Is this correct?

[murshid]

Will it be correct to say that even before Darwin and Wallace came up with the idea of natural selection, biologists already knew the fact that evolution happened, and that it was only the mechanism through which evolution took place (for example, natural selection vs. Lamarckism) that was under dispute?

Or did Darwin discover the fact of evolution as well?

[Fenrir]

True

It was well known that evolution occured and had been since antiquity. What was missing was a mechanism/mechanisms.

Lamarck proposed the first integrated theory in 1809 which built on soft inheritance, which had been around for some time.

Darwin and Wallace added the idea of descent with modification and Mendel added a mechanism. The characterisation of the gene as the unit of selection came later and multilevel selection later still.

[CharlieM]

Hi Murshid, You will no doubt be aware that Darwin was influenced by the evolutionary thinking of his grandfather, Erasmus.


There were the beginnings of modern evolutionary thinking in characters such as Benoît de Maillet. He thought that "life had begun in the water", and he believed that, "man's career began as a fish". See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beno%C3%AEt_de_Maillet

Concerning evolution, Schelling "was the first thinker to use this term, which originated in the context of embryology, in the new context of evolution of species". https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -53626-7_5
But rather than viewing evolution as mechanistic, Schelling understood evolution as organic as opposed to mechanistic.

Alexander von Humboldt was a German polymath read by Darwin during his trips on the Beagle.

From https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/alexander-humboldt/
"As Humboldt explains in the remarks preceding his mention of Goethe, the “problem of metamorphosis” has to do with the dual difficulties of the proliferation of organic forms (the infinite diversity of nature) and the relation between the currently existing organic forms and those long extinct. These two difficulties map onto the ancient problem of the one and the many—of discerning unity, relation, connection, in diversity. It is a problem that many had tried to resolve. But, according to Humboldt, it was Goethe and his notion of metamorphosis that offered a solution."

And of course Heraclitus' idea of the process of constant change is a prerequisite of Darwinian evolution.

All these individuals regarded nature as dynamic, not fixed and static. There were a variety of thinkers who considered the living world as being engaged in evolutionary processes in some form or other, both preceding and during the time of Darwin.

[murshid]

But rather than viewing evolution as mechanistic, Schelling understood evolution as organic as opposed to mechanistic.

I'm not sure I understand what "organic" and "mechanistic" mean in this context. Can you elaborate a little?

[CharlieM]

I'm not sure I understand what "organic" and "mechanistic" mean in this context. Can you elaborate a little?

I don't know your background nor your level of understanding so please forgive me if my explanation is a bit elementary for you.

Contemporary modern scientists tend to view the biological world in mechanistic terms. This is made apparent by the the common practice of using machine metaphors in biology. Organisms are described as containing pumps and valves and nano-machines and the like. Brains are compared to computers. This is the standard analytical, reductionist way of looking at these things. But unlike machines which can be taken apart, examined and put back together, organisms are wholes and it is fatal for them to be treated in this way. The mechanics and causal connections which are apt for the sphere of lifeless matter are not well suited for studying organic nature.

There is another method of observation in which the practitioners prefer to study life and organisms in their wholeness. This is the organic way.

The philosophy of Samuel Taylor Coleridge is a prime example of this method. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_epistemology

The following examples give some contrasts between "organic" and "mechanistic" positions. One is holistic the other reductionistic, one emphasizes romanticism (as in the link above), the other naturalism. Spinoza makes a distinction using Bacon's Natura naturans and Natura naturata. The former being the process of naturing Nature, the dynamic world of becoming; and the latter being natured Nature, the more static world of objects such as is apprehended by the senses.


I think Darwin's temperament and his love of nature meant his understanding of nature tended towards the organic. Neo-Darwinism tended in the opposite direction.

Hope this helps.

[Fenrir]

Utter bullshit

[CharlieM]

Fenrir: Utter bullshit

As I've said this elsewhere. Bullshit is an excellent fertilizer. Maybe what you consider bullshit is what is just what is required to stimulate productive thoughts which can live on further. Unlike throw-away one-liners which only helps to stop conversation dead in its tracks.

[Fenrir]

Dead in its tracks is as good as this dribble could get.

You are just spouting words which you think sound intellectual and authorative together but have no actual merit.

Science has a habit of describing stuff as best it can with the technology available at the time. There is no "mechanistic" or "organic" intent.

A heart is just a pump and at the same time a complex evolved organ. A heart is a complex whole and is composed of any number of smaller processes which can be elucidated. Most people are capable of holding these alternative narratives at the same time because they both tell us useful things.

"Oh but Lucretious the second said that latrines are best if square so ..."

[CharlieM]

Science has a habit of describing stuff as best it can with the technology available at the time. There is no "mechanistic" or "organic" intent.

Intentional or unintentional, the phrasing is still there in the literature.

A heart is just a pump and at the same time a complex evolved organ. A heart is a complex whole and is composed of any number of smaller processes which can be elucidated. Most people are capable of holding these alternative narratives at the same time because they both tell us useful things.

The heart is not "just a pump". If for the sake of argument we think of it as a pump, it is much more than this. It is a sense organ, an endocrine gland secreting many hormones such as Atrial Natriuretic Peptide and calcitonin, the oscillating heart is a focus of a torus-shaped electromagnetic field which extends outside the body detectable over a distance of a few feet.

From https://www.heartmath.org/research/scie ... unication/

The heart’s electrical field is about 60 times greater in amplitude than the electrical activity generated by the brain. This field, measured in the form of an electrocardiogram (ECG), can be detected anywhere on the surface of the body. Furthermore, the magnetic field produced by the heart is more than 100 times greater in strength than the field generated by the brain and can be detected up to 3 feet away from the body, in all directions, using SQUID-based magnetometers

Also:

the heart sends more information to the brain than the brain sends to the heart. More recent research shows that the neural interactions between the heart and brain are more complex than previously thought. In addition, the intrinsic cardiac nervous system has both short-term and long-term memory functions and can operate independently of central neuronal command.

I realize that this has rapidly veered off topic and so maybe a new thread is probably needed to continue this friendly chat.

Note: I have snipped the parts of your post which I saw no point in responding to.

[Fenrir]

As i said, a pump.

Apparently there are a few side-effects and addons which have something to do with something. Woopty doo.

[Fenrir]

This Atrial Natriuretic Peptide, is this a mechanistic peptide or an organic peptide?

Probably need to figure that out before you reduce your argument to specific details in order to support your argument that specific details are bad, specifically.

Feet get shot that way, very bad business.

[The_Metatron]

Go take a look at that outfit’s web site. Chockablock with all sorts of ambiguous language, shit that can’t really be pinned down. Its founder is “Doc” Lew Childre, not a medical doctor, in fact, a high school dropout who thinks the correct music can reduce stress, so he founded the heartmath institute. There’s no math there. Just “systems” and sensors you can buy, of course.

Woo, very well disguised to look like real science. I’m sure he, his wife, and all the other members of the board at that non-profit are very well paid and live very comfortably indeed off the gullible.

[CharlieM]

Go take a look at that outfit’s web site. Chockablock with all sorts of ambiguous language, shit that can’t really be pinned down. Its founder is “Doc” Lew Childre, not a medical doctor, in fact, a high school dropout who thinks the correct music can reduce stress, so he founded the heartmath institute. There’s no math there. Just “systems” and sensors you can buy, of course.

Woo, very well disguised to look like real science. I’m sure he, his wife, and all the other members of the board at that non-profit are very well paid and live very comfortably indeed off the gullible.

Regardless of any views you have about that site, do you have any evidence that contradicts the actual quotes I supplied?

[The_Metatron]

Like JJ, you may be confused about which direction evidence operates. Doc Childre’s web site doesn’t link to any peer reviewed papers supporting any of those quotes. When they have something that passes peer review muster, it’s worth a look.

It’s not up to us to debunk woo. I’ll use this with you, too: Never heard of Russel’s Teapot?

[Calilasseia]

And once again, we see apologetics being peddled to try and dismiss the demonstrable sufficiency of testable natural processes. How tiresomely preditable.