On Berg. D'Arcy Thompson, and Wiley

[John Grehan]

>Alexander Martynov wrote

>. It's clear, that nomogenes is scientific
>hypothesis, nor mistical or anything else ("vague" term).
> Berg's nomogenesis certainly followed idea of orthogenesis.
>This term is defineted in Russian "Biological Encyclopaedic
>Dictionary" (1986) as " concept in the evolutionary theory,
>speaking that evolution of nature caused by internal factors,
>which directed way of evolution to the determine trend.

I would agree with the compatibility of nomogenesis and orthogenesis
as similar if not identical in concept. We mention this connection in the
orthogenesis paper.

>Orthogenesis based on the views of T.Eimer (works 1888-1897)[......]

Actually my understanding is that orthogenesis as a term begins
with Haacke - (1893 I think).

  Ken Philip wrote

A rapid scan of D'Arcy Thompson's _On Growth and Form_ will show one that
various constraints _do_ 'canalize evolutionary possibilities'. Living
organisms still obey the laws of physics. But I doubt that orthogenesis
refers merely to that kind of constraint, or everyone would accept it...

If my understanding is correct, orthodox evolutionists accepted constraint
but treated the generation of new characters within that constraint to be
random, and thus no real evolution without selection. Orthogeneticists
would suggest the possibility that the new characters are not so random,
but would be generated or spread through a biological bias. This is the
aspect that remains so controversial, and at present, a minority view
in evolutionary biology.

Walter Boeger wrote"

Have anyone read  "Wiley & Brook's Evolution as Entropy?  It has an
interesting point of view regarding orthogenesis and constraints in
evolution.  Worth reading.

These writings perhaps exemplify one of the difficulties of orthogenesis,
or at least one
application that is problematic. Orthogenesis as used historically lends
itself to preformationism - the idea that there is a programing of an event
before it takes place. Before anyone jumps on that, its not unique to
orthogenesis. Many orthodox
biologists refer, for example, to genetic "bluprints" and "programs". I
also admit to this kind of thinking - hopefully not so much now.

Wiley and Brook's work may fall into the preformationist category, where
they see events as preformed by various physical laws as they see them. I
think its been suggested that their model is an example of 17th century
preformationism dressed up in a particular application of physics (on
physics I am not qualified, but perhaps someone on the list is, and can
comment. I heard that their brand of physics was not all that well received
among physicists and would be interested to hear).

John Grehan