Deconstructing Darwin: Evolutionary theory in context

Hull, David L.

doi:10.1007/s10739-004-6514-1

Cited by 19 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it seems that the theory of natural selection was also the product of a unique social and historical context. It seems that particular characteristics of Victorian society were crucial for the development of this theory (Radick 2009; but also see Hull 2005). In particular, Darwin's analogies and influences were distinct of the Victorian era: Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus were political economists that developed their theories in a particular social context; breeding was a form of Victorian technology; Herschel and Whewell were among the first philosophers of science in a tradition based on Newton's science; and the Anglican church had a particular tradition (Natural Theology) that put emphasis on the idea of adaptation on which Darwin built his theory.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While Wallace's essay did not employ Darwin's term ''natural selection'', it did outline the mechanics of an evolutionary divergence of species from others due to environmental pressures. In this sense, it seemed the same as Darwin's theory, although it was strikingly different in some aspects (Hull 2005). Darwin was frustrated but his priority was saved when Lyell and Hooker arranged for a joint presentation in the Linnaean Society of both the Darwin and Wallace papers.…”

Section: Social Influences On the Publication Of Darwin's Theory Of Ementioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Charles Darwin and Evolution: Illustrating Human Aspects of Science

Kampourakis¹,

McComas

2009

Sci & Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, the nature of science (NOS) has become recognized as an important element within the K-12 science curriculum. Despite differences in the ultimate lists of recommended aspects, a consensus is emerging on what specific NOS elements should be the focus of science instruction and inform textbook writers and curriculum developers. In this article, we suggest a contextualized, explicit approach addressing one core NOS aspect: the human aspects of science that include the domains of creativity, social influences and subjectivity. To illustrate these ideas, we have focused on Charles Darwin, a scientist whose life, work and thought processes were particularly well recorded at the time and analyzed by scholars in the succeeding years. Historical facts are discussed and linked to core NOS ideas. Creativity is illustrated through the analogies between the struggle for existence in human societies and in nature, between artificial and natural selection, and between the division of labor in human societies and in nature. Social influences are represented by Darwin's aversion of criticism of various kinds and by his response to the methodological requirements of the science of that time. Finally, subjectivity is discussed through Darwin's development of a unique but incorrect source for the origin of variations within species.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Social Influences On the Publication Of Darwin's Theory Of Ementioning

confidence: 93%

Charles Darwin and Evolution: Illustrating Human Aspects of Science

Kampourakis¹,

McComas

2009

Sci & Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the ultimate evidence of tumor evolution through space was demonstrated using high-throughput next-generation genomic sequencing (NGS), offering a remarkable illustration of Darwinian evolution and natural selection at the cellular level in renal tumors. (Gerlinger et al, 2012; Hull, 2005; Navin et al, 2010; Navin and Hicks, 2010) Clearly, misclassification of a tumor as ‘HER2 negative’ based on the primary site may have implications on outcomes for that patient if the metastatic site had evolved to acquire HER2 amplification (Figure 2B). (Seol et al, 2012; Arena et al, 2013; Lee et al, 2013a; Yoon et al, 2012) Further realization of continued tumor evolution and adaptation through time with consequent therapeutic resistance, has been extensively described pre-clinically, (Catenacci et al, 2011a; Turke et al, 2010; Corso and Giordano, 2013; Cepero et al, 2010; Engelman et al, 2007) and exemplified clinically via pre/post therapy tumor biopsies (Figure 2D and E).…”

Section: Intra-patient Tumor Molecular Heterogeneitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Next‐generation clinical trials: Novel strategies to address the challenge of tumor molecular heterogeneity

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The promise of ‘personalized cancer care’ with therapies toward specific molecular aberrations has potential to improve outcomes. However, there is recognized heterogeneity within any given tumor-type from patient to patient (inter-patient heterogeneity), and within an individual (intra-patient heterogeneity) as demonstrated by molecular evolution through space (primary tumor to metastasis) and time (after therapy). These issues have become hurdles to advancing cancer treatment outcomes with novel molecularly targeted agents. Classic trial design paradigms are challenged by heterogeneity, as they are unable to test targeted therapeutics against low frequency genomic ‘oncogenic driver’ aberrations with adequate power. Usual accrual difficulties to clinical trials are exacerbated by low frequencies of any given molecular driver. To address these challenges, there is need for innovative clinical trial designs and strategies implementing novel diagnostic biomarker technologies to account for inter-patient molecular diversity and scarce tissue for analysis. Importantly, there is also need for pre-defined treatment priority algorithms given numerous aberrations commonly observed within any one individual sample. Access to multiple available therapeutic agents simultaneously is crucial. Finally intra-patient heterogeneity through time may be addressed by serial biomarker assessment at the time of tumor progression. This report discusses various ‘next-generation’ biomarker-driven trial designs and their potentials and limitations to tackle these recognized molecular heterogeneity challenges. Regulatory hurdles, with respect to drug and companion diagnostic development and approval, are considered. Focus is on the ‘Expansion Platform Design Types I and II’, the latter demonstrated with a first example, ‘PANGEA: Personalized Anti-Neoplastics for Gastro-Esophageal Adenocarcinoma’. Applying integral medium-throughput genomic and proteomic assays along with a practical biomarker assessment and treatment algorithm, ‘PANGEA’ attempts to address the problem of heterogeneity towards successful implementation of molecularly targeted therapies.

show abstract

“…A second restriction overcome by the new approach is externalism. The nearly exclusive concentration of the Modern Synthesis on natural selection gave priority to all external factors that realize adaptation through differential reproduction, a fundamental feature of Darwinism not rooted solely in scientifi c considerations (Hull 2005). Organismal shape and structure were interpreted as products uniquely of external selection regimes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution, the Extended Synthesis

Pigliucci¹,

Müller²

2010

560

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prominent evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science survey recent work that expands the core theoretical framework underlying the biological sciences. In the six decades since the publication of Julian Huxley's Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, the spectacular empirical advances in the biological sciences have been accompanied by equally significant developments within the core theoretical framework of the discipline. As a result, evolutionary theory today includes concepts and even entire new fields that were not part of the foundational structure of the Modern Synthesis. In this volume, sixteen leading evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science survey the conceptual changes that have emerged since Huxley's landmark publication, not only in such traditional domains of evolutionary biology as quantitative genetics and paleontology but also in such new fields of research as genomics and EvoDevo. Most of the contributors to Evolution, the Extended Synthesis accept many of the tenets of the classical framework but want to relax some of its assumptions and introduce significant conceptual augmentations of the basic Modern Synthesis structure—just as the architects of the Modern Synthesis themselves expanded and modulated previous versions of Darwinism. This continuing revision of a theoretical edifice the foundations of which were laid in the middle of the nineteenth century—the reexamination of old ideas, proposals of new ones, and the synthesis of the most suitable—shows us how science works, and how scientists have painstakingly built a solid set of explanations for what Darwin called the “grandeur” of life. ContributorsJohn Beatty, Werner Callebaut, Jeremy Draghi, Chrisantha Fernando, Sergey Gavrilets, John C. Gerhart, Eva Jablonka, David Jablonski, Marc W. Kirschner, Marion J. Lamb, Alan C. Love, Gerd B. Müller, Stuart A. Newman, John Odling-Smee, Massimo Pigliucci, Michael Purugganan, Eörs Szathmáry, Günter P. Wagner, David Sloan Wilson, Gregory A. Wray

show abstract

Deconstructing Darwin: Evolutionary theory in context

Cited by 19 publications

References 15 publications

Charles Darwin and Evolution: Illustrating Human Aspects of Science

Charles Darwin and Evolution: Illustrating Human Aspects of Science

Next‐generation clinical trials: Novel strategies to address the challenge of tumor molecular heterogeneity

Evolution, the Extended Synthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About