudo: The evolution of animals. Poster with explanations. Frankfurt am Main 2001, ISBN 3-510-61324-4 .
- ↑ M. Grasshoff, M. Gudo: The evolution of animals. Poster in DIN A1 format, 4th edition. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagbuchhandlung, Stuttgart 2007, ISBN 978-3-510-61386-1 .
- ^ Neil A. Campbell , Jane B. Reece : Biology. Spektrum-Verlag, 2003, ISBN 3-8274-1352-4 , pp. 1492-1493.
- ^ Georgy S. Levit: Biogeochemistry - Biosphere - Noosphere. The growth of the theoretical system of Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky. (= Studies on the theory of biology. 4). Publishing house for science and education, Berlin 2001, ISBN 3-86135-351-2 .
- ↑ M. Gudo: Aims of evolution research: Reconstruction of organismic change as a morpho process. In: W. Feigl, K. Edlinger, H. Fleck (Eds.): Jenseits des Mainstreams. Alternative approaches to thinking and research in biology and medicine. Verlag P. Lang, Frankfurt am Main et al. 2004, ISBN 3-631-39850-6 , p. 207.
- ↑ Harald Holz Werkausgabe, Vols. 23, 29; also Vol. 35 - 37: Key word: 'Life', 'Reflexivity', 'Intelligence'.
- ↑ J. Reicholf: Is the Darwinian adaptation just the surface ripple of evolution? In: W. Feige, K. Edlinger, G. Fleck: Beyond the mainstream. Alternative approaches to thinking and research in biology and medicine. P. Lang, Frankfurt 2004, pp. 118-141.
- ↑ DS Peters, WS Peters: Adaptation - Core Point or Misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution? In: Building Blocks of Evolution. Symposium Übersee-Museum Bremen 1995. 1997, ISBN 3-929439-10-7 , pp. 73-82.
- ↑ DS Peters: Almost a breakthrough. In: Yearbook for the History and Theory of Biology. Volume 9, 2003, pp. 1-8.
- ↑ O. Kraus: Dominance and Quality. Review of 50 Phylogenetic Symposia. In: Verh. Naturwiss. Hamburg Association. NF. Volume 45, 2010, pp. 9-15.
- ^ R. Siewing: Contribution to the discussion on the phylogeny of the Coelomats. In: Zoologischer Anzeiger. Volume 179, 1967, pp. 132-176.
- ^ T. Syed: How new is the "New Animal Phylogeny"? A possible synthesis of morphological and molecular findings on blueprint evolution. In: Yearbook for the History and Theory of Biology. Volume 9, 2004, pp. 33-76.