Hydroskeleton theory
The hydroskeleton theory is a detailed reconstruction of the blueprint evolution of animals that was developed back in the 1960s. It began when the biologist Wolfgang F. Gutmann reconstructed the evolution of the chordata on a morphological basis, not only trying to secure the functionality of each individual evolutionary intermediate step, but also constructive economizations and the specializations (macroevolutive trends) brought about by them in detail set out. The "worm theory" elaborated here for the evolution of chorus data was renamed "hydroskeleton theory" a short time later, when Gutmann brought not only the chordates, but also numerous other lineages of the animal kingdom into a phylogenetic context on the basis of his new modeling. The result was several detailed derivations (evolutionary reconstructions) of animal groups such as the Enteropneusta , Tunicata , Acrania , Phoronida and Nematoda . Based on the knowledge that fluid-filled cavities in the body of organisms are mechanically extremely sensitive and cannot be changed at will in macro- evolutionary reconstructions, Gutmann asserted that the hydroskeleton ultimately represents a component that determines evolution and "evolutionary direction". The central statements were published by him in 1972 as volume 21 in the series "Essays and Speeches of the Senckenberg Natural Research Society ". In 2003 there was a new edition in the yearbook for the history and theory of biology with a detailed foreword by Michael Weingarten and Mathias Gutmann .
Controversy in zoology and evolutionary biology
The text published in 1972 as “Hydroskeleton Theory” was based on the lecture on “The Archicoelomatics Problem” given in 1970 during the 15th Phylogenetic Symposium in Erlangen. Two keynote speeches were given at this symposium, one by Werner Ulrich and one by Wolfgang F. Gutmann. Günther Osche led the discussion for this symposium .
The archicoelomatics problem was about the question of whether certain forms with (usually) three coelom spaces (trimerie), which are regarded as "primitive", were at the root of those two large groups of animals that are known as protostomians and deuterostomians . Since the 1940s this theory had developed into a kind of textbook presentation within German zoology, particularly through the work of the Kiel zoologist Adolf Remane . Wolfgang Gutmann's hydroskeleton theory stated the exact opposite: At the root of the two large groups there would be a ringworm-like construction plan with a large number of coelom rooms arranged one behind the other; this organization represented the primeval hydroskeleton of Bilateria . Both theories resulted in completely contrary pedigrees for the animal kingdom, especially since many scenarios of an evolutionary "higher development" or "increase in complexity" disappeared in Gutmann's family tree and instead numerous lines contained a secondary simplification (often also associated with a reduction in body size, "dwarfism").
The result was a fierce dispute that lasted for several days among the participants in the 15th Phylogenetic Symposium. Usually the papers were published after the symposia. In the case of the 15th Phylogenetic Symposium, the publication prepared by WF Gutmann was initially delayed and finally a publication in the originally planned body was completely prevented, so that the paper, which was still entitled "The Archicoelomats Problem", finally ended two years later in the already mentioned volume 21 of the essays and speeches of the Senckenbergische Naturforschenden Gesellschaft was published. Gutmann took advantage of this fact to include questions from the oral discussion that had been addressed to him during the Erlangen Symposium in the form of comments and footnotes, since, in his opinion, the course of the debate, especially by Adolf Remane, later did not precisely reproduced.
Further development of the hydroskeleton theory
In the following years, WF Gutmann worked on the foundation laid in the context of his intended refutation of the Archicoelomat theory. In particular, he emphasized the point that his consideration of the animal blueprints and the family trees developed from them were not based on the comparison of individual characteristics of the organisms, but their overall construction: In evolution, no characteristics are exchanged, but functional overall constructions are gradually transformed (because dysfunctionality means death, or too severe disadvantages in the competitive situation with economical constructions). Consequently, this new way of looking at things and working methods resulted in the formulation of a new theory of evolution, which was published as a book in 1981 under the title Critical Theory of Evolution . The critical evolution theory was later developed into the Frankfurt evolution theory .
literature
- Gutmann, WF: The hydroskeleton theory. Essays and speeches by the Senckenberg Natural Research Society 21: 1–91. (1972)
- Gutmann, WF & Bonik, K .: Critical Evolution Theory - A Contribution to Overcoming Old Darwinian Dogmas. - 227 p., Hildesheim (Gerster) 1981.
- Gutmann, WF: The evolution of hydraulic construction - organismic change instead of old Darwinian adaptation. - 201 p., Frankfurt am Main (Kramer) 1989.
- Peters, DS: Almost a breakthrough. Yearbook for the History and Theory of Biology, IX 1–8. (2003)
- Gutmann, WF: The hydroskeleton theory. Yearbook for the History and Theory of Biology, IX 129–194. (2003)
Individual evidence
- ↑ Gutmann, WF 1972. The hydroskeleton theory. - Essays and speeches by the Senckenberg Natural Research Society 21: 1-91
- ↑ GUTMANN, WF (2003): The hydroskeleton theory. - Yearbook for the History and Theory of Biology, IX 129-194
- ↑ Gutmann, M. & Weingarten, M. (2003): The hydroskeleton theory: Antidarwinistic alternative or necessary instrument of evolutionary reconstruction ?. - Yearbook for the History and Theory of Biology, IX
- ↑ Kraus, O. (2010): Dominance and Quality. Review of 50 Phylogenetic Symposia. Negotiations d. Natural Science Association Hamburg NF 45, pp. 9–15.