Orthogenesis
As orthogenesis (also ortho genetic evolution or autogenesis ) refers to the hypothesis , in, after which the life has an inner tendency unilinear to develop a way which is controlled by an internal or external driving force. The hypothesis is based on essentialism , finalism and cosmic teleology, and assumes an intrinsic drive that slowly transforms the species . In a 1953 attack on orthogenesis, George Gaylord Simpson referred to this mechanism as "the mysterious inner force". Classical proponents of orthogenesis reject the theory of natural selection as an organizing mechanism in evolution and theories of speciation for a linear model of guided evolution that treats certain species with “ beings ”. The term orthogenesis was popularized by Theodor Eimer , although many ideas are much older ( William Bateson 1909).
Many sources confuse this heterodox view of evolution with another - that evolution is directed towards a long-term or ultimate goal. This gives rise to definitions that “orthogenesis asserts that evolution proceeds in a unilinear manner towards a perfect goal”. While early and famous examples of orthogenesis did indeed mix these two notions (e.g. Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck ) and that the ideas are just below the surface of intelligent design , it must be remembered that they are two separate notions acts that are rejected by mainstream science: The idea of goal-oriented evolution is better understood than a form of teleology. The difference can be seen from the fact that orthogenesis is inherent in the theories of Ernst Haeckel and RS Lull . Both scientists proposed mechanisms by which evolution was unilinear, but saw no goals (instead, they made pseudoscientific guesswork about unknown genetic processes). Similar errors keep popping up on the fringes of science (typically in the form of new, mysterious molecular forces that supposedly drive phenotypic evolution in certain directions or force the emergence of new species).
Orthogenesis was followed by several evolutionary mechanisms in the 19th century, such as Lamarckism . Lamarck himself accepted the idea that was central to his theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which resembled the mysterious power of orthogenesis. Other representatives of orthogenesis were Leo Berg , the philosopher Henri Bergson , and temporarily also the paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn . Orthogenesis was mainly adopted by paleontologists who saw a directional change in their fossils . However, those who accepted such orthogenesis did not necessarily believe in a teleological mechanism.
There are close connections between the views of orthogenesis and that of a spiritual evolution , which proceeds from an evolutionary scale of life (Scala naturae, "Great Chain of Being"), that of inanimate elementary particles, via atoms, molecules, protozoa, plants and lower animals , Vertebrates and humans, leading to a divine consciousness. In the course of this spiritual evolution there would be a steady increase in complexity, autonomy and above all awareness. Man is therefore currently the crown of creation . Different variants of such a spiritual evolution doctrine formulated u. a. Hegel , Friedrich Schelling , Johann Gottlieb Fichte , Teilhard de Chardin , Henri Bergson , Alfred North Whitehead , Erich Jantsch , Sri Aurobindo and the American New Age philosopher Ken Wilber . There are similar ideas in modern varieties of Philosophia perennis , as well as Theosophy and Anthroposophy . The representatives mentioned and their theories sometimes differ considerably in their degree of acceptance or rejection of neo-Darwinian and other scientific views. For example, Erich Jantsch's theory is almost completely naturalistic and is based on the principle of self-organization, while Aurobindo combines the thought of reincarnation with the belief in an evolution up to godlike superman.
Autogenesis is a special version of orthogenesis that also includes abiogenesis (the hypothesis that each species arises from its own spontaneous generation).
| Darwinism | Orthogenesis | Lamarckism | |
|---|---|---|---|
| mechanism | Myopia natural selection sorts random genetic variation, no other guidance and no goal. Selected features are adaptive; that is, they have value for survival. | Intrinsic power to perfection; natural selection unimportant. Developed characteristics can be completely un-adaptive. | Intrinsic power to perfect and inherit acquired characteristics (both Lamarckian principles); natural selection added later. |
| common ancestry | Yes, new species emerge from biodiversity events. | No, biodiversity rejected or viewed as unimportant in the long term; Abiogenesis of new species leads to parallel evolution. | Depending on the source cited. Evidence that species share a common ancestor was discovered before Darwin, but in the absence of a mechanism, some still rejected the idea. |
| status | Preserved in a modernized form as neo-Darwinism . | Refuted by Darwin's Origin of Species and Neo-Darwinism. | Origin of Species decay , although the mechanism was first refuted by Neo-Darwinism. |
Disintegration of the hypothesis
The orthogenesis hypothesis began to crumble when it became clear that it could not explain the patterns paleontologists found in the nonlinear fossils with many complications. It was generally rejected when a mechanism for this process could not be found, and the evolutionary theory of natural selection became the standard. The synthetic theory of evolution (neo-Darwinism), in which the genetic mechanisms were discovered, replaced the hypothesis for good. The more one learned about the mechanisms, the more obvious it became that there was no possible naturalistic explanation in which the newly discovered inheritance could be farsighted or have a memory of past trends.
However, orthogenesis slowly died. Even Darwin was initially not averse to this way of thinking, as the following quote from the Encyclopædia Britannica of 1911 shows:
“Darwin and his generation were clearly inspired by the Butler tradition and viewed the organic world as a miracle of adaptation, the close intermeshing of structure, function and environment. Darwin was certainly impressed with the view that natural selection and variation together form a mechanism whose central product is adaptation. From Butler's side also came the greatest opposition to Darwinism. How is it possible, it was asked, that random variations provide the material for the precise and balanced adaptations that all of nature reveals? Selection cannot create the material with which it deals; the beginnings of new organs, the first stages of new functions, cannot be considered useful. In addition, many naturalists, especially those involved in paleontology, pointed to the existence of orthogenetic series and long lineages that did not have sporadic differentiation in any direction, but apparently a steady and progressive march in one direction.
Edward Drinker Cope provided such a line of argument in a very convincing way; the course of evolution, both in the creation of variation and its selection, implied, in his opinion, the existence of an original, conscious and directed force, for which he coined the term bathmism ( Greek βαθμ , a step or beginning). On the other hand, the rejection of mystical interpretations of natural facts has taken many skilled naturalists to the other extreme, leading them to insist on the omnipotence of natural selection and the utter insignificance of variation. The apparent conflict between the contradicting schools is more acute than the facts allow ... There is no connection between the appearance of the variation and its use ... it is pure chance if a particular variation proves useful. But there are several directions in which the field of variation seems to be not limited but fixed in a particular direction. Obviously the variations depend on the constitution of the organism; a modification, large or small, is a change in an already defined and constrained structure ... A continuous environment seems to necessarily result in series with the appearance of orthogenesis, both from the point of view of production and selection of variation. The past history of the organic world shows many successful series and these, since they have survived, must inevitably represent orthogenesis to some extent; but they also show many failures which can serve as evidence that because of the restriction on variation, the organisms have lost the ability to respond successfully to a new environment. "
Some adhered to orthogenesis until the 1950s, distinguishing the processes of macroevolution (long-term trends) from those of microevolution (genetic variation and natural selection), which were known at the time and could not function orthogenetically. Teilhard de Chardin , a Jesuit paleontologist, argues in Le Phénomène Humain ( 1959 ), which had a great influence among non-scientists, that evolution aims at an “ omega point ” while man is at the center of the universe and for the original sin was responsible (Dennett 1995, von Kitzing 1998).
The rejection of orthogenesis had some ramifications for philosophy , as it rejected the idea of teleology as first postulated by Aristotle and taken up by Immanuel Kant , who had a great influence on many scientists. Before the scientific and philosophical revolution that began with Darwin's ideas, there was a notion that the world was teleological and functional and that science was the study of God's creation . The rejection of these concepts led to a changed perception of science (ler).
Modern use
Even if teleological linear evolution has been rejected, it is not that evolution is never linear. It reinforces characteristics in certain timelines, for example in a period of slow, sustained change in the environment, but such examples are perfectly compatible with modern neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. They have sometimes been referred to as orthogenetic (e.g. by Jacobs 1995), but strictly speaking they are not, but simply appear as linear constant changes due to environmental or molecular restrictions on the direction of the change.
literature
- Bateson, William, 1909. Heredity and variation in modern lights, in Darwin and Modern Science (AC Seward ed.). Cambridge University Press. Chapter V. E-Book .
- Dennett, Daniel, 1995. Darwin's Dangerous Idea . Simon & Schuster.
- Huxley, Julian, 1942. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis , London: George Allen and Unwin.
- Jacobs, Susan C., Allan Larson & James M. Cheverud, 1995. Phylogenetic Relationships and Orthogenetic Evolution of Coat Color Among Tamarins (Genus Saguinus). Syst. Biol. 44 (4): 515-532, abstract .
- Mayr, Ernst, 2002. What Evolution Is , London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
- Simpson, George G., 1957. Life Of The Past: Introduction to Paleontology . Yale University Press, p. 119.
- Wilkins, John, 1997. What is macroevolution ?. Talk Origins archive [1]