Natural selection

@misc{darwin1874the9,
    author = "Darwin, C",
    title = "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Chicago",
    year = "1874",
    howpublished = "Rand McNally and Co [Republication of illustrated revised ed.]: Detroit, Michigan, Gale Research, 1974",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Darwin, C., 1874, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co [Republication of illustrated revised ed.]: Detroit, Michigan, Gale Research, 1974.}"
}

@book{fisher1930the11,
    author = "Fisher, R. A",
    title = "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection",
    year = "1930",
    publisher = "Oxford, Claredon Press",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Fisher, R. A., 1930, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection: Oxford, Claredon Press.}"
}

@article{s267caf9c8d0ac0af1f374b44de823302e8200f8d6,
    author = "Darwin, C. and Wallace, A.",
    title = "Evolution by natural selection",
    year = "1958",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/67caf9c8d0ac0af1f374b44de823302e8200f8d6",
    is_oa = "true",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "63",
    semanticscholar_id = "67caf9c8d0ac0af1f374b44de823302e8200f8d6"
}

@inproceedings{lerner1959the12,
    author = "Lerner, I. M",
    title = "The concept of natural selection",
    year = "1959",
    booktitle = "A centennial view: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, v. 103, p. 173-182",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Lerner, I. M., 1959, The concept of natural selection: A centennial view: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, v. 103, p. 173-182.}"
}

@article{chitty1960population5,
    author = "Chitty, D",
    title = "Population processes in the vole and their relevance to general theory",
    year = "1960",
    journal = "Canadian Journal of Zoology, v. 38, p. 99-113",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Chitty, D., 1960, Population processes in the vole and their relevance to general theory: Canadian Journal of Zoology, v. 38, p. 99-113.}"
}

@misc{dunbar1960the10,
    author = "Dunbar, M. J",
    title = "The evolution of stability in marine environments",
    year = "1960",
    howpublished = "natural selection at the level of the ecosystem: American Naturalist, v. 94, p. 129-136",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Dunbar, M. J., 1960, The evolution of stability in marine environments: natural selection at the level of the ecosystem: American Naturalist, v. 94, p. 129-136.}"
}

@article{dupree1960darwin,
    author = "Dupree, A. Hunter",
    title = "Darwin. Wallace. and the Theory of Natural Selection. Bert James Lowenberg Charles Darwin: Evolution and Natural Selection. Charles Darwin, Bert James Loewenberg",
    year = "1960",
    journal = "Isis",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1086/348883",
    doi = "10.1086/348883",
    number = "2",
    pages = "216-217",
    volume = "51"
}

@article{glass1960evolution,
    author = "Glass, Bentley",
    title = "Evolution by Natural Selection. Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace",
    year = "1960",
    journal = "The Quarterly Review of Biology",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1086/403215",
    doi = "10.1086/403215",
    number = "4",
    pages = "332-332",
    volume = "35"
}

@article{hindle1964charles,
    author = "Hindle, Edward and de Beer, Gavin",
    title = "Charles Darwin: Evolution by Natural Selection",
    year = "1964",
    journal = "The Geographical Journal",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1794329",
    doi = "10.2307/1794329",
    number = "1",
    pages = "161",
    volume = "130"
}

@inproceedings{chitty1967the6,
    author = "Chitty, D",
    title = "The natural selection of self-regulatory behavior in animal populations",
    year = "1967",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia, v. 2, p. 51-78",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Chitty, D., 1967, The natural selection of self-regulatory behavior in animal populations: Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia, v. 2, p. 51-78.}"
}

@misc{chitty1967what7,
    author = "Chitty, D",
    title = "What regulates bird populations?",
    year = "1967",
    howpublished = "Ecology, v. 48, p. 698-701",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Chitty, D., 1967, What regulates bird populations?: Ecology, v. 48, p. 698-701.}"
}

@article{beddall1968wallace,
    author = "Beddall, Barbara G.",
    title = "Wallace, Darwin, and the theory of natural selection",
    year = "1968",
    journal = "Journal of the History of Biology",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00351923",
    doi = "10.1007/bf00351923",
    number = "2",
    pages = "261-323",
    volume = "1"
}

@article{beddall1968wallace2,
    author = "Beddall, B. G",
    title = "Wallace, Darwin, and the theory of natural selection",
    year = "1968",
    journal = "Journal of Historical Biology, v. 1, p. 261-323",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Beddall, B. G., 1968, Wallace, Darwin, and the theory of natural selection: Journal of Historical Biology, v. 1, p. 261-323.}"
}

@book{bajema1971natural1,
    author = "Bajema, C. J",
    title = "Natural Selection in Human Populations, the Measurement of Ongoing Genetic Evolution in Contemporary Societies",
    year = "1971",
    publisher = "New York, Wiley, 406 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Bajema, C. J., 1971, Natural Selection in Human Populations, the Measurement of Ongoing Genetic Evolution in Contemporary Societies: New York, Wiley, 406 p.}"
}

@misc{charlesworth1971selection4,
    author = "Charlesworth, B",
    title = "Selection in density-regulated populations",
    year = "1971",
    howpublished = "Ecology, v. 52, p. 469-474",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Charlesworth, B., 1971, Selection in density-regulated populations: Ecology, v. 52, p. 469-474.}"
}

@misc{benson1972natural3,
    author = "Benson, W. W",
    title = "Natural selection for Mllerian mimicry in Heliconus erato in Costa Rica",
    year = "1972",
    howpublished = "Science, v. 176, p. 936-939",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Benson, W. W., 1972, Natural selection for Mllerian mimicry in Heliconus erato in Costa Rica: Science, v. 176, p. 936-939.}"
}

@misc{clarke1972densitydependent8,
    author = "Clarke, B. C",
    title = "Density-dependent selection",
    year = "1972",
    howpublished = "American Naturalist, v. 106, p. 1-13",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Clarke, B. C., 1972, Density-dependent selection: American Naturalist, v. 106, p. 1-13.}"
}

@book{mckinney1972wallace13,
    author = "McKinney, H. L",
    title = "Wallace and Natural Selection",
    year = "1972",
    publisher = "New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University Press",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {McKinney, H. L., 1972, Wallace and Natural Selection: New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University Press.}"
}

@misc{popper1978natural15,
    author = "Popper, K. R",
    title = "Natural selection and the emergence of mind",
    year = "1978",
    howpublished = "Dialectica, v. 32, no. 3-4, p. 339-355",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Popper, K. R., 1978, Natural selection and the emergence of mind: Dialectica, v. 32, no. 3-4, p. 339-355.}"
}

@book{ospovat1981the14,
    author = "Ospovat, D",
    title = "The Development of Darwin's Theory",
    year = "1981",
    publisher = "Natural History, Natural Theology, and Natural Selection, 1838-1859: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Ospovat, D., 1981, The Development of Darwin's Theory: Natural History, Natural Theology, and Natural Selection, 1838-1859: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.}"
}

When Darwin and Wallace first formulated the theory of evolution by natural selection, they were greatly influenced by the idea that populations tend to increase geometrically and rapidly outgrow the resources available to them. They argued that the ensuing competition among individuals would be a major agent of natural selection. Since their day, competition has become almost synonymous with the idea of natural selection or survival of the fittest. In this paper we examine the relation between competition and selection by using simple competition models, consider the interaction of density and frequency in determining competitive outcome, and review the literature on frequency-dependent competitive interactions among genotypes within populations.

@article{doi101098rstb19880068,
    author = "Antonovics, Janis and Kareiva, Peter",
    title = "Frequency-dependent selection and competition: empirical approaches.",
    year = "1988",
    journal = "Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences",
    abstract = "When Darwin and Wallace first formulated the theory of evolution by natural selection, they were greatly influenced by the idea that populations tend to increase geometrically and rapidly outgrow the resources available to them. They argued that the ensuing competition among individuals would be a major agent of natural selection. Since their day, competition has become almost synonymous with the idea of natural selection or survival of the fittest. In this paper we examine the relation between competition and selection by using simple competition models, consider the interaction of density and frequency in determining competitive outcome, and review the literature on frequency-dependent competitive interactions among genotypes within populations.",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cc6b8c6c610df5d2fb12a5f7a51d329dac507581",
    doi = "10.1098/RSTB.1988.0068",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "1196",
    pages = "601-613",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "41",
    semanticscholar_id = "cc6b8c6c610df5d2fb12a5f7a51d329dac507581",
    volume = "319"
}

@article{hartman1990the,
    author = "Hartman, H.",
    title = "The Evolution of Natural Selection: Darwin versus Wallace",
    year = "1990",
    journal = "Perspectives in Biology and Medicine",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1990.0067",
    doi = "10.1353/pbm.1990.0067",
    number = "1",
    pages = "78-88",
    volume = "34"
}

@incollection{crossref2009darwin,
    title = "Darwin and Wallace: The Theory of Natural Selection",
    year = "2009",
    booktitle = "The Coming of Evolution",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511703416.009",
    doi = "10.1017/cbo9780511703416.009",
    pages = "95-114"
}

@article{doi101353pbm19900067,
    author = "Hartman, H.",
    title = "The Evolution of Natural Selection: Darwin versus Wallace",
    year = "2015",
    journal = "Perspectives in Biology and Medicine",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/32c62021f2c78278606b8e0d146d191154d88ad9",
    doi = "10.1353/PBM.1990.0067",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "1",
    pages = "78-88",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "1",
    semanticscholar_id = "32c62021f2c78278606b8e0d146d191154d88ad9",
    volume = "34"
}

Evolutionists before Darwin and Wallace had already mentioned the mechanism of natural selection. For Darwin, there is variation on large scale among biological populations and it is available for the action of natural selection. Some of the variation benefits their bearers in the struggle for survival. Wallace came to similar conclusions almost at the same time. Natural selection as the mechanism of evolutionary change was universally adopted after the Modern Synthesis (1930-1940). In the last fifty years, however, other evolutionary mechanisms and processes have been discovered. Nowadays, it is almost a consensus that natural selection is not enough to explain biological evolution. Currently, the need for a significant extension of the evolutionary theory, in a sort of Extended Synthesis, is a main point of discussion. In such theory, natural selection has no longer a creative role since processes other than selection limit variation. The aim of the present paper is to establish the role of natural selection in three different moments in the history of evolutionary biology, from Darwin to the Extended Synthesis.

@article{doi1018542amazrecmv11i222122,
    author = "Silva, M. D. and Morphy, C. and Santos, D.",
    title = "Uma análise histórica sobre a seleção natural: de Darwin-Wallace à síntese estendida da Evolução A historical analysis of natural selection: from Darwin-Wallace to the Evolution extended synthesis",
    year = "2015",
    journal = "Amazônia: Revista de Educação em Ciências e Matemáticas",
    abstract = "Evolutionists before Darwin and Wallace had already mentioned the mechanism of natural selection. For Darwin, there is variation on large scale among biological populations and it is available for the action of natural selection. Some of the variation benefits their bearers in the struggle for survival. Wallace came to similar conclusions almost at the same time. Natural selection as the mechanism of evolutionary change was universally adopted after the Modern Synthesis (1930-1940). In the last fifty years, however, other evolutionary mechanisms and processes have been discovered. Nowadays, it is almost a consensus that natural selection is not enough to explain biological evolution. Currently, the need for a significant extension of the evolutionary theory, in a sort of Extended Synthesis, is a main point of discussion. In such theory, natural selection has no longer a creative role since processes other than selection limit variation. The aim of the present paper is to establish the role of natural selection in three different moments in the history of evolutionary biology, from Darwin to the Extended Synthesis.",
    url = "https://periodicos.ufpa.br/index.php/revistaamazonia/article/download/2122/2634",
    doi = "10.18542/AMAZRECM.V11I22.2122",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "22",
    pages = "46",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "3",
    semanticscholar_id = "abe30425a8f887d9bc43bac72828d5a449114f21",
    volume = "11"
}

@misc{s2cacd68bf6ee0153d99356be8f362848e731dc4e8,
    author = "Wallace, A. R.",
    title = "Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection",
    year = "2015",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cacd68bf6ee0153d99356be8f362848e731dc4e8",
    is_oa = "true",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "1",
    semanticscholar_id = "cacd68bf6ee0153d99356be8f362848e731dc4e8"
}

The modern synthesis of evolutionary biology unified Darwin's natural selection with Mendelian genetics, but at the same time it created the dilemma of genetic load. Lewontin and Hubby's (1966) and Harris's (1966) characterization of genetic variation in natural populations increased the apparent burden of this load. Neutrality or near neutrality of genetic variation was one mechanism proposed for the revealed excessive genetic variation. Bruce Wallace coined the term "soft selection" to describe an alternative way for natural selection to operate that was consistent with observed variation. He envisioned nature as presenting ecological vacancies that could be filled by diverse genotypes. Survival and successful reproduction was a combined function of population density, genotype, and genotype frequencies, rather than a fixed value of the relative fitness of each genotype. My goal in this review is to explore the importance of soft selection in the real world. My motive and that of my colleagues as described here is not to explain what maintains genetic variation in natural populations, but rather to understand the factors that shape how organisms adapt to natural environments. We characterize how feedbacks between ecology and evolution shape both evolution and ecology. These feedbacks are mediated by density- and frequency-dependent selection, the mechanisms that underlie soft selection. Here, I report on our progress in characterizing these types of selection with a combination of a consideration of the published literature and the results from my collaborators' and my research on natural populations of guppies.

@article{doi101093jheredesv076,
    author = "Reznick, David",
    title = "Hard and Soft Selection Revisited: How Evolution by Natural Selection Works in the Real World.",
    year = "2016",
    journal = "The Journal of heredity",
    abstract = {The modern synthesis of evolutionary biology unified Darwin's natural selection with Mendelian genetics, but at the same time it created the dilemma of genetic load. Lewontin and Hubby's (1966) and Harris's (1966) characterization of genetic variation in natural populations increased the apparent burden of this load. Neutrality or near neutrality of genetic variation was one mechanism proposed for the revealed excessive genetic variation. Bruce Wallace coined the term "soft selection" to describe an alternative way for natural selection to operate that was consistent with observed variation. He envisioned nature as presenting ecological vacancies that could be filled by diverse genotypes. Survival and successful reproduction was a combined function of population density, genotype, and genotype frequencies, rather than a fixed value of the relative fitness of each genotype. My goal in this review is to explore the importance of soft selection in the real world. My motive and that of my colleagues as described here is not to explain what maintains genetic variation in natural populations, but rather to understand the factors that shape how organisms adapt to natural environments. We characterize how feedbacks between ecology and evolution shape both evolution and ecology. These feedbacks are mediated by density- and frequency-dependent selection, the mechanisms that underlie soft selection. Here, I report on our progress in characterizing these types of selection with a combination of a consideration of the published literature and the results from my collaborators' and my research on natural populations of guppies.},
    url = "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26424874/",
    doi = "10.1093/jhered/esv076",
    pmid = "26424874"
}

@incollection{crossref2019chapter,
    title = "Chapter 4. Wallace, Darwin, and Natural Selection",
    year = "2019",
    booktitle = "An Alfred Russel Wallace Companion",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226622248.003.0005",
    doi = "10.7208/chicago/9780226622248.003.0005",
    pages = "97-144"
}

@article{doi101007s11016019004395,
    author = "Armstrong, P.",
    title = "Wallace’s World: Darwin in reverse—From natural selection to natural theology?",
    year = "2019",
    journal = "Metascience",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5815a09c192e973dd0d5d07b39f49b007d69472f",
    doi = "10.1007/s11016-019-00439-5",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "3",
    pages = "415-419",
    semanticscholar_id = "5815a09c192e973dd0d5d07b39f49b007d69472f",
    volume = "28"
}

: Charles Robert Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace have different views on the analogy between natural and artificial selection. Darwin thought about the mechanism of species change by investigating the variation of animals and plants in the domesticated state. Wallace also believed in evolution during his field trip, but he was not interested in the experiment in domestication and firmly denied that artificial selection could be comparable to natural processes. There are also very different views on the dimorphisms of males in animals on both sides. Darwin admitted that natural selection failed to explain the apparently meaningless luxury of the "dazzling tail of the male peacock". He also believed that certain traits are not fought for survival but to reproduce more offspring. With regard to the origin of man, Darwin insisted on the validity of natural selection, which he believed was the result of human evolution, both physically and intellectually and morally. In contrast, Wallace believes that natural selection cannot explain the origin of advanced human intelligence and that it was after a study of divine phenomena that Wallace has found reliable evidence to solve the problem.

@article{doi1025236ajhss2022051608,
    author = "He, Cai",
    title = "Comparisons of Darwin and Wallace's Theories of Natural Selection",
    year = "2022",
    journal = "Academic Journal of Humanities \& Social Sciences",
    abstract = {: Charles Robert Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace have different views on the analogy between natural and artificial selection. Darwin thought about the mechanism of species change by investigating the variation of animals and plants in the domesticated state. Wallace also believed in evolution during his field trip, but he was not interested in the experiment in domestication and firmly denied that artificial selection could be comparable to natural processes. There are also very different views on the dimorphisms of males in animals on both sides. Darwin admitted that natural selection failed to explain the apparently meaningless luxury of the "dazzling tail of the male peacock". He also believed that certain traits are not fought for survival but to reproduce more offspring. With regard to the origin of man, Darwin insisted on the validity of natural selection, which he believed was the result of human evolution, both physically and intellectually and morally. In contrast, Wallace believes that natural selection cannot explain the origin of advanced human intelligence and that it was after a study of divine phenomena that Wallace has found reliable evidence to solve the problem.},
    url = "http://francis-press.com/uploads/papers/iG726kHgXfxXCb2UlrPHxrg53XK66Kts1KWTBn92.pdf",
    doi = "10.25236/ajhss.2022.051608",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "16",
    semanticscholar_id = "b1bcf7c395e2c8ee8b0056f2880b60d35781b0f9",
    volume = "5"
}

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace independently arrived at similar theories of evolution by natural selection as announced in 1858. Both men had undertaken transformative travels that provided data for their conclusions. This article compares and contrasts their published travel narratives and shows how it impacted their interpretations. While Darwin’s voyage aboard the H.M.S. Beagle (1831-1836) was largely in the southern hemisphere temperate zone, Wallace’s (1854-1862) island-hopping expedition was confined to the Malayan (Indonesian) Archipelago. Although very similar, there were slight differences in their resulting theories of natural selection. The debates that would divide them on this issue related especially to sexual dimorphism in birds and butterflies, with examples from their travels. Both men, however, perceived the profound differences between the Australian fauna and that of the rest of the world. Wallace was able to identify the exact boundary between these two different “creations,” later dubbed “Wallace’s Line.”

@article{doi1032591coasojsh060103023b,
    author = "Brick, Greg",
    title = "“Two Distinct Creators”: Comparing Darwin’s and Wallace’s Formative Travels, and How it Influenced their Theory of Evolution",
    year = "2023",
    journal = "Open Journal for Studies in History",
    abstract = "Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace independently arrived at similar theories of evolution by natural selection as announced in 1858. Both men had undertaken transformative travels that provided data for their conclusions. This article compares and contrasts their published travel narratives and shows how it impacted their interpretations. While Darwin’s voyage aboard the H.M.S. Beagle (1831-1836) was largely in the southern hemisphere temperate zone, Wallace’s (1854-1862) island-hopping expedition was confined to the Malayan (Indonesian) Archipelago. Although very similar, there were slight differences in their resulting theories of natural selection. The debates that would divide them on this issue related especially to sexual dimorphism in birds and butterflies, with examples from their travels. Both men, however, perceived the profound differences between the Australian fauna and that of the rest of the world. Wallace was able to identify the exact boundary between these two different “creations,” later dubbed “Wallace’s Line.”",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.32591/coas.ojsh.0601.03023b",
    doi = "10.32591/coas.ojsh.0601.03023b",
    openalex = "W4383103980",
    references = "doi10189000129623932125"
}

By the late 1850s, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace had independently formulated similar theories of evolution by natural selection, yet they diverged notably in their treatment of artificial selection. This difference, evident in their 1858 joint presentation to the Linnean Society, has sparked scholarly debate over whether it reflects a deep, enduring divergence or a more superficial misunderstanding. I argue that this difference reflects substantial disagreement, but not for the reasons traditionally offered. I argue that while both Darwin and Wallace acknowledged that artificial selection could lead to (i) traits shaped by the aesthetic preferences, whims, or novelty-seeking tendencies of human breeders, and (ii) organisms highly dependent on the artificial environments in which they were cultivated, they disagreed about whether natural selection could produce comparable outcomes. Darwin thought natural selection could, under certain conditions, yield traits and dependencies analogous to those seen in domesticated varieties, whereas Wallace denied that such parallels could be drawn. This difference, I argue, makes sense in light of their wider respective projects and goals. Finally, turning to the vexed and related question of whether Wallace accepted Darwin's argument by analogy, I agree with previous scholarship that Wallace could have accepted the cogency of Darwin's analogy, both in 1858 and at the time he wrote Darwinism in 1889, since this was consistent with his other theoretical commitments. But he certainly questioned the desirability of drawing such an analogy.

@article{doi101007s10739025098392,
    author = "Inkpen, S Andrew",
    title = "Why Darwin and Wallace Disagreed About Domestic Varieties.",
    year = "2025",
    journal = "Journal of the history of biology",
    abstract = "By the late 1850s, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace had independently formulated similar theories of evolution by natural selection, yet they diverged notably in their treatment of artificial selection. This difference, evident in their 1858 joint presentation to the Linnean Society, has sparked scholarly debate over whether it reflects a deep, enduring divergence or a more superficial misunderstanding. I argue that this difference reflects substantial disagreement, but not for the reasons traditionally offered. I argue that while both Darwin and Wallace acknowledged that artificial selection could lead to (i) traits shaped by the aesthetic preferences, whims, or novelty-seeking tendencies of human breeders, and (ii) organisms highly dependent on the artificial environments in which they were cultivated, they disagreed about whether natural selection could produce comparable outcomes. Darwin thought natural selection could, under certain conditions, yield traits and dependencies analogous to those seen in domesticated varieties, whereas Wallace denied that such parallels could be drawn. This difference, I argue, makes sense in light of their wider respective projects and goals. Finally, turning to the vexed and related question of whether Wallace accepted Darwin's argument by analogy, I agree with previous scholarship that Wallace could have accepted the cogency of Darwin's analogy, both in 1858 and at the time he wrote Darwinism in 1889, since this was consistent with his other theoretical commitments. But he certainly questioned the desirability of drawing such an analogy.",
    url = "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41586977/",
    doi = "10.1007/s10739-025-09839-2",
    pmid = "41586977"
}