Ernst Haeckel und die Frage nach der Herkunft und dem Stammbaum des Menschengeschlechts

Die Wissenschaftshistoriker Uwe Hoßfeld und Georgy S. Levit lenken in ihrem Beitrag den Blick auf Jena und den weltberühmten „Deutschen Darwin“, der sich über einen Zeitraum von 45 Jahren auch mit humanphylogenetischen Fragestellungen befasste. (DIPF/Orig.

The biogenetic law and the Gastraea theory: From Ernst Haeckel's discoveries to contemporary views

More than 150 years ago, in 1866, Ernst Haeckel published a book in two volumes called Generelle Morphologie der Organismen ( General Morphology of Organisms ) in the first volume of which he formulated his biogenetic law, famously stating that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Here, we describe Haeckel's original idea as first formulated in the Generelle Morphologie der Organismen and later further developed in other publications until the present situation in which molecular data are used to test the “hourglass model,” which can be seen as a modern version of the biogenetic law. We also tell the story about his discovery, while traveling in Norway, of an unknown organism, Magosphaera planula , that was important in that it helped to precipitate his ideas into what was to become the Gastraea theory. We also follow further development and reformulations of the Gastraea theory by other scientists, notably the Russian school. Elias Metchnikoff developed the Phagocytella hypothesis for the origin of metazoans based on studies of a colonial flagellate. Alexey Zakhvatin focused on deducing the ancestral life cycle and the cell types of the last common ancestor of all metazoans, and Kirill V. Mikhailov recently pursued this line of research further

2010,07: Can Darwinism be "generalized" and of what use would this be?

It has been suggested that, by generalizing Darwinian principles, a common foundation can be derived for all scientific disciplines dealing with evolutionary processes, especially for evolutionary economics. In this paper we show, however, that the principles of such a “Generalized Darwinism” are not those that in the development of evolutionary biology have been crucial for distinguishing Darwinian from non-Darwinian approaches and, hence, cannot be considered genuinely Darwinian. Moreover, we wonder how “Generalized Darwinism” can be made fruitful for evolutionary economics given that its principles are but an abstract hull that does not suffice to explain actual evolutionary processes in the economy. To that end specific hypotheses are required which neither follow from, nor are necessarily compatible with, the suggested abstract principles. Accordingly, we find little evidence in the literature for the claim that Generalized Darwinism can enhance the explanatory power of an evolutionary approach to economics

Discovery of rare lecture notes from 1866 provides exceptional insights into the conceptualization and visualization of paleontology by Ernst Haeckel

Here we report on a recently discovered student script of a lecture on paleontology given by Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919). The script dates to the summer semester of 1866, comprises 63 pages, and provides an overview of fossil invertebrate and mainly fossil vertebrate taxonomy and anatomy. It can be assumed that Russian student Nikolai Nikolajevitch Miklucho-Maclay (1846–1888), who later became a famous ethnologist, did not follow up on the lecture, but took the content directly from the lecture and from the blackboard in his notes. Hence, the drawings by Miklucho allow direct insight into Haeckel’s visualization of paleontology in the 1860s. We place the transcript in the historical context of understanding paleontology in the second half of the 19th century and address the break between zoology and embryology on the one hand and paleontology on the other, which is typical for Germany, partly persisting to this date. For that, we illustrate Haeckel’s integration of paleontology as part of a holistic triad, with fossil research gradually taking a back seat to zoology and embryology over the decades

Living matter : a key concept in Vladimir Vernadsky's biogeochemistry

Vladimir Vernadsky's concept of living matter is central to his biogeochemistry, the science he founded. For several reasons, his original understanding of living matter is one of the most complex notions in the history of the life sciences. First, biogeochemistry is by definition an interdisciplinary enterprise that embraces biology, including evolutionary theory, geology, and chemistry, and combines them into a unique research program. Second, if understood in the original sense as used by Vernadsky, living matter is a concept built into idiosyncratic metaphysics constructed around the so-called principle of life's eternity. Third, the concept of living matter reflects the specificity of Vernadsky's sophisticated philosophy of science as he insisted that 'scientific thought' is a planetary phenomenon as well as a geological force. In our contribution, we will introduce Vernadsky's concept of living matter in its historical context. Accordingly, we will also give some chronology of Vernadsky's work related to the growth of his biosphere concept highlighting the 'Ukrainian' period as it is in this period that he intensively elaborated on the notion of living matter. This will be followed by his theory of living matter as it was formulated in his major works of the later period. We are going to locate the notion of living matter within Vernadsky's theoretical system and demonstrate that he regarded his theory of the living as an evolutionary theory complementary to that of Charles Darwin from the very beginning. Additionally, we will briefly present Vladimir Beklemishev's concept of 'geomerida' which he developed at approximately the same time as Vernadsky was elaborating on his 'living matter' to highlight the specificity of the latter's methodology

Science standards: The foundation of evolution education in the United States

AbstractScience standards and textbooks have a huge impact on the manner in which evolution is taught in American classrooms. Standards dictate how much time and what points have to be dedicated to the subject in order to prepare students for state-wide assessments, while the textbooks will largely determine how the subject is presented in the classroom. In the United States both standards and textbooks are determined at the state-level through a political process. Currently there is a tremendous amount of pressure arising from anti-evolutionists in the United States to weaken or omit the teaching of evolution despite recommendations from central institutions such as the National Academy of Science. Results from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) showed that not only are American students performing below average, but also that their performance is declining as they scored worse in 2012 than they did in 2010. Interestingly PISA also found that the internal variation within a country is often greater than between countries with a variation of up to 300 points, which is equivalent to seven years of education pointing to the extreme heterogeneous quality of education within a country (OECD, 2012). An implementation of strong standards would not only help to increase the average performance of American students but could also alleviate the vast discrepancy between the highest and lowest scoring groups of American students. Although the Next Generation Science Standards have been in existence since 2013 and A Framework for K-12 Science Education has been available to the public since 2011 many American states still continue to create their own standards that, according to the Fordham study, are well below par (Lerner et al., 2012). Due to the political nature of the adoption procedure of standards and textbooks, there are many opportunities for interested individuals to get involved in the process of improving these fundamental elements of science education

Valentin Haecker (1864–1927) as a pioneer of phenogenetics: Building the bridge between genotype and phenotype

Valentin Haecker is one of the forerunners of experimental biology, genetics, and developmental physiology. Haecker introduced the term Phänogenetik (phenogenetics) in 1918 in Entwicklungsgeschichtliche Eigenschaftsanalyse (Evolutionary Analysis of Characters), in which he described the earliest stages in the development of the phenotype. His major objective in this publication was to integrate the 2 most important concepts of Mendelian genetics—phenotype and genotype—within a well-articulated theory. Haecker realized that a proper analysis of how the genotype gives rise to the phenotype requires the integration of knowledge of morphology, physiology, and experimental embryology