Introduction
Throughout history, science has incorporated many ideas both good and bad that have been subject to great controversy. In regards to biology, conflicting ideas have shaped and changed how we define life beginning with two major perspectives; nominalism as a bottom up model, and essentialism as a top down model. What I mean when I say nominalism, as a bottom up model is that at first researchers such as Darwin, and Lamarck, viewed life with different facets belonging to a greater whole. Organisms could basically be compared and classified with one another on how they evolved from a network of interconnect life sustaining applications. Essentialist such as Cuvier being the most notable on this thought, viewed life as unchangeable categories with specific functions that suited each organism exclusively. As time has gone on, ideas have been shaped and changed indefinitely as illustrated in the book, The Half-Life of Facts. Sound arguments had to be modified and changed over time as new evidence came to light.
Differing ideas from natural inquiry
As many notable researchers attempted to classify life as a whole, there has been a general trend as stated in the book, Systematics and the Origin of Species.
“It seems as if all the conclusions and generalized laws derived from a study of taxonomic material were dependent to a very high degree on the nature of this material and the background of the student.” (Ernst Mayr, p.3)
This quotation suggests something profound in that early naturalists could observe the same elements of life and draw differing conclusions, this can be attributed to their personal life experiences and specialization in their field. Of course, as we have seen, these views were very descriptive wi...
... middle of paper ...
...in a strict adherence to observational research. The findings from each individual were shared facts through strong and weak social connections. “This is the rule when it comes to how facts spread: social networks spread information” (Arbesman, p.73). To this day we use networks for information to argue and build upon what we know and it’s been the subject of our first 5 weeks of class, changing and evolving ideas that are replaced by better ones throughout history of biology.
Works Cited
Arbesman, Samuel. The Half-life of Facts: Why Everything We Know Has an Expiration Date. N.p.: n.p., 2013. Print.
Mayr, Ernst. Systematics and the Origin of Species, from the Viewpoint of a Zoologist. New York: Columbia Univ., 1942. Print.
Schiebinger, Londa L. Plants and Empire: Colonial Bioprospecting in the Atlantic World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2004. Print.
"Charles Darwin: The Father of Evolution." Darwin1. University of Missouri, n.d. Web. 04 May 2014.
Morris, Paul J. "Louis Agassiz's Arguments against Darwinism in His Additions to the French Translation of the Essay on Classification." Journal of the History of Biology. 30 (1997): 121-134.
The Dutch seaborne empire (London, 1965) Canny, Nicholas: The Oxford History of the British Empire,vol I, TheOrigins of the Empire (New York 1998) Curtin, Philip D: The rise and fall of the plantation complex:essays in Atlantic history (Cambridge, 1990). Dunn, Richard S: Sugar and Slaves (North Carolina,1973) Haring, C.H: The Spanish Empire in America(New York, 1947) Hemming, John: Red gold: the conquest of the Brazilian Indians (Southampton 1978) Hobbhouse, Henry: Seeds of Change: Five plants that transformed mankind (1985) Mattoso, Katia M de Queiros: To be a slave in Brazil 1550-1888 (New Jersey, 1986) Mintz, Sidney W: Sweetness and Power (New York 1985) Winn, Peter: Americas:The changing face of Latin America and the Caribbean (California, 1999)
Darwin: A Norton Critical Edition, Second Edition ; ed. by Philip Appleman; copyright 1979, 1970 by W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Gibbons, Ann., 2002, One Scientists Quest for The Origin of our Species. Science, v. 298. http://rcp.missouri.edu/carolward/pdfs/quotebrunetpiece.pdf
Our awareness, our perception within nature, as Thomas states, is the contrast that segregates us from our symbols. It is the quality that separates us from our reflections, from the values and expectations that society has oppressed against itself. However, our illusions and hallucinations of nature are merely artifacts of our anthropocentric idealism. Thomas, in “Natural Man,” criticizes society for its flawed value-thinking, advocating how it “[is merely] a part of a system . . . [and] we are, in this view, neither owners nor operators; at best, [are] motile tissues specialized for receiving information” (56). We “spread like a new growth . . . touching and affecting every other kind of life, incorporating ourselves,” destroying the nature we coexist with, “[eutrophizing] the earth” (57). However, Thomas questions if “we are the invaded ones, the subjugated, [the] used?” (57). Due to our anthropocentric idealism, our illusions and hallucinations of nature, we forget that we, as organisms, are microscopically inexistent. To Thomas, “we are not made up, as we had always supposed, of successively enriched packets of our own parts,” but rather “we are shared, rented, occupied [as] the interior of our cells, driving them, providing the oxidative energy that sends us out for the improvement of each shining day, are the mitochondria” (1).
According to the theory of evolution, approximately 3.8 billion years ago some chemicals accidentally structured themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This beginning spark of life was the ancestor of every living thing we see today. Through the processes of mutation and natural selection, that simplest life form, has been shaped into every living species.
After Sir Charles Darwin had introduced his original theory about the origins of species and evolution, humanity’s faith in God that remained undisputed for hundreds of years had reeled. The former unity fractured into the evolutionists, who believed that life as we see it today had developed from smaller and more primitive organisms, and creationists, who kept believing that life in all its diversity was created by a higher entity. Each side introduced substantial arguments to support their claims, but at the same time the counter-arguments of each opponent are also credible. Therefore, the debates between the evolutionists and the creationists seem to be far from ending. And though their arguments are completely opposite, they can co-exist or even complement each other.
...e single origin perspective but not the multiregional perspective (1988). For example, the first appearance of Homo sapiens raises problems. The newest fossils of Homo sapiens were discovered in Africa while Europe, the Far East and Australia have the oldest fossils (Stringer & Andrew 1988). If there was one linearly evolving species we should see the oldest fossils in Africa. Also, Although Europe and southwest Asia have the most complete fossil record there is an absence of Neanderthal and modern Homo sapiens transitional fossils, which goes against the idea that species evolved together (Stringer & Andrew, 1988). The fossils better describe the single origin perspective.
It was during his journey on board the Beagle that Darwin developed his theory of evolution. “On the Origin of Species” (Darwin, 1859) proposed two main principles: evolution really occurs and natural selection is its mechanism. This work published on 24th November 1859 traces a coherent portrait of life bringing together in an orderly manner an astonishing variety of apparently independent facts. It led biologists to concentrate on the diversity of organisms, their origins and their relation, their similarities and their differences, their geographical distribution and their adaptation to various environments.
Taxonomy has changed dramatically since the introduction of the first formal classification system in 1735. The first classification system,known as binomial nomenclature was developed by Carolus Linnaeus in the 18th century. Although Linnaeus was regarded as the father of taxonomy because of his work, Our classification system has changed significantly due to the fact that the Linnaean system was simplistic and only classified organisms based on visual/structural characteristics; in the Linnaen system there were merely 2 kingdoms (Animalia and Plantae). In comparison ,the modern classification system recognizes 3 domains and 6 kingdoms within those domains. Over the years, Classification has changed rapidly due to technological advances and
Zacherl, Danielle. “Biology 171 Evolution and Biodiversity.” National Association of Research in Science Teaching 2007 Annual Meeting, New Orleans LA. (2007):n. page. Print.
1996 "What Is a Species, and What Is Not?" Philosophy of Science, Vol. 63, No. 2: 262-277.
...of ancient prokaryotes into eukaryotic cells which gives rise to the present-day model of life is wondrous enough, but the fact that the organelles work in such efficient harmony, seemingly directed like well crafted machinery is another ponderous development. The layout of life begins with the cell. Without it there is no life even on a microscopic level. To imagine that giant beasts of the Jurassic and Triassic periods such Triceratops and Liopleurodon being sharing the same base parts as some as infinitesimally small as an amoeba or a plankton is astonishing. What's more amazing though is the fact it is readily provable and verifiable. In the study of life, the make up of all creature is known at a basic level. Even without the the scientists to explain the facts, the facts themselves are immutable in terms of defining the make up and rules of existence of life.
It is easy to say that species are constantly changing, and branching off into totally new species. But how do we know where the species originate? Phylogenies help to show us how all kinds of species are related to each other, and why. These relationships are put into what can be called a cladogram, which links species to common ancestors, in turn showing where, when, how, and why these ancestors diverged to form new species. Without phylogenies, it would be extremely difficult to put species in specific categories or relate them to one another. Along with phylogenies can come conflict on which species should be related to one another. This conflict causes many hypotheses and experiments, which can lead to phylogenetic retrofitting, which means adding some kind of data to a phylogeny that was not originally included. In M. S. Y. Lee’s article “Turtle origins: insights from phylogenetic retrofitting and molecular scaffolds”, the origin of the turtle (Testudines) is very controversial, and has been the source of experimenting to try to prove whether it should be placed under anapsid-grade parareptiles, according to Bayesian analyses, or diapsids as sisters to living archosaurs. The use of experiments including molecular scaffolding, which is an experiment involving using the scaffold protein of the backbone to place the turtles in a certain taxa, is used to show where turtles should actually be placed. I find it very interesting that scientists continue to go back and forth between new and old phylogenies, constantly rearranging and questioning the placement. Phylogenies are not just important for showcasing where species originated from, but also to illustrate how DNA sequences evolve as well. For example, in class, we t...