a proper gander at orthorgenesis

[John Grehan]

Bill Shear wrote:

>Sorry, I have to jump on THAT.  How do YOU characterize orthorgenesis?  I
>hate feeling taken in by those shysters!  I may even have been fooled into
>becoming a supporter of a Darwinian model of evolution......

In the following paper the authors made the case that the originators of the
term did not intend teleological, goal directed, or mystical processes,
even though some people may have utilised the term in that way. The principle
concept by the originators and most practitioners was that organisms
could and did evolve without requiring natural selection through
differential reproduction. It seemed to be in the interests of Darwinain
biologists to eleminate alternatives to the haegemony of natural selection,
even though Darwin did also support an orthogenetic concept he called
laws of growth.

Whether or not everyone would agree with evidence for orthogenesis,
the charactersation presented by the darwinian theorists is incorrect.
Given Gould and Mayr's pretentions for being historians of biology, their
oversight is most interesting. Gould in particular admits to having read
"Panbiogeography"
(in which the concept of orthogenesis was discussed) so he could not even
assert that he did not know.

Grehan, J. R., and R. Ainsworth (1985). Orthogenesis and evolution.
Systematic Zoology 34:174-192.