Humanity

@misc{etkin1972a1,
    author = "Etkin, W. and Devlin, R. M. and Boufford, T. G",
    title = "A Biology of Human Concern",
    year = "1972",
    howpublished = "Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Etkin, W., Devlin, R. M., and Boufford, T. G., 1972, A Biology of Human Concern: Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott.}"
}

@misc{stebbins1982darwin2,
    author = "Stebbins, G. L",
    title = "Darwin to DNA, Molecules to Humanity",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "San Francisco, W. H. Freeman, 491 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Stebbins, G. L., 1982, Darwin to DNA, Molecules to Humanity: San Francisco, W. H. Freeman, 491 p.}"
}

@article{pickering1983darwin,
    author = "Pickering, WR",
    title = "Darwin to DNA, Molecules to Humanity",
    year = "1983",
    journal = "Biochemical Education",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1016/0307-4412(83)90065-1",
    doi = "10.1016/0307-4412(83)90065-1",
    number = "2",
    openalex = "W1524970078",
    pages = "81",
    volume = "11"
}

With insight and wit, Robert J. Richards focuses on the development of evolutionary theories of mind and behavior from their first distinct appearance in the eighteenth century to their controversial state today. Particularly important in the nineteenth century were Charles Darwin's ideas about instinct, reason, and morality, which Richards considers against the background of Darwin's personality, training, scientific and cultural concerns, and intellectual community. Many critics have argued that the Darwinian revolution stripped nature of moral purpose and ethically neutered the human animal. Richards contends, however, that Darwin, Herbert Spencer, and their disciples attempted to reanimate moral life, believing that the evolutionary process gave heart to unselfish, altruistic behavior. Richards's book is now the obvious introduction to the history of ideas about mind and behavior in the nineteenth century. Mark Ridley, Times Literary Supplement Not since the publication of Michael Ghiselin's The Triumph of the Darwinian Method has there been such an ambitious, challenging, and methodologically self-conscious interpretation of the rise and development and evolutionary theories and Darwin's role therein. John C. Greene, His book... triumphantly achieves the goal of all great scholarship: it not only informs us, but shows us why becoming thus informed is essential to understanding our own issues and projects. Daniel C. Dennett, Philosophy of Science

@book{doi107208chicago97802261495160010001,
    author = "Richards, Robert J.",
    title = "Darwin and the Emergence of Evolutionary Theories of Mind and Behavior",
    year = "1987",
    abstract = "With insight and wit, Robert J. Richards focuses on the development of evolutionary theories of mind and behavior from their first distinct appearance in the eighteenth century to their controversial state today. Particularly important in the nineteenth century were Charles Darwin's ideas about instinct, reason, and morality, which Richards considers against the background of Darwin's personality, training, scientific and cultural concerns, and intellectual community. Many critics have argued that the Darwinian revolution stripped nature of moral purpose and ethically neutered the human animal. Richards contends, however, that Darwin, Herbert Spencer, and their disciples attempted to reanimate moral life, believing that the evolutionary process gave heart to unselfish, altruistic behavior. Richards's book is now the obvious introduction to the history of ideas about mind and behavior in the nineteenth century. Mark Ridley, Times Literary Supplement Not since the publication of Michael Ghiselin's The Triumph of the Darwinian Method has there been such an ambitious, challenging, and methodologically self-conscious interpretation of the rise and development and evolutionary theories and Darwin's role therein. John C. Greene, His book... triumphantly achieves the goal of all great scholarship: it not only informs us, but shows us why becoming thus informed is essential to understanding our own issues and projects. Daniel C. Dennett, Philosophy of Science",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226149516.001.0001",
    doi = "10.7208/chicago/9780226149516.001.0001",
    openalex = "W1607265796"
}

@article{bell1989darwin,
    author = "Bell, Graham",
    title = "Darwin and Biology",
    year = "1989",
    journal = "Journal of Heredity",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a110891",
    doi = "10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a110891",
    number = "5",
    openalex = "W2588663077",
    pages = "417-421",
    volume = "80"
}

@article{crossref1999darwinfree,
    title = "Darwin-Free Biology",
    year = "1999",
    journal = "Science",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.285.5429.813c",
    doi = "10.1126/science.285.5429.813c",
    number = "5429",
    openalex = "W4205160274",
    pages = "813-813",
    volume = "285"
}

When Charles Darwin’s daughter Anne Elizabeth (‘Annie’, Photograph 1) died at the age of 10 years on April 23, 1851 her parents were devastated. Charles Darwin was a devoted father and constantly concerned about the health of his 10 children. His concerns were also motivated by fear of the consequences of marriage between relatives: Emma Wedgewood, his wife, was also his first cousin. 1 The possible adverse effects of consanguineous marriage, which was not uncommon in England at that time, were a matter of debate. Annie’s death, and self-fertilization experiments in plants, made him suspect that ‘marriage between near relations is likewise injurious’. 2 In 1870, Darwin motivated his mathematician son George to study the prevalence of close-kin marriages in patients in asylums in comparison with the prevalence of the general population. The study, which is reprinted in this issue of the journal, 3 with several commentaries, 1, 2, 4, 5 was first published in 1875 and concluded that ‘the evil [of marriages between cousins] has been often much exaggerated’ and that ‘under favourable conditions of life, the apparent ill-effects were frequently almost nil’...

@article{doi101093ijedyp367,
    author = "Fenner, Lukas and Egger, Matthias and Gagneux, Sébastien",
    title = "Annie Darwin's death, the evolution of tuberculosis and the need for systems epidemiology",
    year = "2009",
    journal = "International Journal of Epidemiology",
    abstract = "When Charles Darwin’s daughter Anne Elizabeth (‘Annie’, Photograph 1) died at the age of 10 years on April 23, 1851 her parents were devastated. Charles Darwin was a devoted father and constantly concerned about the health of his 10 children. His concerns were also motivated by fear of the consequences of marriage between relatives: Emma Wedgewood, his wife, was also his first cousin. 1 The possible adverse effects of consanguineous marriage, which was not uncommon in England at that time, were a matter of debate. Annie’s death, and self-fertilization experiments in plants, made him suspect that ‘marriage between near relations is likewise injurious’. 2 In 1870, Darwin motivated his mathematician son George to study the prevalence of close-kin marriages in patients in asylums in comparison with the prevalence of the general population. The study, which is reprinted in this issue of the journal, 3 with several commentaries, 1, 2, 4, 5 was first published in 1875 and concluded that ‘the evil [of marriages between cousins] has been often much exaggerated’ and that ‘under favourable conditions of life, the apparent ill-effects were frequently almost nil’...",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyp367",
    doi = "10.1093/ije/dyp367",
    openalex = "W2115667202",
    references = "doi101001archinte16391009, doi101016s0140673606695731, doi101017cbo9780511607752, doi101093ijedyp312, doi101093ijedyp335, doi101126science1124410, doi101126science1143767, doi101126science1157657, doi101126science2884728, doi101537ase188722495, doi1023072529912, doi105962bhltitle104481, kuper2009commentary, openalexw2918608663"
}

@article{kuper2009commentary,
    author = "Kuper, A.",
    title = "Commentary: A Darwin family concern",
    year = "2009",
    journal = "International Journal of Epidemiology",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyp310",
    doi = "10.1093/ije/dyp310",
    number = "6",
    openalex = "W2112672956",
    pages = "1439-1442",
    volume = "38",
    references = "darwin2009the, doi101093ijedyp335, doi1023072341420, doi105962bhltitle84435, doi105962bhltitle84436, openalexw135071171, openalexw1497869370, openalexw2103828688, openalexw2491318968, openalexw2918608663"
}

@article{chapman2014barth,
    author = "Chapman, Philip",
    title = "Barth and Darwin: What is Humanity?",
    year = "2014",
    journal = "Theology and Science",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2014.954399",
    doi = "10.1080/14746700.2014.954399",
    number = "4",
    openalex = "W2081083029",
    pages = "362-377",
    volume = "12"
}

\n \t\t\tCharles Darwin, who was married to his first cousin Emma Wedgwood, was the first experimentalist to demonstrate the adverse effects of inbreeding. He documented the deleterious consequences of self-fertilization on progeny in numerous plant species, and this research led him to suspect that the health problems of his 10 children, who were very often ill, might have been a consequence of his marriage to his first cousin. Because Darwin's concerns regarding the consequences of cousin marriage on his children even nowadays are considered controversial, we analyzed the potential effects of inbreeding on fertility in 30 marriages of the Darwin–Wedgwood dynasty, including the marriages of Darwin's children, which correspond to the offspring of four cousin marriages and three marriages between unrelated individuals. Analysis of the number of children per woman through zero-inflated regression models showed a significantly adverse effect of the husband inbreeding coefficient on family size. Furthermore, a statistically significant adverse effect of the husband inbreeding coefficient on reproductive period duration was also detected. To our knowledge, this is the first time that inbreeding depression on male fertility has been detected in humans. Because Darwin's sons had fewer children in comparison to non-inbred men of the dynasty, our findings give empirical support to Darwin's concerns on the consequences of consanguineous marriage in his own progeny.\n

@article{doi101111bij12433,
    author = "Álvarez, Gonzalo and Ceballos, Francisco C. and Berra, Tim M.",
    title = "Darwin was right: inbreeding depression on male fertility in the Darwin family",
    year = "2014",
    journal = "Biological Journal of the Linnean Society",
    abstract = "\n \t\t\tCharles Darwin, who was married to his first cousin Emma Wedgwood, was the first experimentalist to demonstrate the adverse effects of inbreeding. He documented the deleterious consequences of self-fertilization on progeny in numerous plant species, and this research led him to suspect that the health problems of his 10 children, who were very often ill, might have been a consequence of his marriage to his first cousin. Because Darwin's concerns regarding the consequences of cousin marriage on his children even nowadays are considered controversial, we analyzed the potential effects of inbreeding on fertility in 30 marriages of the Darwin\–Wedgwood dynasty, including the marriages of Darwin's children, which correspond to the offspring of four cousin marriages and three marriages between unrelated individuals. Analysis of the number of children per woman through zero-inflated regression models showed a significantly adverse effect of the husband inbreeding coefficient on family size. Furthermore, a statistically significant adverse effect of the husband inbreeding coefficient on reproductive period duration was also detected. To our knowledge, this is the first time that inbreeding depression on male fertility has been detected in humans. Because Darwin's sons had fewer children in comparison to non-inbred men of the dynasty, our findings give empirical support to Darwin's concerns on the consequences of consanguineous marriage in his own progeny.\n",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12433",
    doi = "10.1111/bij.12433",
    openalex = "W1917285292",
    references = "doi1010079780387874586, doi101016jajhg200808007, doi101093ijedyp367, doi1018637jssv027i08, doi1023071525780, doi1023071529365, doi1023072344702, doi1023072529912, doi105962bhltitle84435, kuper2009commentary, openalexw1495050269, openalexw70084438"
}

The choice of the scientific method to be used depends on the question to be investigated, the type of study being performed, and the maturity of the particular subdiscipline. I review the scientific methods frequently used in biology since Darwin, the aspects of the nature of science relevant for teaching and learning about evolution, and some recent studies that tested the theory of evolution and some of its features. I also present some guidelines for teachers, within an inquiry-based instructional framework, to facilitate students’ understanding that hypothesis-driven and observation-driven studies are equally important and responsible for the advancement of scientific knowledge in the field of biology, both in the past and in the present.

@article{doi101525abt2016782109,
    author = "Sousa, Cristina",
    title = "The Scientific Methods of Biology, Starting with Charles Darwin",
    year = "2016",
    journal = "The American Biology Teacher",
    abstract = "The choice of the scientific method to be used depends on the question to be investigated, the type of study being performed, and the maturity of the particular subdiscipline. I review the scientific methods frequently used in biology since Darwin, the aspects of the nature of science relevant for teaching and learning about evolution, and some recent studies that tested the theory of evolution and some of its features. I also present some guidelines for teachers, within an inquiry-based instructional framework, to facilitate students’ understanding that hypothesis-driven and observation-driven studies are equally important and responsible for the advancement of scientific knowledge in the field of biology, both in the past and in the present.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2016.78.2.109",
    doi = "10.1525/abt.2016.78.2.109",
    openalex = "W2271375022"
}

This paper explores the role of Darwin’s approach to the study of life in developing the core research program of astrobiology. Presently, there is little historical scholarship regarding the broad discipline of astrobiology, and, particularly, the relationship between the disciplines of biology and astrobiology. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Darwin’s biological inquiry inspired further research into uncovering the origin and conditions for life in the universe, as well as how his research influences the modern astrobiological research program. This analysis of the impact of Darwin’s research on the discipline of astrobiology was accomplished by examining how Darwin’s approach to the study of life on Earth inspired other scientists to postulate a universal origin of life. Darwin’s unanswered question of where life began inspired the development of the Panspermia Theory, which marks the first significant theoretical development in the emerging discipline of astrobiology, and thus demonstrates the influence of Darwin’s theoretical work on modern astrobiological inquiry. Darwin’s laws of biology influenced Alexander Oparin’s research into the conditions for life on Earth, and his work in turn contributed to the development of the core methodology of the astrobiological research program. While scholars chiefly examine the impact of the Space Race in regard to the institutionalization of aerospace research, this paper argues that the creation of these institutions facilitated formal astrobiological experimentation inspired by the Darwinian search for the conditions for life in a universal context. This paper examines the development of the discipline of astrobiology from a historical perspective in order to analyze the role that Darwinism played—and continues to play—in shaping the modern astrobiological research program.

@article{openalexw2772393797,
    author = "Holstein, Andrea",
    title = "Darwin's Universe: The Darwinian Foundation of the Discipline of Astrobiology",
    year = "2017",
    journal = "Scholarship@Western (Western University)",
    abstract = "This paper explores the role of Darwin’s approach to the study of life in developing the core research program of astrobiology. Presently, there is little historical scholarship regarding the broad discipline of astrobiology, and, particularly, the relationship between the disciplines of biology and astrobiology. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Darwin’s biological inquiry inspired further research into uncovering the origin and conditions for life in the universe, as well as how his research influences the modern astrobiological research program. This analysis of the impact of Darwin’s research on the discipline of astrobiology was accomplished by examining how Darwin’s approach to the study of life on Earth inspired other scientists to postulate a universal origin of life. Darwin’s unanswered question of where life began inspired the development of the Panspermia Theory, which marks the first significant theoretical development in the emerging discipline of astrobiology, and thus demonstrates the influence of Darwin’s theoretical work on modern astrobiological inquiry. Darwin’s laws of biology influenced Alexander Oparin’s research into the conditions for life on Earth, and his work in turn contributed to the development of the core methodology of the astrobiological research program. While scholars chiefly examine the impact of the Space Race in regard to the institutionalization of aerospace research, this paper argues that the creation of these institutions facilitated formal astrobiological experimentation inspired by the Darwinian search for the conditions for life in a universal context. This paper examines the development of the discipline of astrobiology from a historical perspective in order to analyze the role that Darwinism played—and continues to play—in shaping the modern astrobiological research program.",
    openalex = "W2772393797",
    references = "bell1989darwin, doi101016jactaastro200901058, doi101089153110703322610573, doi101089ast20110790, doi101525abt2016782109, doi101525bio2009591010, doi1043249780203509104, doi105860choice470845"
}

@incollection{niemann2021popper,
    author = "Niemann, Hans-Joachim",
    title = "Popper, Darwin, and Biology",
    year = "2021",
    booktitle = "Karl Popper's Science and Philosophy",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67036-8\_13",
    doi = "10.1007/978-3-030-67036-8\_13",
    openalex = "W3186140769",
    pages = "231-256",
    references = "doi1010079783642618918, doi101086276408, doi101126science15739260, doi101146annurevcellbio21012704131001, doi1023072218986, doi1023072551048, doi102307jctvw1d7dg9, doi1043249780203713969, doi105962bhltitle59991, doi105962bhltitle82303"
}

This article highlights the potential contribution of biological codes to the course and dynamics of evolution. The concept of organic codes, developed by Marcello Barbieri, has fundamentally changed our view of how living systems function. The notion that molecular interactions built on adaptors that arbitrarily link molecules from different "worlds" in a conventional, i.e., rule-based way, departs significantly from the law-based constraints imposed on livening things by physical and chemical mechanisms. In other words, living entities and non-living things behave like rules and laws, respectively, but this important distinction is rarely considered in current evolutionary theory. The many known codes allow quantification of codes that relate to a cell, or comparisons between different biological systems and may pave the way to a quantitative and empirical research agenda in code biology. A starting point for such an endeavour is the introduction of a simple dichotomous classification of structural and regulatory codes. This classification can be used as a tool to analyse and quantify key organising principles of the living world, such as modularity, hierarchy, and robustness, based on organic codes. The implications for evolutionary research are related to the unique dynamics of codes, or 'Eigendynamics' (self-momentum) and how they determine the behaviour of biological systems from inside, whereas physical constraints are imposed mainly from outside. A speculation on the drivers of macroevolution in light of codes is followed by the conclusion that a meaningful and comprehensive understanding of evolution depends on including codes into the equation of life.

@article{doi101016jbiosystems2023104907,
    author = "Prinz, Robert",
    title = "Nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of code biology",
    year = "2023",
    journal = "Biosystems",
    abstract = {This article highlights the potential contribution of biological codes to the course and dynamics of evolution. The concept of organic codes, developed by Marcello Barbieri, has fundamentally changed our view of how living systems function. The notion that molecular interactions built on adaptors that arbitrarily link molecules from different "worlds" in a conventional, i.e., rule-based way, departs significantly from the law-based constraints imposed on livening things by physical and chemical mechanisms. In other words, living entities and non-living things behave like rules and laws, respectively, but this important distinction is rarely considered in current evolutionary theory. The many known codes allow quantification of codes that relate to a cell, or comparisons between different biological systems and may pave the way to a quantitative and empirical research agenda in code biology. A starting point for such an endeavour is the introduction of a simple dichotomous classification of structural and regulatory codes. This classification can be used as a tool to analyse and quantify key organising principles of the living world, such as modularity, hierarchy, and robustness, based on organic codes. The implications for evolutionary research are related to the unique dynamics of codes, or 'Eigendynamics' (self-momentum) and how they determine the behaviour of biological systems from inside, whereas physical constraints are imposed mainly from outside. A speculation on the drivers of macroevolution in light of codes is followed by the conclusion that a meaningful and comprehensive understanding of evolution depends on including codes into the equation of life.},
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2023.104907",
    doi = "10.1016/j.biosystems.2023.104907",
    openalex = "W4377015116",
    references = "doi101093oso97801988444570010001"
}