Advertisement

Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 103–124 | Cite as

Evolution Born of Moisture: Analogies and Parallels Between Anaximander’s Ideas on Origin of Life and Man and Later Pre-Darwinian and Darwinian Evolutionary Concepts

  • Radim KočandrleEmail author
  • Karel Kleisner
Article

Abstract

This study focuses on the origin of life as presented in the thought of Anaximander of Miletus but also points to some parallel motifs found in much later conceptions of both the pre-Darwinian German romantic science and post-Darwinian biology. According to Anaximander, life originated in the moisture associated with earth (mud). This moist environment hosted the first living creatures that later populated the dry land. In these descriptions, one can trace the earliest hints of the notion of environmental adaptation. The origin of humans was seen as connected in some way with fish: ancient humans were supposed to have developed inside fish-like animals. Anaximander took into account changes in the development of living creatures (adaptations) and speculated on the origins of humans. Similar ideas are found also in the writings of much later, eighteenth and nineteenth century authors who were close to the tradition of German romantic science. We do not argue that these later concepts are in any way directly linked with those of the pre-Socratics, but they show surprising parallels in, e.g., the hypothesis that life originated in a moist environment or the supposition that human developed from fish-like ancestors. These transformations are seen as a consequence of timeless logic rather than as evolution in historical terms. Despite the accent on the origin of living things, both Anaximander and the later Naturphilosophen lack in their notions the element most characteristic of Darwin’s thought, that is, the emphasis on historicity and uniqueness of all that comes into being.

Keywords

Adaptation Anaximander Anthropogony Evolution Moisture Zoogony 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baldry, Harold C. 1932. “Embryological Analogies in Presocratic Cosmogony.” Classical Quarterly 26: 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbieri, Marcello. 2010. “On the Origin of Language. A Bridge Between Biolinguistics and Biosemiotics.” Biosemiotics 3: 221–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes, Jonathan. 1982. The Presocratic Philosophers. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, Gordon. 2006. Strange Creatures: Anthropology in Antiquity. London: Gerald Duckworth & Company.Google Scholar
  5. Cornford, Frances M. 1932. Before and After Socrates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dawson, John W. 1865. “On the Structure of Certain Organic Remains in the Laurentian Limestones of Canada.” Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 21: 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diels, Hermann and Kranz, Walther. (DK). 2004–2005. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. I.-II. Zurich: Weidmann.Google Scholar
  8. Eastman, Charles R. 1905. “Anaximander, Earliest Precursor of Darwin.” Popular Science Monthly 67: 701–706.Google Scholar
  9. Ghiselin, Michael T. 2005. “Homology as a Relation of Correspondence Between Parts of Individuals.” Theory in Biosciences 124: 91–103.Google Scholar
  10. Gould, Stephen J. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  11. Graham, Daniel W. 2010. The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy. The Complete Fragments and Selected Testimonies of the Major Presoratics. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gregory, Andrew. 2007. Ancient Greek Cosmogony. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
  13. Gregory, Andrew. 2009. “Anaximander’s Zoogony.” M. Rossetto, M. Tsianikas, G. Couvalis, M Palaktsoglou (eds.), Greek Research in Australia: Proceedings of the Eighth Biennial International Conference of Greek Studies, Flinders University June 2009. Adelaide: Flinders University Department of Languages – Modern Greek, pp. 44–53.Google Scholar
  14. Guthrie, William KC. 1962. A History of Greek Philosophy. I. The Earlier Presocratics and the Pythagoreans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Guthrie, William KC. 1965. A History of Greek Philosophy. II. The Presocratic Tradition from Parmenides to Democritus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Guthrie, William KC.@ 1986. In the Beginning. Some Greek Views on the Origins of Life and the Early State of Man. Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  17. Haeckel, Ernst. 1868. “Monographie der Moneren.” Jenaische Zeitschrift fur Medicin und Naturwissenschaft 4: 64–137.Google Scholar
  18. Haeckel, Ernst. 1877. “Bathybius und die Moneren.” Kosmos 1: 293–305.Google Scholar
  19. Hall, Brian K. 1995. “Homology and Embryonic Development.” Evolutionary Biology 28: 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoßfeld, Uwe, Olsson, Lennart. 2003. “The Road from Haeckel: The Jena Tradition in Evolutionary Morphology and the Origins of “Evo-Devo”.” Biology and Philosophy 18: 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kahn, Charles. 1960. Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kirk, Geoffrey S., Raven, John E. and Schofield, Malcolm. (KRS). 2011. The Presocratic Philosophers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kleisner, Karel. 2007. “The Formation of the Theory of Homology in Biological Sciences.” Acta Biotheoretica 55: 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kleisner, Karel. 2008a. “The Semantic Morphology of Adolf Portmann: A Starting Point for the Biosemiotics of Organic Form?” Biosemiotics 1: 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kleisner, Karel. 2008b. “Homosemiosis, Mimicry, and Superficial Similarity: Notes on the Conceptualization of Independent Emergence of Similarity in Biology.” Theory in Biosciences 127: 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kočandrle, Radim. 2010a. Anaximandros z Mílétu [Anaximander of Miletus]. červený Kostelec: Pavel Mervart.Google Scholar
  27. Kočandrle, Radim. 2010b. “Anaximandros z Mílétu a evoluce [Anaximander of Miletus and Evolution].” Filosofický časopis 4: 605–622.Google Scholar
  28. Kratochvíl, Zdeněk. 2010. Mezi mořem a nebem. Odkaz iónské archaické vnímavosti [Between the Sea and the Heaven. Legacy of Archaic Ionian Sensibility]. Červený Kostelec: Pavel Mervart.Google Scholar
  29. Laale, Hans W. 2007. Once They Were Brave, The Men of Miletus. Bloomington: Authorhouse.Google Scholar
  30. Liddel, Henry G. and Robert Scott. (LSJ). 1996. A Greek-English Lexicon, With a Revised Supplement: Jones, Henry S. and McKenzie, Roderick. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lloyd, Geoffrey ER. 1964. “The Hot and the Cold, the Dry and the Wet in Greek Philosophy.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 84: 92–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Loenen, Johannes. 1954. “Was Anaximander an Evolutionist?” Mnemosyne 7: 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Naddaf, Gerard. 2005. The Greek Concept of Nature. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  34. Portmann, Adolf. 1941. “Die Tragzeiten der Primaten und die Dauer der Schwangerschaft beim Menschen: ein Problem der vergleichen Biologie.” Revue Suisse de Zoologie 48: 511–518.Google Scholar
  35. Portmann, Adolf. 1945. “Die Ontogenese des Menschen als Problem der Evolutionsforschung.” Verhandlungen der Schweizerischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft 125: 44–53.Google Scholar
  36. Rádl, Emanuel. 2006. Dějiny biologických teorií novověku [The History of Biological Theories]. I.-II. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
  37. Rehbock, Philip. 1975. “Huxley, Haeckel, and the Oceanographers: The Case of Bathybius haeckelii.” Isis 4: 504–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reynolds, Andrew. 2008. “Amoebae as Exemplary Cells: The Protean Nature of an Elementary Organism.” Journal of the History of Biology 41: 307–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Russell, Edward S. 1916. Form and function: a contribution to the history of animal morphology. London: Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spemann, Hans. 1915. “Zur Geschichte und Kritik des Begriffs der Homologie.” C Chun, W Johannsen (eds.), Die Kulturen der Gegenwart. Leipzig: Teubner, pp. 63–86.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Philosophy and ArtsUniversity of West BohemiaPilsenCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy and History of Science, Faculty of ScienceCharles UniversityPrague 2Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations