The Importance of Clarifying Evolutionary Terminology Across Disciplines and in the Classroom: A Reply to Kampourakis
The Importance of Clarifying Evolutionary Terminology Across Disciplines and in the Classroom: A Reply to Kampourakis
复制标题
澄清跨学科和课堂上的进化术语的重要性：对 Kampourakis 的答复
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Gelman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Elizabeth A. Ware;S. Gelman
Kampourakis的评论正确地证明了专家之间在概念发展、科学教育以及科学史和科学哲学方面进行跨学科讨论的重要性。事实上，我们认为我们的论文(Ware&Gelman，2014)提供了概念发展和科学教育研究之间的有价值的交叉，并希望这种交流将鼓励进一步的跨学科对话。Kampourakis对我们使用的三个术语提出了异议：“达尔文主义”、“拉马克主义”和“目的论”。我们依次解决了这些关切。首先，坎普拉基斯指出，我们错误地暗示达尔文将进化归因于“基因重组和偶然突变”。事实上，尽管个体差异是达尔文模型中的一个关键因素，但他并没有准确地假设这种差异的来源或遗传机制。直到后来，随着分子生物学和基因组学等领域的进步，这种知识才出现。我们对“达尔文主义”的定义与所谓的现代进化论(有时也被称为“新达尔文主义”)更一致，后者植根于达尔文关于变异和自然选择的核心思想，但随着后来的发现而更新，如孟德尔遗传学(Huxley，1942；Mayr，1982)。我们承认我们这方面的疏忽，并感谢澄清。我们也意识到，即使是这种进化模型现在也被认为是过时的(古尔德，2002)；然而，最近发现的机制(例如，遗传漂移)超出了我们在个体-有机体水平上关注基于目的的遗传推理的范围。其次，Kampourakis指出，我们使用“Lamarckian”来指代所谓的软遗传(Mayr，1980)过于严格，因为包括达尔文在内的其他生物学家
Kampourakis’s commentary rightly argues for the importance of interdisciplinary discussion among experts in conceptual development, science education, and the history and philosophy of science. Indeed, we viewed our paper (Ware & Gelman, 2014) as providing a valuable intersection between conceptual development and science education research, and hope that this exchange will encourage further such cross-discipline conversations. Kampourakis takes issue with our usage of three terms: “Darwinian,” “Lamarckian,” and “teleological.” We address each of these concerns in turn. First, Kampourakis points out that we incorrectly implied that Darwin attributed evolution to “gene recombination and chance mutations.” In fact, although individual variation was a critical element in Darwin’s model, he did not accurately postulate the source of this variation or the mechanisms of inheritance. This knowledge did not emerge until later, with advances in fields such as molecular biology and genomics. Our definition of “Darwinian” was more consistent with the so-called modern synthesis of evolution (sometimes also referred to as “neo-Darwinism”), which is grounded in Darwin’s core ideas about variation and natural selection, but updated with knowledge from subsequent discoveries, such as Mendelian genetics (Huxley, 1942; Mayr, 1982). We acknowledge this oversight on our part and appreciate the clarification. We are also aware that even this model of evolution is now considered outdated (Gould, 2002); however, more recently discovered mechanisms (e.g., genetic drift) were beyond the scope of our focus on purpose-based inheritance reasoning at the individual-organism level. Second, Kampourakis points out that our use of “Lamarckian” to refer to so-called soft inheritance (Mayr, 1980) is too restrictive because other biologists, including Darwin