Should the philosophy of biology deal with organismic, or with molecular aspects , or with both ? We are, of course, not the first to appreciate the ...

. Introductory Remarks THEODOSIUS DOBZHANSKY The problems of reduction in biology are currently of considerable theoretical interest and practical ...

This collection features five essays from noted theologians, philosophers, geneticists, and biologists who discuss the sweeping impact of Charles Darwin's _On the Origin of Species_ on their respective fields. This volume, edited by Ralph Buchsbaum, professor of biology at the University of Pittsburgh, was published to celebrate the centenary of Darwin's announcement in 1858, along with Alfred Russel Wallace, of their independent discovery of the process of natural selection. Darwin's book was published one year later.

The use of ‘race’ as a proxy for population structure in the genetic mapping of complex traits has provoked controversy about its legitimacy as a category for biomedical research, given its social and political connotations. The controversy has reignited debates among scientists and philosophers of science about whether there is a legitimate biological concept of race. This paper examines the genetic race concept as it developed historically in the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky from the 1930s to 1950s. Dobzhansky’s definitions (...) of race changed over this time from races as ‘arrays of forms’ or ‘clusters’ in 1933–1939, to races as genetically distinct geographical populations in 1940–1946, to races as genetically distinct ‘Mendelian populations’ in 1947–1955. Dobzhansky responded to nominalist challenges by appealing to the biological reality of race as a process. This response came into tension with the object ontology of race that was implied by Dobzhansky’s increasingly holistic treatment of Mendelian populations, a tension, the paper argues, he failed to appreciate or resolve. (shrink)

Theodosius Sphaerica: Arabic and Medieval Latin Translations. Edited by Paul Kunitzsch and Richard Lorch. Boethius, vol. 62. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2010. Pp. vii + 431. €64.

I reconstruct the relationship between the evolutionary geneticists Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975) and Richard Lewontin (1929–2021). Using archival research and published texts, I show that Lewontin inherited his dissertation director’s research program as well as his “biology of democracy.” He did so in circumstances in which the molecular revolution in genetics was threatening both Dobzhansky’s science and his anti-racist social ideals. Lewontin’s sometimes rocky relationship with the person he called “my professor” sprang from his perception that Dobzhansky was not up (...) to managing the research program that Lewontin received from him. I explain how Lewontin took charge and the role his Marxist interpretive lens plays in his argument. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Millennium Jahrgang: 11 Heft: 1 Seiten: 69-100.

On the one hand, much has been written on Theodosius Dobzhansky’s central role in the development of the field of population genetics and modern evolutionary theory, as well as on his sociopolitical worldview in the middle of the Twentieth Century. On the other hand, much has also been written on Dobzhansky’s role in the institutionalization of genetics in Brazil, where he spent a considerable amount of time. Unfortunately, these literatures developed without any points of intersection or cross-reference. This article (...) places Dobzhansky’s work in Brazil in the broader contexts of the science and politics of its historical period. (shrink)

Theodosius Dobzhansky has long been recognized by historians as a pioneer in the combining of the 'field natural history' and 'laboratory experimentalist' traditions in biology (Allen 1994). The following essay analyzes two papers in his wellknown Genetics of Natural Populations series, GNP IX and GNP XII, which demonstrate how Dobzhansky combined field and laboratory work in the pursuit of an evolutionary question. The analysis reveals the multiple and complementary roles field observations and experiments played in his investigations. But it (...) also identifies several interpretive problems associated with the use of intervention that limited the effectiveness of his approach. The essay argues that these problems reflect a fundamental tension between the amount of control Dobzhansky had over the circumstances of his experiments and the applicability of his results to natural populations. It concludes that this trade-off represents an important distinction between experiments in biology and most other sciences. (shrink)

Spherical geometry studies the sphere not simply as a solid object in itself, but chiefly as the spatial context of the elements which interact on it in a complex three-dimensional arrangement. This compels to establish graphical conventions appropriate for rendering on the same plane—the plane of the diagram itself—the spatial arrangement of the objects under consideration. We will investigate such “graphical choices” made in the Theodosius’ Spherics from antiquity to the Renaissance. Rather than undertaking a minute analysis of every (...) particular element or single variant, we will try to uncover the more general message each author attempted to convey through his particular graphical choices. From this analysis, it emerges that the different kinds of representation are not the result of merely formal requirements but mirror substantial geometrical requirements expressing different ways of interpreting the sphere and testify to different ways of reasoning about the elements that interact on it. (shrink)

In Fall 1939, as war engulfed Europe, the author of one of the most influential texts on genetics and evolution, Theodosius Dobzhansky, wrote a letter to curator of insects at the United States National Museum, Edward Albert Chapin. Dobzhansky wished to know what Chapin thought about his pursuing some taxonomic work on an old fascination of his: lady-bird beetles. This paper examines the resulting correspondence as a window into Dobzhansky’s attitude toward taxonomy, the different pressures on geneticists and taxonomists (...) when wrestling with how to name species, the relation between biological theory and taxonomic practice, and how claims regarding human races may have motivated Dobzhansky’s continued interest in the work of beetle taxonomists. In doing so, this article builds on the work of Paul Farber and others to highlight the importance of including museums, taxonomy, and the naturalist tradition within the history of twentieth-century biology. (shrink)

Conceptions of adaptation have varied in the history of genetic Darwinism depending on whether what is taken to be focal is the process of adaptation, adapted states of populations, or discrete adaptations in individual organisms. I argue that Theodosius Dobzhansky’s view of adaptation as a dynamical process contrasts with so-called “adaptationist” views of natural selection figured as “design-without-a-designer” of relatively discrete, enumerable adaptations. Correlated with these respectively process and product oriented approaches to adaptive natural selection are divergent pictures of (...) organisms themselves as developmental wholes or as “bundles” of adaptations. While even process versions of genetical Darwinism are insufficiently sensitive to the fact much of the variation on which adaptive selection works consists of changes in the timing, rate, or location of ontogenetic events, I argue that articulations of the Modern Synthesis influenced by Dobzhansky are more easily reconciled with the recent shift to evolutionary developmentalism than are versions that make discrete adaptations central. (shrink)

This paper is a contribution to our understanding of the constructive nature of Greek geometry. By studying the role of constructive processes in Theodoius’s Spherics, we uncover a difference in the function of constructions and problems in the deductive framework of Greek mathematics. In particular, we show that geometric problems originated in the practical issues involved in actually making diagrams, whereas constructions are abstractions of these processes that are used to introduce objects not given at the outset, so that their (...) properties can be used in the argument. We conclude by discussing, more generally, ancient Greek interests in the practical methods of producing diagrams. (shrink)

This is the correspondence (1959–1969), on the nature of the evolutionary process, between the biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky and the historian John C. Greene.

This article attempts to provide a summary of the European and Greek philosophy of the 16th century, so that the contribution of the two Zygomalas to philosophical education can be evaluated along with the philosophical preferences of their cycle. Contributions of this study would be considered the restoration of incorrect positions in the bibliography concerning the doctor-philosopher Leonardo Mindonios and the analysis of the philosophical corpus in Istanbul in the second half of the 16th century.