Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Between Social and Biological Heredity: Cope and Baldwin on Evolution, Inheritance, and Mind

Between Social and Biological Heredity: Cope and Baldwin on Evolution, Inheritance, and Mind In the years of the post-Darwinian debate, many American naturalists invoked the name of Lamarck to signal their belief in a purposive and anti-Darwinian view of evolution. Yet Weismann’s theory of germ-plasm continuity undermined the shared tenet of the neo-Lamarckian theories as well as the idea of the interchangeability between biological and social heredity. Edward Drinker Cope, the leader of the so-called “American School,” defended his neo-Lamarckian philosophy against every attempt to redefine the relationship between behavior, development, and heredity beyond the epigenetic model of inheritance. This paper explores Cope’s late-career defense of neo-Lamarckism. Particular attention is dedicated to the debate he had with James Mark Baldwin before the publication of Baldwin’s own “A New Factor in Evolution” (1896d). I argue that Cope’s criticism was partly due to the fact that Baldwin’s theory of social heredity threatened Cope’s biologistic stance, as well as his attempt to preserve design in nature. This theoretical attitude had a remarkable impact on Baldwin’s arguments for the theory of organic selection. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of the History of Biology Springer Journals

Between Social and Biological Heredity: Cope and Baldwin on Evolution, Inheritance, and Mind

Journal of the History of Biology , Volume 52 (1) – Jun 5, 2018

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/between-social-and-biological-heredity-cope-and-baldwin-on-evolution-PlxTGPpR29

References (113)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature
Subject
History; History of Science; Philosophy of Biology
ISSN
0022-5010
eISSN
1573-0387
DOI
10.1007/s10739-018-9522-2
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In the years of the post-Darwinian debate, many American naturalists invoked the name of Lamarck to signal their belief in a purposive and anti-Darwinian view of evolution. Yet Weismann’s theory of germ-plasm continuity undermined the shared tenet of the neo-Lamarckian theories as well as the idea of the interchangeability between biological and social heredity. Edward Drinker Cope, the leader of the so-called “American School,” defended his neo-Lamarckian philosophy against every attempt to redefine the relationship between behavior, development, and heredity beyond the epigenetic model of inheritance. This paper explores Cope’s late-career defense of neo-Lamarckism. Particular attention is dedicated to the debate he had with James Mark Baldwin before the publication of Baldwin’s own “A New Factor in Evolution” (1896d). I argue that Cope’s criticism was partly due to the fact that Baldwin’s theory of social heredity threatened Cope’s biologistic stance, as well as his attempt to preserve design in nature. This theoretical attitude had a remarkable impact on Baldwin’s arguments for the theory of organic selection.

Journal

Journal of the History of BiologySpringer Journals

Published: Jun 5, 2018

There are no references for this article.