Dans le domaine de la biologie contemporaine, une attention grandissante est portée aux associations biologiques positives, telles que la symbiose, ce qui vient nuancer la perception traditionnellement « compétitive » de l’évolution. Parallèlement à l’engouement actuel que manifestent les chercheurs pour la coopération biologique, ce mémoire vise à pousser plus avant les recherches historiques concernant l’intégration de tels phénomènes dans l’œuvre de Charles Darwin. Plus spécifiquement, nous souhaitons examiner comment Darwin est parvenu à articuler l’aspect compétitif de l’évolution par sélection naturelle avec l’existence de phénomènes coopératifs. En ce sens, la première partie de ce mémoire aura pour objet le concept darwinien de compétition, et son lien théorique avec la sélection naturelle. La seconde partie concernera l’intégration de la coopération biologique à la théorie de l’évolution par sélection naturelle. Par ces deux moments, nous espérons montrer que Darwin parvient à concilier l’existence d’interactions compétitives et coopératives sans contredire les principes théoriques à la base de l’évolution. / In the field of contemporary biology, growing attention is being paid to positive biological associations, such as symbiosis, which seem to qualify the traditional view of evolution as a “competitive” process. In tandem with researchers’ current enthusiasm for biological cooperation, this thesis aims to extend historical research concerning the integration of such phenomena in the works of Charles Darwin. More precisely, we wish to examine how Darwin was able to articulate the competitive component of evolution by natural selection with the existence of cooperative phenomena. Thus, the first part of this thesis will deal with the concept of Darwinian competition and its theoretical link with natural selection. The second part will concern the integration of biological cooperation into the theory. By these two steps, we wish to show that Darwin manages to reconcile competitive interactions with the existence of cooperative associations, yet without contradicting the theoretical principles underlying the theory of evolution by natural selection.

It is well known that American botanist Asa Gray's 1859 paper on the floristic similarities between Japan and the United States was among the earliest applications of Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory in plant geography. Commonly known as Gray's "disjunction thesis," Gray's diagnosis of that previously inexplicable pattern not only provoked his famous debate with Louis Agassiz but also secured his role as the foremost advocate of Darwin and Darwinism in the United States. Making use of previously unknown archival materials, this dissertation examines the making of Gray's disjunction thesis and its relation to his collecting networks. I first point out that, as far back as the 1840s, Gray had identified remarkable "analogies" between the flora of East Asia and that of North America. By analyzing Gray and his contemporaries' "free and liberal exchange of specimens," I argue that Gray at the time was convinced that "a particular plan" existed in nature, and he considered that the floristic similarities between Japan and eastern North America manifested this plan. In the 1850s, when Gray applied himself to enumerating collections brought back by professional collectors supported by the subscription system and appointed in governmental surveying expeditions, his view of nature was then replaced by one that regarded the flora as merely "a catalogue of species." I argue that it was by undertaking the manual labor of cataloging species and by charging subscription fees for catalogued species that Gray established his status as a metropolitan botanist and as the "mint" that produced species as a currency for transactions in botanical communities. Finally, I examine the Gray-Darwin correspondence in the 1850s and the expedition that brought Gray's collector to Japan. I argue that Gray's thesis cannot be considered Darwinian as historians of science have long understood the term, and that its conception was part of the United States' scientific imperialism in East Asia. In light of recent studies focusing on the history of field sciences, this dissertation urges that a close examination of a biogeographical discovery like Gray's thesis is impossible without considering the institutional, cultural, and material aspects that tie the closets of naturalists to the field destinations of collectors. / History of Science

No description available.

Submitted by Automa??o e Estat?stica (sst@bczm.ufrn.br) on 2017-09-19T21:23:29Z No. of bitstreams: 1 JairMoisesDeSousa_TESE.pdf: 2752091 bytes, checksum: a67458e5ec53cdf5b5527dbdd456eea1 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Arlan Eloi Leite Silva (eloihistoriador@yahoo.com.br) on 2017-09-21T12:44:50Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 JairMoisesDeSousa_TESE.pdf: 2752091 bytes, checksum: a67458e5ec53cdf5b5527dbdd456eea1 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-09-21T12:44:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 JairMoisesDeSousa_TESE.pdf: 2752091 bytes, checksum: a67458e5ec53cdf5b5527dbdd456eea1 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-08-02 / Daimons s?o obsess?es cognitivas inconscientes que dominam os pensamentos dos sujeitos. Eles s?o frutos de experi?ncias vividas, da educa??o escolar e familiar e dos traumas que marcam a hist?ria de vida das pessoas. Considerando a ci?ncia uma pr?tica humana, a constru??o das ideias cient?ficas n?o est? imune ?s interfer?ncias dos daimons. Da? porque problematizamos hoje o mito da neutralidade cient?fica. A ci?ncia ? fortemente implicada pelas marcas pessoais dos sujeitos. O desejo maior que moveu esta tese foi minha obsess?o de intuir os daimons de Charles Darwin, as marcas que o fizeram pensar o que pensou sobre a evolu??o das esp?cies. Para isso, lan?amos m?o da correspond?ncia trocada por ele durante toda a sua vida, disponibilizada pelos projetos: Darwin online e Darwin correspondence; dos cadernos de anota??es B, C, D, E, M e N e da obra A origem das esp?cies. N?o segui um m?todo r?gido. As estrat?gias de m?todo mudavam conforme informa??es novas exigiam um caminho novo. Revisitei minha hist?ria de vida, minhas experi?ncias pessoais e escolares, mediante um exerc?cio de exegese inspirado por Edgar Morin em Meus dem?nios, no intuito de compreender porque me tornei bi?logo e porque resolvi trabalhar com as ideias darwinianas. Por meio do material de pesquisa aludido, me foi poss?vel intuir, construir e formular tr?s daimons de Darwin. Primeiro, o daimon do materialismo oriundo do pensamento positivista que marcou a ?poca em que viveu. Foi com base nessa obsess?o pela quantidade de provas, e pela robustez de fatos capazes de explicar um dado fen?meno relacionado ? vida, que Darwin levantou fortes argumentos que corroboravam suas teorias transmutacionais das esp?cies. Dessa possess?o resultou o rigor que sempre o acompanhou. O segundo daimon, que denominei de desvios, direcionou os olhares de Darwin para as caracter?sticas desprezadas pelos naturalistas de sua ?poca, pois, para eles, n?o passavam de imperfei??es. Por?m, para Darwin, refletiam uma linguagem da natureza. Outros caminhos desviantes o acompanharam. A nega??o da exist?ncia de Deus e dos princ?pios que fundavam a f? anglicana foi essencial para a proposi??o da Sele??o Natural como uma linguagem da natureza desvinculada dos des?gnios divinos. O terceiro daimon chamei de migra??o conceitual e foi talvez o mais importante. Essa terceira obsess?o permitiu ampliar o entendimento da vida, das ideias e dos argumentos de outras ?reas da ci?ncia e dos saberes. Foi assim com a no??o de luta pela sobreviv?ncia, vinda das teorias econ?micas; da ideia de gradualidade e lentid?o da a??o das for?as que originam novas esp?cies, oriunda da Geologia, e do conceito de sele??o natural, proveniente dos saberes dos criadores de pombos, cavalos, c?es e agricultores. A a??o m?tua desses tr?s daimons permitiu a Darwin formular a teoria da transmuta??o das esp?cies e o fizeram pensar o que pensou. Quanto a mim, outra ci?ncia, mas tamb?m outro sujeito emergiu. Darwin e o Grecom foram o casulo que conduziram minha transforma??o em dire??o a uma Biologia da complexidade. / Daimons are cognitive unconscious obsessions which dominate the thoughts of the subjects. They are the fruit of life experiences, of school and family education and of the trauma which mark the life history of people. Considering science as a human practice, the construction of scientific ideas is not immune to daimons interference. That is the reason why, nowadays, we discuss the myth of scientific neutrality. The desire which motivated this thesis was my obsession to intuit Charles Darwin daimons, the marks which made him think what he thought about the evolution of the species. In this regard, we used the correspondence exchanged by him along his life, which was made available by the projects: Darwin Online and Darwin Correspondence; from notebooks B, C, D, E, M and N and from the work The origin of the species. I did not follow a strict method. The method strategies changed as new information demanded a new path. I revisited my history, my personal and school experiences, through an exegesis exercise inspired by Edgar Morin in My demons, in an attempt to understand why I became a biologist and why I decided to work with Darwinian ideas. Through the research material mentioned, it was possible for me to intuit, build and formulate three of Darwin?s daimons. First, the materialism daimon, derived from the positivist thought which marked the time he lived in. It was based on the obsession for the amount of proof and the strength of facts capable to explain a certain phenomenon related to life, that Darwin raised strong arguments which corroborate his transmutation of the species theories. From this obsession, derived the discipline which had always accompanied him. The second daimon, which I denominated deviation, directed Darwin?s views to the characteristics once despised by the naturalists from his time, because, for them, they were nothing but imperfections. However, to Darwin, they reflected nature?s language. Other deviant paths followed him. The denial of God?s existence and the principles which grounded the Anglican faith were essential to the proposition of Natural Selection as a language of nature detached from divine purposes. The third daimon which I called conceptual migration was, perhaps, the most important. This third obsession allowed to expand the understanding of life, of the ideas and of the arguments of other areas of science and knowledge. That is how it happened with the fight for survival, originated from economic theories; from the idea of gradualness and slowness of the action of strength which create new species, derived from Geology, and from the concept of natural selection, which come from dove, horses and dogs breeders as well as farmers. The mutual action of these three daimons allowed Darwin to formulate the transmutation of the species theory and made him think what he thought. As for me, another science but also another subject emerged. Darwin and the GRECOM were the cocoon which conducted my transformation towards the Biology of complexity.

In this dissertation I explore the dynamics of how the definition of the human is established and subsequently challenged in both H.G. Wells’s The Island of Doctor Moreau (1896) and R.L. Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1886). Late nineteenth-century Europe was a time and place where an exploration of the definition of what it means to be human was particularly uncomfortable. The structures that upheld the then accepted conceptions of the human were under assault by new scientific discourses such as Darwinist theories of evolution, criminal anthropology and degenerationism. I show how the anxieties that these discourses inspired are reflected in the texts, and also examine how the communities in the texts act to reinforce the collapsing definition of what it means to be human. Victorian efforts to resolve this crisis of identity were mainly rooted in attempts to classify the natural world and to find or create some form of stable categorical distinction between the ‘human’ and the Other, or the not-human. The nature of the Other varied widely but manifested in terms of species, race, gender and class, to name but a few categories. The mechanisms through which humans, both as individuals and as communities, created and maintained their ‘humanity’ is examined through the use of theories of the liminal, from Anton van Gennep ([1909] 1960) to Homi Bhabha (1994). The reasons for the fear of the liminal characters are explored through Julia Kristeva’s (1982) notion of the abject – a phenomenon which arises in a confusion of the boundaries and distinctions between the subject and the object, the Self and the Other. Using Jeffrey Jerome Cohen’s (1996) ‘Monster Theory’, I examine what the texts reveal about the society in which the authors were writing and what the appeal or horror of each monster’s particular type of liminality might have been for contemporary readers. In my conclusion I show that the fears and anxieties in Wells’s and Stevenson’s texts are still extant today. The monsters in the texts reflect changing conceptions of what it means to be human. By examining the nature of the fear that these monsters inspire, one can better understand both the readers of the time and the origins of the modern understanding of what it means to be human, what it means to be Other, and the realisation that, ultimately, perhaps we all exist somewhere betwixt and between. / Dissertation (MA--University of Pretoria, 2017. / English / MA (English) / Unrestricted

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Bowling Green State University, 1987.

Mémoire numérisé par la Direction des bibliothèques de l’Université de Montréal / Alors que l'on assiste, depuis l'aube des années 1990, à un regain de popularité de la pensée de Charles Darwin dans l'étude de l'être humain, on constate que les deux principales écoles qui sont responsables de cette réhabilitation, la psychologie évolutionniste et le "darwinisme neuronal, défendent des thèses nettement incompatibles au sujet de la nature de la psyché humaine. L'esprit se compose-t-il exclusivement de modules ? Se développe-t-il sous l'emprise tyrannique des gènes ? Si tel est le cas, est-il possible de réduire la psychologie à la biologie évolutionniste ? À ces trois questions, la psychologie évolutionniste, qui découle historiquement de la sociobiologie, répond par l'affirmative, alors que le "darwinisme neuronal", développé par les neurologues Jean-Pierre Changeux et Gerald Edelman, répond par la négative. Après avoir exposé, à l'aide de la littérature philosophique des dernières années, les failles épistémologiques et ontologiques de la psychologie évolutionniste, le présent projet procède à une analyse philosophique du "darwinisme neuronal". Ce que ce second examen permet de suggérer, sans le démontrer hors de tout doute, c'est que l’esprit n'est pas massivement modulaire, que son développement est épigénétique, et par conséquent, que la psychologie préserve son autonomie épistémique par rapport à la biologie évolutionniste.

Name: Jitka Hanušová School: Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Department: Institute of Linguistics and Finno-Ugric Studies Title: Charles Darwin and darwinism in Finnish Literature Supervisor: Mgr. Jan Dlask, Ph.D. Number of pagess: 68 Nubmber of characters: 118 580 Keywords: Charles Darwin, darwinism, social darwinism, Finnish Literature, race, heredity, social class This diploma deals with evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin and examines its arrival to Finland, its spreading there and mentions the first references in the Finnish periodicals, public and especially in literature during 1860-1920. The topic is viewed through a cultural-historical context which consists of influences of evolutionary theories, social darwinism, racial theories, heredity research, or distinctions between social classes. The special emphasis is placed on reflections of the main aspects of this context in the Finnish literature, mainly in the works of Minna Canth, T. Pakkala, L. Onerva, Toivo Tarvas and Maila Talvio.

<p>När Darwin lade fram sin teori 1859 mötte den mycket motstånd. Han hade vänt upp och ned på den tidigare uppfattningen om att människan hade skapats, liksom hela universum. Det naturliga urvalet, som var den främsta förklaringen till människans och djurens ursprung, försökte bortförklaras. På samma sätt har Darwinanhängare förkastat tanken om att Gud skulle ha skapat allt. Det naturliga urvalet lämnar helt enkelt ingen plats åt en skapande kraft – den behövs inte eftersom naturen klarar det själv om den bara får några försök på sig och tillräckligt lång tid.</p><p>Finns det då någon möjlighet för dessa två att samexistera? I detta arbete har de båda jämförts och olika forskares resultat har tagits i beaktande för att slutligen komma fram till ett svar. Eftersom det finns en viss förkunskap hos oss alla har den hermeneutiska metoden använts. Genom att läsa annan litteratur har stegvis ny kunskap kommit fram och byggts på, för att slutligen få en insikt i ämnet och därifrån kunna dra slutsatsen.</p><p>De bådas samexistens är fullt möjlig. Vetenskapen kan inte förklara allt och fram till den dag då de kan bevisa att Gud, eller den skapande kraften inte finns så finns det plats för båda. Det ena behöver inte utesluta det andra. Vill en darwinist tro på Gud så är det fullt möjligt. Likaså gäller om en kristen vill acceptera de naturvetenskapliga förklaringarna till människans härstamning. Vetenskapen förklarar det vi har i vår empiriska upplevelsevärld och kristendomen förklarar det bortom - det transcendenta.</p> / Uppsatsförfattaren har senare bytt efternamn till Nordström.

När Darwin lade fram sin teori 1859 mötte den mycket motstånd. Han hade vänt upp och ned på den tidigare uppfattningen om att människan hade skapats, liksom hela universum. Det naturliga urvalet, som var den främsta förklaringen till människans och djurens ursprung, försökte bortförklaras. På samma sätt har Darwinanhängare förkastat tanken om att Gud skulle ha skapat allt. Det naturliga urvalet lämnar helt enkelt ingen plats åt en skapande kraft – den behövs inte eftersom naturen klarar det själv om den bara får några försök på sig och tillräckligt lång tid. Finns det då någon möjlighet för dessa två att samexistera? I detta arbete har de båda jämförts och olika forskares resultat har tagits i beaktande för att slutligen komma fram till ett svar. Eftersom det finns en viss förkunskap hos oss alla har den hermeneutiska metoden använts. Genom att läsa annan litteratur har stegvis ny kunskap kommit fram och byggts på, för att slutligen få en insikt i ämnet och därifrån kunna dra slutsatsen. De bådas samexistens är fullt möjlig. Vetenskapen kan inte förklara allt och fram till den dag då de kan bevisa att Gud, eller den skapande kraften inte finns så finns det plats för båda. Det ena behöver inte utesluta det andra. Vill en darwinist tro på Gud så är det fullt möjligt. Likaså gäller om en kristen vill acceptera de naturvetenskapliga förklaringarna till människans härstamning. Vetenskapen förklarar det vi har i vår empiriska upplevelsevärld och kristendomen förklarar det bortom - det transcendenta. / Uppsatsförfattaren har senare bytt efternamn till Nordström.