Advertisement

Mystics or Unrealised Synthesis?

  • Igor Popov
Chapter

Abstract

Orthogenesis has often been accused of “mystics”, “vitalism”, “teleology” etc. but these accusations were little more than insults used in polemics on evolutionary issues. The main reason why orthogenesis is inconvenient and unpopular is that it places unsolved issues at the centre of the evolutionary concept. The complexity of biological phenomena, which cannot be explained in their entirety by the modern synthesis, keeps attracting new researchers.

Keywords

Vitalism Teleology Synthesis Mystics Unsolved problems of evolutionary biology 

References

  1. Berdyshev GD, Siplivinsky VN (1961) The first Siberian professor of botany, Korzhinsky. On occasion of centennary of his birth (Pervyy sibirskiy professor botaniki Korzhinskiy. K 100-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya). Sibirskoe otd. AN SSSR, NovosibirskGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergson H (1998) Creative evolution (trans: Mitchell A). Dover publications Inc, MineolaGoogle Scholar
  3. Blyakher LYa (1955) History of embryology in Russia. 18th–19th century (Istoriya embriologii v Rossii. XVIII–XIX vv). AN SSSR, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  4. Darwin Ch (1859 [1987]) The Origin of Species. (Reprint of 1st edition 1859) Suffolk: Penguin booksGoogle Scholar
  5. Conway Morris S (1994) Wonderfully, gloriously wrong. Trees 9(10):407–408Google Scholar
  6. Dmitriev IS (2001) A scientific discovery in statu nascendi: the periodic law of D. I. Mendeleev (Nauchnoe otkrytie in statu nascendi: periodicheskiy zakon D. I. Mendeleeva). Voprosy istorii estestvoznaniya i tekhniki 1:31–82Google Scholar
  7. Driesch H (1905) Vitalism as history and as theory (Der Vitalismus als Geschichte und als Lehre). Verlag von Johann Ambrosius Barth, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  8. Driesch H (1914) The history and theory of vitalism (trans: Ogden CK). Macmillan and Co., Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Frazer JG (1922) The golden bough: a study in magic and religion. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaydukov NM (1925) On the phylogenetic system of angiosperms in connection with serum diagnosis, complications and convergencies (O filogeneticheskoy sisteme skrytosemennykh v svyazi s serodiagnostikoy, komplikatsiyami i konvergentsiyami). Zapiski Belorusskogo instituta sel’skogo i lesnogo khozyaystva, 8: 67–81Google Scholar
  11. Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Gutmann M, Weingarten M (1992) Principles of construction morphology and organismic theory of evolution (Grundlagen von Konstruktionsmorphologie und organismischer Evolutionstheorie). Aufsaetze und Reden senck naturf Ges 38:51–68Google Scholar
  13. Havel V (1997) Address to FORUM 2000 Conference. Prague Castle, 4Google Scholar
  14. Huxley JS (1942) Evolution. The modern Synthesis. Allen & Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Kedrov BM (1970) The microanatomy of a great discovery (Mikroanatomiya velikogo otkrytiya). Nauka, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  16. Koltsov NK (1914) Professor Hans Driesch. Vitalism. Its history and system. Authorised translation of professor A.G. Gurvich with addition to the Russian edition of the author and the translator. Nauka publishing house. Moscow, 1915 (Prof. Gans Drish. Vitalizm. Ego istoriya i sistema. Avtorizirovannyy perevod prof. A. G. Gurvicha s dopolneniyami k russkomu izdaniyu avtora i perevodchika. Knigoizdatel’stvo «Nauka». Moskva, 1915). Priroda 12:1528–1530Google Scholar
  17. Kozo-Polyansky BM (1923) The last word of anti-Darwinism. Presentation and critical analysis of the theory of nomogenesis, a new teaching about evolution of organic world (Poslednee slovo antidarvinizma. Izlozhenie i kriticheskiy razbor teorii nomogeneza, novogo ucheniya ob evolyutsii organicheskogo mira). Burevestnik, KrasnodarGoogle Scholar
  18. Krasilov VA (1984) The theory of evolution: a need for a new synthesis (Teoriya evolyutsii: neobkhodimost’ novogo sinteza). In: Krasilov VA (ed) Evolutionary studies. Marcoevolution (Evolyutsionnye issledovaniya Makroevolyutsiya) DVNTs RAN, Vladivostok, pp 4–12Google Scholar
  19. Levit GS, Gudo M, Krumbein WE (2002) Mechanism in the 21th century (Mechanismus im 21. Jahrhundert). In: Hossfeld U, Th J (eds) Die Entstehung biologischer Disciplinen. II VWB, Berlin, pp 97–124Google Scholar
  20. Llorente JA (1870) A critical history of the Spanish inquisition (Historia crítica de la inquisicion de España). Juan Pons, Barcelona https://archive.org/details/historiacrticad01llorgoogGoogle Scholar
  21. Lyubishchev AA (1973) On the postulates of modern selectogenesis (O postulatakh sovremennogo selektogeneza). In: Vorontsov NN (ed) Problems of evolution (Problemy evolutsii), vol 3. Nauka, Novosibirsk, pp 31–57Google Scholar
  22. Mayr E (1963) Animal species and evolution. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mayr E (1997) This is biology: the science of living world. Belknap Press, Cambridge (Mass)Google Scholar
  24. Nikolsky AM (1928) Nomogenesis (Nomogenez). In: Kozo-Polyansky BM (ed) the theory of nomogenesis. A new phase in the development of Russian anti-Darwinism. A collection of critical papers (Teoriya nomogeneza. Novaya faza v razvitii rossiyskogo antidarvinizma. Sbornik kriticheskikh statey). Izdatel’stvo Gosudarstvennogo timirhyazevskogo nauchno-issledovatel’skogo instituta, Moscow, pp 26–62Google Scholar
  25. Simpson GG (1944) Tempo and mode in evolution. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Whitman ChO (1919) Orthogenetic evolution in pigeons. In: Riddle O (ed) Posthumous works of Charles Otis Whitman. Carnegie Institute, WashingtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Igor Popov
    • 1
  1. 1.Saint Petersburg State University, N. N. Petrov Research Institute of OncologySaint PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations