Organic Evolution in Deep Time: Charles Darwin and the Fossil Record

IF 0.8 4区 综合性期刊 Q3 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia Pub Date : 2013-01-01 DOI:10.1080/03721426.2013.10887188
B. Mcgowran
{"title":"Organic Evolution in Deep Time: Charles Darwin and the Fossil Record","authors":"B. Mcgowran","doi":"10.1080/03721426.2013.10887188","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The heart and soul of geology are to be found in rock relationships and earth history. The fossil record was central and critical to geology emerging as geohistory, the first historical science, from the speculative geotheories of the 18th Century. The key figure was Cuvier. In the process of shaping geohistory, Cuvier and palaeontology produced the second historical science, namely biohistory, including faunal and floral succession in deep time; and biohistory and geohistory have been intertwined for two centuries. Lamarck kept alive the venerable theory of organic change, but evolution as heuristic scientific theory was stumbling. Even so, the fossil-based geological time scale was constructed in the six decades between Cuvier nailing bioextinction and Darwin nailing biospeciation. by about 1830, French molluscan palaeontology was building Tertiary stratigraphic succession, correlation and age determination in the palaeontological synthesis, i.e., biostratigraphy. Palaeontology revealed ancient and exotic life in a deep-time panorama of succession punctuated by extinctions and demanding explanation, but it contributed little to theory of evolutionary processes. Darwin’s world was Lyell’s gradualist world and his appreciation of environmental change as an evolutionary forcing factor lessened as competition came to dominate his thinking. Darwin’s Darwinism comprised five theories. Two were historical theories (the world and its biospecies change in deep time; and common descent in branching evolution produces the tree of life) and both were widely accepted by the generation after Darwin. The other three were causal or nomothetic theories (respectively speciation; gradual change not saltational; and variational change by natural and sexual selection) and they were accepted only in the 20th Century. For its importance to our culture, Darwin’s historicist worldview, in the face of entrenched, ahistorical opinion as to what science really is, outweighs disputes about the importance of selection. As stratigraphy and palaeontology went global and highly successful on most criteria, their evolutionary direction went ‘anti-Darwinian’ in the later 19th Century, towards such theories as orthogenesis, saltationism and a resurgent ‘Neo-Lamarckism’, mostly in Hyatt, Cope and Osborn in North America. This cluster of trends culminated a second time in the 1930s–1940s, in the macromutational typostrophism of the German synthesis, dominated by Schindewolf. Meanwhile there was a thin red line of Darwinian palaeontology down those decades from the 1860s to the 1920s. When population genetics emerged from decades of its own anti-Darwinism the Modern Synthesis was forged between natural history, genetics and palaeontology, the latter especially embodied by Simpson’s macroevolution. Darwin’s three causal theories came into their own in the 1930s–1950s in completing the Darwinian Revolution—or, as I prefer, installing the Darwinian Restoration. However, the Restoration was dominated by variational evolution, whilst practitioners of embryology and morphology, in the transformational mode of evolution, felt excluded. The roots of modern palaeobiology are firmly in the Darwinian Restoration and Simpsonian palaeontology and macroevolution. Modern palaeobiology (i) is thoroughly Darwinian in its historicism and variational evolution but (ii) is beyond Darwin in becoming pervasively hierarchical whilst (iii) reconciling with elements of the German Synthesis through collaboration with developmental genetics in evo-devo. Also (iv) we have gone beyond Darwin (and Simpson) primarily in the rise of micropalaeontology with its untold millions of specimens and in enormous progress in chronologically resolving and reconstructing bioevents and environmental shifts in the geological past. And (v) the tree of life is underlain by an anastomosing web of life. Deep-time palaeobiology becomes more autonomous as major soluble problems arise from the fossil record, utterly beyond the reach of shallow-time neontology. Securely embedded in thriving research programmes recovering the recorded history of life on earth, Darwinism lives!","PeriodicalId":49425,"journal":{"name":"Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia","volume":"23 1","pages":"102 - 148"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03721426.2013.10887188","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract The heart and soul of geology are to be found in rock relationships and earth history. The fossil record was central and critical to geology emerging as geohistory, the first historical science, from the speculative geotheories of the 18th Century. The key figure was Cuvier. In the process of shaping geohistory, Cuvier and palaeontology produced the second historical science, namely biohistory, including faunal and floral succession in deep time; and biohistory and geohistory have been intertwined for two centuries. Lamarck kept alive the venerable theory of organic change, but evolution as heuristic scientific theory was stumbling. Even so, the fossil-based geological time scale was constructed in the six decades between Cuvier nailing bioextinction and Darwin nailing biospeciation. by about 1830, French molluscan palaeontology was building Tertiary stratigraphic succession, correlation and age determination in the palaeontological synthesis, i.e., biostratigraphy. Palaeontology revealed ancient and exotic life in a deep-time panorama of succession punctuated by extinctions and demanding explanation, but it contributed little to theory of evolutionary processes. Darwin’s world was Lyell’s gradualist world and his appreciation of environmental change as an evolutionary forcing factor lessened as competition came to dominate his thinking. Darwin’s Darwinism comprised five theories. Two were historical theories (the world and its biospecies change in deep time; and common descent in branching evolution produces the tree of life) and both were widely accepted by the generation after Darwin. The other three were causal or nomothetic theories (respectively speciation; gradual change not saltational; and variational change by natural and sexual selection) and they were accepted only in the 20th Century. For its importance to our culture, Darwin’s historicist worldview, in the face of entrenched, ahistorical opinion as to what science really is, outweighs disputes about the importance of selection. As stratigraphy and palaeontology went global and highly successful on most criteria, their evolutionary direction went ‘anti-Darwinian’ in the later 19th Century, towards such theories as orthogenesis, saltationism and a resurgent ‘Neo-Lamarckism’, mostly in Hyatt, Cope and Osborn in North America. This cluster of trends culminated a second time in the 1930s–1940s, in the macromutational typostrophism of the German synthesis, dominated by Schindewolf. Meanwhile there was a thin red line of Darwinian palaeontology down those decades from the 1860s to the 1920s. When population genetics emerged from decades of its own anti-Darwinism the Modern Synthesis was forged between natural history, genetics and palaeontology, the latter especially embodied by Simpson’s macroevolution. Darwin’s three causal theories came into their own in the 1930s–1950s in completing the Darwinian Revolution—or, as I prefer, installing the Darwinian Restoration. However, the Restoration was dominated by variational evolution, whilst practitioners of embryology and morphology, in the transformational mode of evolution, felt excluded. The roots of modern palaeobiology are firmly in the Darwinian Restoration and Simpsonian palaeontology and macroevolution. Modern palaeobiology (i) is thoroughly Darwinian in its historicism and variational evolution but (ii) is beyond Darwin in becoming pervasively hierarchical whilst (iii) reconciling with elements of the German Synthesis through collaboration with developmental genetics in evo-devo. Also (iv) we have gone beyond Darwin (and Simpson) primarily in the rise of micropalaeontology with its untold millions of specimens and in enormous progress in chronologically resolving and reconstructing bioevents and environmental shifts in the geological past. And (v) the tree of life is underlain by an anastomosing web of life. Deep-time palaeobiology becomes more autonomous as major soluble problems arise from the fossil record, utterly beyond the reach of shallow-time neontology. Securely embedded in thriving research programmes recovering the recorded history of life on earth, Darwinism lives!
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
深层生物进化:查尔斯·达尔文和化石记录
地质学的核心和灵魂在于岩石关系和地球历史。化石记录是地质学发展成为地史的核心和关键,地史是第一个历史科学,起源于18世纪的推测性地质理论。关键人物是居维叶。居维叶和古生物学在塑造地史的过程中,产生了第二门历史科学,即生物史,包括动物和植物的深层演替;两个世纪以来,生物史和地质史一直交织在一起。拉马克保留了令人尊敬的有机变化理论,但作为启发式科学理论的进化论却步履蹒跚。即便如此,以化石为基础的地质时间尺度是在居维叶确定生物灭绝和达尔文确定生物物种形成之间的60年间建立起来的。1830年前后,法国软体动物古生物学在古生物学综合即生物地层学中建立了第三纪地层演替、对比和年龄测定。古生物学揭示了古代和外来的生命,它们在演替的深层全景中被灭绝打断,需要解释,但它对进化过程的理论贡献不大。达尔文的世界是莱尔渐进主义的世界,他认为环境变化是一种进化的强迫因素,但随着竞争开始主导他的思想,他的观点有所减弱。达尔文的达尔文主义包括五个理论。两种是历史理论(世界及其生物物种的深时间变化;分支进化中的共同血统产生了生命之树),这两种观点都被达尔文之后的一代所广泛接受。其他三个是因果论或本体论(分别是物种形成论;渐进的变化;以及自然选择和性选择导致的变异),直到20世纪才被接受。对于我们的文化来说,达尔文的历史主义世界观是非常重要的,面对根深蒂固的,关于科学究竟是什么的非历史观点,达尔文的历史主义世界观胜过了关于自然选择重要性的争论。随着地层学和古生物学走向全球,并在大多数标准上取得了巨大成功,它们的进化方向在19世纪后期走向了“反达尔文主义”,转向了诸如正地层说、突变说和复兴的“新拉马克主义”等理论,主要是在北美的凯亚特、柯普和奥斯本。这一系列趋势在20世纪30年代至40年代达到了第二次高潮,即以辛德沃尔夫为主导的德国综合的巨突变型后拟态。与此同时,从19世纪60年代到20世纪20年代的几十年里,达尔文古生物学有一条细红线。当种群遗传学从几十年的反达尔文主义中脱颖而出时,自然历史、遗传学和古生物学之间形成了现代综合,后者尤其体现在辛普森的宏观进化论中。达尔文的三个因果理论在20世纪30年代至50年代完成了达尔文革命,或者,我更喜欢,安装了达尔文复辟。然而,恢复是由变异进化主导的,而胚胎学和形态学的实践者,在进化的转变模式中,感到被排除在外。现代古生物学的根基牢固地植根于达尔文复辟和辛普森古生物学和宏观进化论。现代古生物学(1)在其历史决定论和变异进化上是彻底的达尔文主义,但(2)在普遍的等级制度上超越了达尔文,同时(3)通过与进化-发展中的发育遗传学合作,与德国综合理论的要素相协调。第四,我们超越了达尔文(和辛普森),主要体现在微体古生物学的兴起和数以百万计的标本,以及在按时间顺序解决和重建过去地质时期的生物事件和环境变化方面取得的巨大进展。(五)生命之树由一个相互吻合的生命之网支撑。深层古生物学变得更加独立,因为主要的可解决的问题来自化石记录,完全超出了浅层古生物学的范围。安全地嵌入在蓬勃发展的研究项目中,以恢复地球上生命的历史记录,达尔文主义还活着!
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
17
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Published since 1880, the Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to publish high quality, peer-reviewed papers of particular relevance to Australasia. There is a particular focus on natural history topics such as: botany, zoology, geology, geomorphology, palaeontology, meteorology, geophysics, biophysics, soil science and environmental science, and environmental health. However, the journal is not restricted to these fields, with papers concerning epidemiology, ethnology, anthropology, linguistics, and the history of science and exploration also welcomed. Submissions are welcome from all authors, and membership of the Royal Society of South Australia is not required. The following types of manuscripts are welcome: Reviews, Original Research Papers, History of Science and Exploration, Brief Communications, Obituaries.
期刊最新文献
New Aspidella fossils and a frond impression from the early Ediacaran Brachina sequence, central Flinders Ranges, South Australia Earthquake-induced soft-sediment deformation in the Pleistocene succession, Noarlunga Embayment, South Australia Can inclusion of different levels of participation effort improve volunteer diversity and retainment in a citizen science project? Floral visitors, pollinators and floral rewards of the Australian dioecious arid zone shrub Pimelea microcephala subsp. microcephala A review of the Acanthocephala of Australian bandicoots (Peramelidae), with a comment on New Guinean hosts, based on material held in the South Australian museum
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1