Explore the vast range of titles available.

The holism/reductionism debate in evolutionary biology has often been analysed as involving two main phenomenological levels within neo-Darwinism: genetic and organismic. This analytical framework assumes that explanation in evolution is either found in the field of genetics or the field of organismic biology. It is argued here that this framework is far too restrictive to incorporate what at least some founding members of neo-Darwinism had in mind in their search for the ultimate cause of evolution. Dobzhansky's \"super-holism\" locates this drive in the highest possible entity imaginable — an ontologically unified evolutionary cosmos — while Rensch's ontological \"super-reductionism,\" on the other hand, places it at the lowest possible entity of microphysics, that is, at the level of an energetic field of protopsychical nature. Not only it is suggested that a much-expanded framework is required for analysing the holism/reductionism debate in neo-Darwinism, but also that this new framework may have implications for the conceptualization of the neo-Darwinian movement itself.

Toward the end of the 1930s, Bernhard Rensch (1900–1990) turned from Lamarckism and orthogenesis to selectionism and became one of the key figures in the making of the Synthetic Theory of Evolution (STE). He contributed to the Darwinization of biological systematics, the criticism of various anti-Darwinian movements in the German lands, but more importantly founded a macroevolutionary theory based on Darwinian gradualism. In the course of time, Rensch’s version of the STE developed into an all-embracing metaphysical conception based on a kind of Spinozism. Here we approach Rensch’s “selectionist turn” by outlining its context, and by analyzing his theoretical transformation. We try to reconstruct the immanent logic of Rensch’s evolution from a “Lamarckian Synthesis” to a “Darwinian Synthesis”. We will pay close attention to his pre-Darwinian works, because this period has not been treated in detail in English before. We demonstrate an astonishing continuity in topics, methodology, and empirical generalizations despite the shift in Rensch’s views on evolutionary mechanisms. We argue that the continuity in Rensch’s theoretical system can be explained, at last in part, by the guiding role of general methodological principles which underlie the entire system, explicitly or implicitly. Specifically, we argue that Rensch’s philosophy became an asylum for the concept of orthogenesis which Rensch banned from evolutionary theory. Unable to explain the directionality of evolution in terms of empirically based science, he “pre-programmed” the occurrence of human-level intelligence by a sophisticated philosophy combined with a supposedly naturalistic evolutionary biology.

The Synthetic Theory of Evolution (SyntheticDarwinism) was forged between 1925 and 1950.Several historians of science have pointed outthat this synthesis was a joint venture ofSoviet, German, American and Britishbiologists: A fascinating example of scientificcooperation, considering the fact that theevolutionary synthesis emerged during thedecades in which these countries were engagedin fierce political, military and ideologicalconflicts. The ideological background of itsAnglo-American representatives has beenanalyzed in the literature. We have examinedthe scientific work and ideological commitmentsof the German Darwinians during the ThirdReich. We based our analysis on four criteria:1) General attitude towards the Third Reich. 2) Membership in the NSDAP and other nationalsocialist organizations. Endorsement anddisapproval of the state ideology in 3) scientific and 4) other publications. We willmainly discuss the various authors that havecontributed to Die Evolution derOrganismen (1943), a collection thatrepresented the evolutionary synthesis inGermany. Most of the authors promoted eugenicideas, but not all of them adopted the racistinterpretation of the Third Reich. Anotherfinding is that there existed no directconnection between party membership andpromotion of the state ideology.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Shorebirds, gulls and auks were the ideal group to test [Bernhard Rensch]'s rule since their body mass (depending upon species) ranges from 59 per cent to 169 per cent of female body mass, encompassing nearly the entire range exhibited by the world's 9,700 species of birds. Birders have long known that raptors are the opposite, however, with females larger than males but with great variability among species. Battling for a mate is not the reason. Size differences have more to do with the birds' preferred prey and possibly protection of the offspring. Scientists hypothesize that the greater size of the females may act as a deterrent against possible predation of offspring from males. Smaller, more agile males do most of the hunting and their greater mobility may make them better able to provide for the female and young. The size difference also may encourage females and males to hunt in different ways or for slightly different prey, minimizing competition even amongst themselves.

The findings, published in this week's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, demonstrate how sexual selection drives the evolution of body size differences between males and females, says Tamas Szekely of Bath University. \"We've known about [Bernhard Rensch]'s rule for years, but didn't have a clue what drives it. Many biologists had considered sexual selection to be the most likely answer, but nobody really knew how. Once we started analysing the data, the story shaped up perfectly. There is no reason why it would not apply in many other animals, from gorillas living on the rainforest floor to monkeys living high up in the canopy too.\"