Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Natural selection wikipedia , lookup
Hologenome theory of evolution wikipedia , lookup
Sociocultural evolution wikipedia , lookup
On the Origin of Species wikipedia , lookup
Introduction to evolution wikipedia , lookup
Catholic Church and evolution wikipedia , lookup
Theistic evolution wikipedia , lookup
‘evolution of sociocultural differences (Harris 1991).’ Misty Alloy Freeman main argument again the book is how it Freeman, Derek. 1974. The evolutionary theories of lumps Darwinism with Spencerism together. In Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. response, Freeman spends a good part of the paper Current Anthropology 15(3):211- 237. contrasting Spencer’s historical support of Lamarck’s ideologies to Darwin’s systematic Anthropological Theory, Physical development of natural selection. He then clarifies Anthropology, Biology or any course which covers that Lamarck’s view on the inheritance of acquire evolution usually begins with a history of the people characteristics requires that phenotypes precede who played a part in the development of genotypes. Since, science has not seen evidence for evolutionary theory. Herbert Spencer is emphasized such events, Freeman states to use a Specerian to as the man who kicked-off the misconstruing interpret cultural traits. He accuses Harris of using concept of ‘survival of the fittest,’ while Charles cultural traits as a reducing agent to the perceptions Darwin is the naturalist who gave us the four of cultures, instead of perceiving them as unique and component concept of natural selection. A stark complex. Freeman warns that this Specerian view of contrast between Darwin and Spencer is emphasized evolution fails to pay respect to the complexity of because it is a common misconception of people to natural selection and reduces evolution to a associate the word evolution with the word progressive notion, and prevents from giving progress. While it is difficult for me to imagine a ‘recognition to the interaction of cultural, biological, time when these concepts were not readily accept and environmental variables in historical and amongst anthropologist, Derek Freeman’s 1974 contemporary situations. (Freeman 1970).’ paper entitled ‘The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer’ demonstrates a time when anthropologist were still having to clarify that evolution was not a blueprint for progress. In ‘the Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer,’ Freeman debates Marvin Harris’ representations of evolution and culture in The Rise of Anthropological Theory (1968). Freeman (1974) also disagrees with Harris’ work for attributing too much credit to Thomas Malthus’ social science study, An Essay on the Principle of Population to Darwin’s concept of natural selection. Freeman attributes Darwin’s concepts on differential survival to decades of biological observation and refers to Malthus as inspiration for the idea of exponential growth amongst populations (Freeman 1974). While, Harris By 1974, Marvin Harris had made a name for may have been trying to emphasize the importance himself as a cultural materialist. His work, The Rise of learning from other fields, I agree with Freeman of Anthropological Theory, discussed the history of that decades of Darwin’s work should not be anthropological thought and introduced a number of understated because he merely respected Malthus’ Harris’ ideas on cultural materialism. The book ideas. On the other hand, when I think back to my emphasized an etic approach to analyzing the own coursework, there are a number of textbooks A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 1 that still give credence to Malthus for inspiring Harris, Marvin. 1991. The intellectual ancestry of Darwin and paving the way for the acceptance of cultural materialism. Current Contents. no 16: evolutionary theory in the mid-19th century (Campbell 2001; Lewis and Jurmain 2012). It may have been difficult for Freeman and Harris to see each other’s perception on Maltus at the time. Over 8. http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1991/A19 91FE76500001.pdf emphasizing the origins of Darwin’s inspiration for Freeman, Derek. 1970. Human nature and culture. natural selection was not just, but staying open- In Man and the new biology. Pp. 50-75. minded to both humanistic and scientific theories is Canberra: Australian National University still relevant. Despite the intentions of Freeman or Press. Harris, this historical debate is an insightful period Lewis, Barry. Robert Jurmain. 2012. Understanding of anthropological history to revisit. It highlights humans: an introduction to physical how cultural studies can both misrepresent science and benefit from science. Harris’ theory overlooks some key elements of evolution, yet one of the main anthropology and archaeology. Eleventh Ed. Wadsworth Cengage Learning. goals of cultural materialism was to use science to Malthus T. R. 1798. An Essay on the Principle of understand culture. Freeman’s paper explains what Population. Oxford World's Classics reprint: Harris has overstated and demonstrates that biology, and therefore culture, are neither strictly xxix Chronology. hereditary nor progressive. Whether the emphasis is on scientific or humanistic methods, or cultural materialism or new archaeology, it is clear that during a time when new ‘links’ were being discovered by paleoanthropologists, when new studies on genetics were being released and the Kathleen Ashton concept of punctuated equilibrium was revealed, anthropologists wanted to address how evolution applied to their perceptions of culture. FREEMAN, DEREK. 1974. The evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current Anthropology 15(3):211-237. Campbell, Reece. 2001. Biology, Sixth edition. Benjamin Cummings. Harris, Marvin. 1968. The rise of anthropological theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul In this article, Derek Freeman discusses the differences between the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. However, he A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 2 does so with Marvin Harris’ The Rise of and contrast of Darwin and Spencer, one must look Anthropological Theory in mind. It becomes rather at their work as a whole and find the similarities apparent that Freeman’s goal in this article is not to where they lie. I disagree with Freeman’s notion compare and contrast the work of Darwin and that to compare Darwin and Spencer is a frivolous Spencer so much as to refute the thoughts and ideas endeavor. By doing a comparison of my own, I was of Marvin Harris. able to see how two men with very similar ideas were able to reach such opposing conclusions. I was Freeman starts by looking at Harris’ idea that also able to see how much more scientific Darwin Darwin’s “Natural Selection” was simply applying was in his research, while Spencer’s notion of an the concepts from social science to biology. Freeman “immanent power” came a little too close to being a then goes into the biography of Charles Darwin, matter of theology and not one of science. As much talking about the influence that Thomas Malthus as I agree that a comparison of these two can be had on his work. Freeman explains that it was enlightening, the comparison must done more Malthus’ idea of population growth and food supply objectively than the one Harris attempted. that actually helped Darwin to formulate his idea of “Natural Selection.” According to Freeman, social While reading this article, I felt Peter science was not the inspiring factor for Darwin’s Peregrine’s “objective vs. subjective” debate come work, but rather his keen observation of nature. back into play. Freeman is making the argument that we as anthropologists must be looking at our Freeman then goes on to scold Harris for lumping research with a more objective eye. This article was Darwin and Spencer’s work together, saying that written as a backlash against those that don’t take as there is absolutely no way to compare the two. much of a scientific approach. In this context, I agree Although I do disagree with Harris’ assessment that with Freeman. We can’t look at Darwin and Spencer both Darwin and Spencer are “geniuses,” I do have and say that their work was the same. One was to admit that there could be some similarities obviously correct in his findings and the other was between their works. For instance, both Darwin and not. There is no subjectivity when it comes to this Spencer talk about an overall progression towards matter. However, we must be just as objective when perfection. Darwin explains that this progression looking at the similarities in their work. Darwin’s would be over a long period of time, expanding over work being accepted by the scientific community many generations. Spencer, on the other hand, is does not negate any similarities that may coincide more Lamarckian in his way of thinking, concluding with Spencer’s work. that species grow inheritable traits throughout their lifetime. Obviously, Darwin’s theory was accepted while Lamarck’s, and subsequently Spencer’s work was thrown out. However, to do a thorough compare A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 3 early theory of evolution or “transmutation” in Kelyn Brannon which new traits are created by striving towards Freeman, Dereck.1974. The evolutionary theories of some goal in their life and these traits are then Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current passed down to their offspring (Shapiro 2015) Anthropology 15(3):211-237. (Larson 2014). This is the important concept for Spencer. Darwin’s model for evolution noted there This article written by Freeman examines would always be competition over resources and fundamental differences in evolutionary theories individuals who can compete favorably will have between Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and Herbert more offspring and this creates differential success Spencer (1820-1903). He attempts and I believe that defines natural selection (Shapiro 2015) (Larson proves thorough a systematic and detailed 2014). Darwin called this "Reproductive Fitness" review/analysis of the literature and documented (Griffin 2016), Spencer was an armchair history on evolutionary ideas in order to disprove anthropologist and a social evolutionist. He used the the view that an “evolutionary synthesis” exists term ‘survival of the fittest’ but with a very different between these two important scholars. Freeman definition from Darwin’s. He believed that evolution starts his discussion from the 1830’s when Charles was progressive and moved from small to large and Darwin commenced his voyage on the H.M.S Beagle simple to complex organisms and that evolution was (Griffin 2016) onwards. He specifically discusses the driven by superior strengths, skills and traits. impact of J. B. Lamarck (1744-1826) on these Spencer believed this was universal and applied this theories as well as other important theorists such as theory to many other disciplines. If you did not have Franz Boas, A.L. Kroeber and Leslie White while them, you would not succeed – this is not directly taking on Marvin Harris (1927-2001). The reproductive fitness as you may have all the required timing of this article is important, as Harris had attributes and if cannot reproduced the these recently published The Rise of Anthological Theory favorable traits are not passed on. His version of in 1968 that included a discussion on Spencer and evolution believed in the inheritance of acquired Spencer’s beliefs as a social evolutionist and the characteristics or a Larmarkian approach not concept “evolutionary synthesis”. This article is through natural selection. For Spencer this was the really a rebuttal of Harris’ theory on “evolutionary important factor. Finally Harris who is known for synthesis” rather than a simple re-hash of Darwin the theory of cultural materialism, that culture copes and Spencer’s different views on what is evolution. with nature and his introduction of the principle of Freeman believes there is no more important topic infrastructure determinism e.g. etic (behavioral) and than this for modern biological evolution and a clear emic (mental) structures and superstructures. understanding of natural selection in today’s world. Freeman, from my chair clearly supports a complete To unpack the discussion and theories put forth in separation of the evolutionary theories of Darwin the article I went back to grab a quick snapshot of and Spencer. It is clear to me that Darwin and some of the scholars in play. Larmark developed an Spencer different greatly on the role of Lamarck’s A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 4 theory in evolution and this in itself will not drive a Freeman, Derek. 1974. The Evolutionary Theories synthesis approach between the scholars. . of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current When I read this article I reflected back on the Anthropology 15 (3): 211-237 Peregrine discussion this week on what is science in anthropology specifically re Lamarck. Freeman’s article shows us that Darwin’s theory on natural In The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and selection and evolution with its richness of scientific Herbert Spencer (1974) Derek Freeman delves into data followed by decades of new discoveries in the history of the evolutionary thought of the 19th genetics et al. that continue to address Darwin’s Century. unanswered questions on how exactly variation promoted by Marvin Harris in The Rise of occurred and how they were inherited. Science is a Anthropological Theory (1968) that Darwin and process and we see that here in these theories. Spencer’s This account theories challenges the view, constitute an “evolutionary synthesis” (Freeman 1974:211) Griffin, Mark. 2016. Anthropology 302 notes for Human Variation. SFSU. Throughout the paper Freeman highlights two main points of divergence among their theories: the Larsen, Clark Spencer. 2014. Our Origins : difference in their logical structures, and the degree Discovering Physical Anthropology. Ohio State to which they relied on Lamarckian theory of University. inheritance and inevitable progress. Basically he states that Spencer's doctrine was deductive and McGee, and Richard L. Warms. 2012. Anthropology rested Theory: an introductory history. New York: The suppositions, whereas McGraw-Hill. authentically scientific, on Lamarck’s general Darwin’s based on metaphysical theory was facts and methodological analysis. Shapiro, Amy. 2015. Anthropology 100 notes on Human Variation. SFSU. Firstly, Freeman describes the “systematic and Sinervo, Aviva. 2016. Anthropology 300 notes on extensive investigation of biological and other Foundations of Anthropology. SFSU. natural phenomena which culminated in Darwin's discovery of 1838” (1974:211). His account starts in the Beagle expedition (1831- 1836), from which Darwin returned with a collection of scientific materials of quite exceptional significance (1974: Lucila Carballo 213). Later, he describes Darwin’s posterior research and analysis in Cambridge. Then, Freeman mentions Darwin’s encounter with Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) in 1938. He highlights A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 5 that although Malthus’ theory acted as a catalyst for science of anthropology” must be based on a model Darwin’s theory, he was well aware of the natural that acknowledges the relations between “cultural, progress before that. In this way, he diverges with biological, and environmental variables in historical Harris who states that that Darwin's theories are an and application of social-science concepts to biology. evolutionary past of the human specie” (1974:221) Secondly, Freeman emphasizes that Spencer -as a To conclude, I consider that Freeman’s 1974 paper fervent Lamarckian- believed that acquired traits is still contemporary as the “evolutionary synthesis” were inherited, while Darwin based his theory on of Darwinian and Spencerian theories continues natural selection. Moreover, he also explains how today. In this sense, Freeman’s perspective is Spencer’s belief in progress stands in contrast to valuable mostly because it challenges mislead Darwin’s claim that there is “no law of necessary assumptions about these theories so influential for development” (1974:213). These distinctions are anthropology. Moreover, Freemen not only sheds accurate, as it can be traced clearly in Lamarck’s light on the history of our discipline, but also Zoological Philosophy (1809) and Darwin’s On the reminds us -even though it seems obvious- how Origin of Species (1859). On the one hand, Lamarck important it is for researchers to base their work on proposed that organisms were driven from simple to the original sources and not only in their subsequent increasingly analysis. more complex forms, in this contemporary situations, as during the evolutionary schema “everywhere and always the will of the Sublime Author of nature and of Ultimately, I believe that a weak point of this paper everything that exists is invariably carried out.” is that it encourages a dichotomist epistemology that (Lamarck [1809] 1984:55). On the other hand, clearly divides between purely scientific thought - Darwin based his theory on the idea of natural based on facts- and a theological - based on beliefs. selection, defined as “preservations of favorable Even though, Darwin's thinking is far from variations rejection unfavorable Lamarckian metaphysics, there are many gray areas variations” (Darwin [1859] 2006:51). Furthermore, in On the Origin of Species. The following passages of he did not mention any “Sublime Author” and wrote the book made me question to what extent Darwin’s that “natural selection will not produce absolute ideas are not also intertwined with moral beliefs. perfection, nor do we always meet, as far as we can Natural selections works solely by and for judge, with this high standard under nature” the good of each being, all corporal and (2006:127) mental endowments will tend to progress and the of towards perfection (…) from the war of Finally, Freeman emphasizes Darwin’s significance nature, from famine and death, the most to current anthropology as a precursor of the exalted object which we are capable of interactionist model, which considers cultural and conceiving, namely the production of higher biological factors. Freeman states that “an authentic animals, directly follows (…) from so simple A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 6 a beginning endless forms most beautiful Freeman begins by delving into Darwin’s and most wonderful have been, and are inspirations for the theory of natural selection and being, evolved. (2006:307) debunks any thought of plagiarism by laying out direct connections and distinctions between Darwin’s research of Malthus, Lyell, and Lamarck, REFENCES and correspondence with Huxley, Hooker, and others. Freeman (1974) continues by noting that Darwin, Charles. 2006. On the Origin of Species by one of Darwin’s main obstacles was that he had no Means of Natural Selection. New York: Dover understanding of genetics and was therefore confused as to the actual cause of variation, the so- Lamarck, Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet de. called “use and disuse” (214). He notes that 1984. Zoological Philosophy: An Exposition with advances in scientific understanding in the years Regard to the Natural History of Animals. Chicago: following Darwin’s death “made obsolete” “use and University of Chicago Press. disuse” (Freeman 1974:214), leading to a minor modification of Darwin's theory. This led to the formation of what Freeman (1974) calls “NeoDarwinians” (214) who stressed natural selection as the motivation for evolution, and their foils, the “Neo-Lamarckians” (214), who pushed the idea that Meghann Carey evolutionary adaptations came “from the slow Freeman, Derek. 1974. The evolutionary theories of willing of animals (213). Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current Contrary to Darwin and Neo-Darwinians, Spencer Anthropology 15(3):211-237. was a believer in Lamarckian inheritance principles. Freeman (1974) explains Spencer’s ideals as thinking Derek Freeman’s article aims to unpack the that individuals, plant or animal, adapt according to discrepancies between Darwinian and Spencerian their surroundings, that these adaptions are passed evolutionary theory via a Marvin Harris lens. To on generationally, and that individuals continue to highlight their differences, he focuses on natural adapt generation after generation. He uses Spencer’s selection, the driving force for evolutionary change own words from 1855 to best explain his notion of over time based on adaptations best suited to an adaptation as “a modified form of constitution individual’s environment. Freeman argues that produced by new habits of life, [that] is bequeathed there are two competing definitions for the concept, to future generations,” (Freeman 1974:215). one put forth by Charles Darwin and the other by Spencer’s concept is predicated on an intangible Herbert Spencer. He proceeds to explain these power, more philosophical in nature than scientific. contrasting ideas as a window to popular discourse Freeman (1974) goes on to discuss other ways in in the field of anthropological evolutionary theory. which Darwin and Spencer differ, even share in discourse, but the main point is resounding – A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 7 Darwinian theory of natural selection as the progress of human nature/culture. Freeman’s article motivation for evolution has won the day, while is a reaction and an attempt to tear down Harris’s Spencer’s Lamarckian ideology has been proven false theory of natural selection, while pointing to Darwin by advances in the scientific study of genetics. That as a dominant voice in the field. While Spencer did the two were both “utterly incapable of separating not reflect the way of thinking that Darwin had laid changes in a groups learned repertory from a foundation for. Freeman clams that Spencer takes hereditary modifications,” (Freeman 1974:220) is from theories of natural section from Jean-Baptiste argued by Freeman to be fallacy. It is exactly this Lamarckian who proposed and wrote of evolution, in which reveals the importance of this article to an early form, several decades before Darwin anthropological pursuits. Evolutionary theory published his theories. explains not only biological phenomena, but also “cultural transmission” (Freeman 1974:220). Freeman immediately takes apart Harris Additionally, Freeman concludes that “non-genetic claim of the similarities between Spencer and transmission has a genetic foundation” (221), and Darwin by pointing out that their theories were even Darwin had a basic understanding of that. It unrelated due to the differences and era of the origin, can be deduced from Freeman’s article, through the the logical and structural differences in their guise of evolutionary theory, that the current sub- theories, as well as the degree to which they fields of anthropology are actually in conflated “supposedly” relied on the framework laid down by positions that overlap and necessarily inform one Lamarckian with the mechanisms of inheritance and another. evolutionary change. Freeman also makes the claim that Darwin was strictly a naturalist in his time and then Freeman proceeds explain a process that Darwin went through in which he wanted to avoid prejudice so he spent decades working n this theory. Further more he proceeds to point out that Darwin Rebekah Dennison was no follower of Lamarckian and that Darwin’s Freeman, Derek. 1974. The evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current Anthropology 15(3):211- 237. natural selection theory had given rise to a more modified structure of natural selection. Darwin’s theory of evolution by means of natural selection depended on the presence of variation in natural Freeman’s purpose for writing the article is a populations. Freeman explains that the idea of reaction to Marvin Harris and his claim to the cultural evolution according to Darwin was a similarities in the evolutionary theories of Charles process in which human societies was of actual no Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Harris makes the “invariable rule” and that the process of progress claim that Darwin and Spencer are similar in their depended on favorable conditions. Freeman theories on natural selection as well as the cultural compares the progress of human variation to the process of the evolution of society, in which these A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 8 process relied on favorable and conditions as well as the need for certain traits or parts of society that Freeman’s (1974) response to Harris’s (1968) work needed to change for the continuation of a society as that includes the comparison between Darwin’s a whole. natural selection and Spencer’s “inheritance of acquired characteristics” is a multilayered reaction Freeman reacts to Harris in a way that he appropriate for that time period. In 1974, seems to want tear apart his theory in anyway he poststructuralism was a dominant school of thought can, essentially this is an article in which he idealizes within Western science. Poststructuralism was in Darwin to an extreme. While Darwin was a great direct opposition of the three-century ruling school academic in furthering theories such as evolution of thought, Cartesian. Cartesianism Dualism and natural selection there were others in the field professed that the human mind and body are that added to the foundation, such as Lamarckian. separate, and that the mind is more superior than the Freeman also tries to make the claim that the social body because it has the potential to discover God. context of the time had no bearing or influence on Poststructuralism offered an alternative perspective Darwin’s theory, yet it is clear in anthropologic to approach the science of human variation and history that these theories were heavily influenced behavior, a perspective of which Freeman is clearly by the social hierarchies of the eras. Human passionate. A Spencerian perspective may suggest variation, migration, and human social orders where that the idea of social evolution can be explained not heavily influenced by the idea of human evolution only biologically, but theologically (Freeman and that races evolved differently. The other factor 1974:217). This approach falls in line with the in this reaction of Freeman is during the 1970’s foundations of Cartesian thought. Perhaps, Harris academia is in the middle of a post structuralism attempted to align Spencerian perspectives of wave of theory. Freeman is pushing back against evolution theory with Darwin’s, during an era that Cartesian movement that is popping up again during increasingly opposed social evolutionary theories, in the era; the post structuralism is a reaction to the an effort to protect his theory of cultural cartisan. Freeman is attempting to push against the materialism. influence of religious ideology in anthropology with Darwin acknowledges human agency in the process a scientific approach. of procreation, "I am convinced that intentional and occasional selection has been the main agent in the production of our domestic races..." (Freeman 1974:221; Darwin et al 1930:51). The reason why modern anthropologist glean towards Darwin’s Stella Dugall evolution theory over Spencer’s is because the complexity Darwin permits in his analysis of the Freeman, Derek. 1974. The evolutionary theories of relationship between learned and biological behavior Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. (Freeman 1974:221). The theory of evolution can be Current Anthropology 15(3):211- 237. synthesized by the agreement that change exists in A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 9 living organisms throughout time caused by slight Gould, Stephen Jay. 1982. Darwinism and the or immense variations externally and/or within a expansion of evolutionary theory. Science population (Darwin et al. 1930 and Freeman 1974 ). 216:380-387. Contrary to this simplistic synthesis, the division occurred when Spencerian thought would not distinguish between learned and hereditary behavior. Spencerian framework included that all variation and progression can be teleologically Megan Hall explained, rather than through an empirical and geneticist perspective (Freeman 1974 and Gould Freeman, Derek. 1974. The evolutionary theories of 1982). Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current Freeman (1974) and Alland (1974) both made Anthropology 15(3): 211-237. arguments against the inaccurate comparison of Spencerian and Darwinian evolutionary theories. Freeman begins this article by stating that his aim While post-structuralist and postmodern readers is to explore the differences between Charles Darwin may not disagree with Freeman’s reaction to and Herbert Spencer when it comes to their theories Harris’s critique of Darwin and Spencer, it may be on evolution. He then goes on to state that he will be difficult to follow due to its organization and overly looking at the two views through the perspective bias tone. Alland (1974) provides a more clear that Marvin Harris takes on them in his book, The response to the inaccurate comparison that his Rise of Anthropological Theory. By starting with opposition, Carneiro (1973), presented. Peregrine’s Darwin’s discovery, Freeman uses Harris’ own contemporary concern of the major divide of words in describing what grounds Darwin was methodology between humanity and science is coming from when he made it by stating grossly related to the opposing approaches of neo- “…Darwin’s principles ‘were an application of social- evolutionism. science concepts to biology.’” (Freeman 211). Throughout this article, Freeman refers to Darwin ADDITIONAL REFERENCES as a naturalist more than once, and yet again repeats Alland, Alexander. 1974. Why not spencer?. Journal himself through the previous statement of Darwin’s of Anthropological Research. 30(4): observation through a more social-science concept within biology. With Darwin’s theory of natural 271-280. selection which explains the variation within a Darwin, Charles, Alfred Russel Wallace, George natural population, it is noted that he breaks with Sarton, and Charles Lyell. 1930. Discovery of Jean Baptiste Lamarck’s view of evolution, which is the theory of natural selection. Isis 14(1):133-154. as Darwin wrote “ ‘a tendency to progression,’ and ‘adaptations from the slow willing of animals,’” (Freeman 213). Upon further research, Darwin’s theory of evolution can exist in one society together, A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 10 with the stronger, more adaptable traits being and social evolution of the species relied on passed on. Freeman makes it seem as though when it inheriting certain characteristics over others. This comes to Lamarck’s theory, the species in question then in turn provided an evolutionary theory to not progresses on a slower scale, causing adaptation to only animals, but humans as well. progress at a slower rate. When discussing Herbert Spencer’s theory of evolution, Freeman refers to him as being a NeoLamarckian, pointing out that Spencer leaned more Sophie Minnig towards his ideas. He states that in his research Spencer theorizes that organic forms had Freeman, Derek. 1974. The Evolutionary Theories “progressive modifications” that could be inherited. of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Through this, the theory of a slower evolution in a Current Anthropology 15(3):211-237. society is once again brought up. The differences between Darwin and Spencer are then mentioned by Freeman (1974) attempts to correct Freeman, by means of comparison within their misconceptions of Darwin and his theories of natural theories. He states that Darwin’s theory of evolution selection. He declares it necessary for was highly scientific, based on factual evidence. On anthropologists to have an accurate understanding the other hand, Spencer’s theory of evolution rested of natural selection and other biological theories laid on a more metaphysical supposition to the idea that out by Darwin, and highlights the importance of evolutionary changes were due to a ‘power’ that was understanding foundational research that shaped ‘unknown and unknowable.’ The evolution of a contemporary anthropological ideologies. As Carl species was caused by characteristics inherited from Jay Bajema says in his comments about Freeman’s generation to generation, which in turn were paper, “the resurgence of interest in evolutionary modified within human nature. Freeman than brings theories among anthropologists makes Freeman’s up the point that though Darwin and Spencer’s paper very timely,” (Bajema 1974:221). This theories differ in a number of ways, they are still resurgence is surely a byproduct of the post- thought of as being ‘indistinguishable’ by some structuralist movement, which held prominence in scholars. It is up to the academic community to see the 1970s. Freeman’s reaction to Harris – a known the differences in the theories if they are to study structuralist – is clearly an attempt discredit Harris’ evolution and natural selection. By providing these ideologies, but also a blatant reaction to structuralist two theories, readers are not only exposed to thought. Darwin and Spencer, but Lamarck’s ideas as well to Post-structuralism emphasizes historical context see where Spencer was coming from. Not only does and the importance of understanding the this article provide differences between the two ways progression of knowledge, utilizing such historical of thought, but Spencer does bring up the evolution context to better deconstruct cultural and societal of Homo sapiens as well, by stating that the mental systems. Harris acknowledged fixed stages of A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 11 progression and structure, which he assumed to be separation of the spiritual and physical world. cross-culturally and cross-temporally applicable. Descartes’ publication surely opened up the Freeman’s emphasis on the importance of possibility to further examine biological sciences and understanding Darwin, as he existed in his time is a biological evolution. Another person Freeman could post-structural analysis of Darwinism and natural have considered in analyzing the development of selection. Freeman’s critique largely draws from Darwin’s natural selection is James Hutton. Hutton direct quotes by Darwin, but as Harris says in his published Investigation of the Principles of Knowledge reaction to this paper, Freeman fails to contextualize in 1794 and discusses biological evolution and many of those excerpts, leaving Freeman’s argument natural selection. Though Hutton and Descartes lacking in substantial evidence. may not have directly influenced Darwin, the fact Freeman’s glorification of Darwin as pure that these investigations were being published prior naturalist with original thought fails to give credit to Darwin seems to be important in considering to researchers who came before him and likely historical context. influenced his development of natural selection and publication of On the Origin of Species. Freeman REFERENCES briefly mentions Alfred Wallace and his working Descartes, René. 1647. The Description of the Human with Darwin, but Harris – in his reaction to Body. Freeman’s paper – makes clear that Wallace outlined the theory of natural selection prior to Darwin. It is Hutton, James. 1794. Investigation of the Principles of also worth mentioning that in 1858, one year before Knowledge. Thoemmes Press. the publication of On the Origin of Species, Darwin and Wallace co-authored a paper discussing species Darwin, Charles and Alfred Wallace. 1858. On the variation and natural selection, a fact that Freeman Tendency of Species to form Varieties does not acknowledge in his paper. and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species Freeman’s differentiation between Spencer, Darwin, by Natural Means of Selection. Proceedings of the and Lamarck is critical as they do represent different Linnean Society 3:45-62. approaches in explaining biological evolution. Freeman’s critique of Spencer also falls in line with his critique of Harris, as both Spencer and Harris are commonly criticized for widely applying limited Hailie Norman theories in explaining human nature, culture, and society. However, Freeman further neglects to discuss other theories that came before Spencer, Lamarck, and Darwin, which may have sparked their interests in biological evolution. Cartesian Dualism Freeman, Derek. 1974. The evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current Anthropology 15(3):211237. was a major concept in the 16th century, declaring a A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 12 Freeman begins by stating his aim for (that cells in an organism can produce particles of comparing “crucial differences” between Darwinian gemmules which congregate in the gonads and cause and Spencerian theories. Freeman then responds to variation), and formed his theory based on the Marvin Harris’s notion that the theories of Charles scientific method. Then Freeman notes that, after Darwin and Herbert Spencer create “a single law of Darwin’s theories were published he gained a evolution”, or “evolutionary synthesis” by stating the following of Neo-Darwinians that believed that history behind the discovery of Natural Selection by Natural Selection was the cause to evolution, and Darwin. Freeman began with Darwin’s history as a that there were Neo-Lamarckians who believed well-known Naturalist who went abroad the H.M.S Lamarck’s theory that evolution occurred through Beagle to the Galapagos islands. While on this inheritance of acquired characteristics. Freeman expedition Darwin concluded that the decent with states that Herbert Spencer was among the Neo- modification was present among the Archipelago. Lamarckians. Then, Freeman explains Herbert Once Darwin was back in England he developed the Spencer’s history. Spencer believed in Lamarckian theory of transmutation of species, but was unable to evolution, deductive reasoning, and theorized that explain it until he read Malthus’s essay On the evolution was due to an outside “power.” Principle of Population. Freeman states that from this essay Darwin gained that populations increase by a mathematical ratio. From this Darwin discovered natural selection, which is that there is that organisms most suited to their environments will live longer enabling them to produce more offspring, which will eventually lead to evolution. Freeman notes that Darwin thought of Natural Selection as the main cause in evolution. This section on Darwin’s history explained that Marvin Harris underestimated Darwin by stating that Darwin got the theory of natural selection solely from Malthus’s essay. Freeman concludes by stating that understanding the differences between Darwinian and Spencerian evolution is important to anthropology because it explains that in culture there is learned behavior and symbolic systems that are factors in human evolution and history. Natural selection is the basis for cultural understanding because it is unique and does not occur in predetermined ways. Also, the theory of Natural Selection opposes the view of generic human nature. Freeman notes that, while Darwin believed in Natural selection as the guiding force of evolution, Spencer believed in Lamarckian evolution and that In response to Harris’s claim that Darwin’s and Spencer’s theories of evolution synthesize into a single law of evolution. Freeman then goes into farther detail of Darwin’s history. Darwin was a Naturalist, thought over his theory for decades before publishing, broke away from Lamarckian ideas of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, concluded that variation occurs due to pangenesis systems went from simple to complex in a way that was controlled by an outside power. In the comments to this article Marvin Harris states that pangenesis is a Lamarckian idea. Then Harris further counters Freeman by stating that Darwin only published because Wallace, who had discovered the theory of Natural Selection solely through A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 13 reading Malthus’s On the Principle of Population, was favored the use of genetics (Gould 1982:382). Gould about to publish his own findings. goes on to contextualize the debate of what he refers to as the Darwinian core, which focuses on Darwin’s work as the elements of evolution theory from 1940 to the 1950s. While in 1982, Gould sites that the evolution theory of the modern synthesis was Paula Ochoa incorrect and incomplete, Ernst Mayr, also wrote about the gaps that filled the evolution theory and in Freeman, Derek. 1974. The evolutionary theories of particular hypothesized that it would be a challenge Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current for scholars in light of the great controversy (Mayr Anthropology 15(3): 211-237. 1984: 154). Mayr argues that two of the competing In this article, Freeman examines Charles Darwin’s paradigms of the time were between the and Herbert Spencer’s evolutionary perspectives and “experimental-mathematical geneticists” and the certainly to draw clear distinction of a synthesis “naturalists-systematists” (Mayr 1984:145). (211). Freeman critiques Marvin Harris’s revival of According to Mayr, experimental-mathematical “Spencerism,” in particular to ideas presented in The geneticists, centralized their study on the gene, an Rise of Anthropological Theory (1968). Freeman approach termed as reductionists (Mayr 1984:145). contends that Spencer’s foundation of Lamarck’s As opposed to Naturalists-systematists, which Fourth law, which refers to the inheritance of focused on examination of distinct populations acquired characters is faulty, so they must be (Mayr 1984: 145). These diverging views challenged acknowledged as so. That is that Darwin’s theory of each other and created their own schools of thought natural selection should not be referred to similarly and connect to Peregrine’s et al (2012) discussion as Spencer’s, as Freeman argues they are distinct about anthropologists failed attempts to understand (218). Freeman proposes that Charles Darwin’s the distinct methods and paradigms present in the natural selection theory of evolution was scientific discipline. Freeman’s article engages in the because Darwin’s theory contained a hypothesis, discussion of evolution theory and how it gave rise, empirical evidence, prolonged analysis, and and provides an example of the divide between replicable results (215). As opposed to Spencer, who paradigms still present in anthropology. Freeman argues is a proponent of social human Works Cited evolution, and the progression of species (221). Gould, Stephen Jay. 1982. Darwin and the expansion Weismann’s discovery of the germ-plasm, Freeman of evolution theory. Science. 216: 380-387. contends strongly debunked Spencer’s argument of Mayr, Ernst. 1984. What is Darwinism today? acquired characters (216). The evolutionary Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of perspective and the rise of genetics in anthropology Science Association 2:145-156. gained greater momentum with the rediscovery of Gregors Mendel’s studies of peas, which Stephan B. Gould notes created the modern synthesis that A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 14 approach, Darwin proposed “natural selection”, in which individuals with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. This was what Sarah Pardee Darwin considered to be to predominant reason for Freeman, Derek. 1974. The evolutionary theories of modifications in species. What he could not figure Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current out, however, was the way in which these new traits Anthropology 15(3):211-237. were inherited, a process that was later uncovered by Weissman. Contrary to natural selection, Spencer Freeman’s main goal of his article was to clung to Lamarck and even proposed that evolution explain the differences between the theories had a direction, that progress was unavoidable. proposed by Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Darwin did not agree with the idea that change had According to Freeman, the two have often been a force behind it or that progress was necessary. erroneously lumped together to form an Spencer’s theory of evolution was largely discounted “evolutionary synthesis”, as advocated by Marvin by the scientific community after the Weissman’s Harris. However, according to Freeman, if the discoveries. intricacies and influences of both theories are It is fairly evident from his writing that Freeman carefully examined, it is readily apparent that this has a bias toward Darwin. While this is, in part, could not be further from the truth. He goes on to understandable due to the fact that we now know explain the many incorrect assertions put forth by that natural selection is in fact an agent of change, Harris. Freeman’s bias does skew a few facts, as pointed out One of these assertions was that Darwin, while on in the comments section. While many of the writers his journey on the Beagle, was heavily, and directly, applaud Freeman for bringing this topic to the influenced by the work of Malthus. While this forefront, several disagree with his argument and influence has been academically proven, it is also representation of Spencer. It is repeated several known that it was more of a latent inspiration rather times that Freeman made it look as if Spencer than direct, as Harris asserts. The main thing that stubbornly stood by his theories despite mounting Darwin took away from his study of Malthus was evidence against them. On the contrary, Spencer, the ratio in which subsistence and human according to Robert Carneiro, did change his populations increase. Darwin applied this theory to theories over time and was not against natural animal populations in order to explain how weaker selection. He goes on to point out that Freeman individual, or those less fitted to changing made Spencer look extremely abstract while conditions, do not survive and reproduce nearly as portraying Darwin as strictly scientific. This is well. echoed by Marvin Harris who claims that Darwin’s Spencer was, in his earlier years, a staunch believer theory of pangenesis was just as speculative as in Lamarckian evolution, which Darwin strongly Freeman was accusing Spencer of being. disagreed with. Rather than a “use it or lose it” Another main point that was repeated several times was that Darwin and Spencer’s theories were not as A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 15 mutually exclusive as Freeman would have us However, one very important key concept believe. Attention is also drawn to the fact that that was brushed over by Freeman is the terming of Spencer was the first to use the phrase “survival of the phrase “survival of the fittest,” which was coined the fittest”. This idea of struggle was also used often by Spencer and later adopted by Darwin when by Darwin to describe competition. It should also be defining natural selection (Freeman: 222). At the noted that Darwin himself said “The conclusions I same time, although Freeman mentions a lot of big am led to are not widely different from his; though names in his paper, he could have mad a better the means of change are wholly so” (F. Darwin attempt at including George Wallace a bit more. 1903:41). While Spencer and Darwin’s theories Freeman also mention the unnecessary act of definitely have their distinctions, predominantly in lumping together the evolutionary theories of that Spencer drew from Lamarck and Darwin did Darwin and Spencer considering that they are not, they perhaps were not nearly as contentious as unrelated in their origins. Freeman has represented. Additionally, Freeman makes the continued reference of Darwin being a “naturalist” above all and was no follower of Lamarck. For Darwin, Natural Selection had given rise to “all the more Adreanna Rodriguez important modifications of structure,” where Spencer was more concerned with his ideas of society being Freeman, Derek. 1974. The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current Anthropology 15(3):211- 237. like an organism. When putting the article into perspective, the first thing that comes to mind is the post structuralist movement of the 1970’s. Having been written in 1974, Freeman’s piece can be seen as The evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin and pushing back against Cartesianism, which at the Herbert Spencer time was being transitioned out. Overall, one can Derek Freeman’s piece, The Evolutionary “takeaway” from Freeman’s historical account of Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer these two Big Thinkers it is that we should be well discusses some of the main differing views between versed in Darwinism. Darwin and Spencer’s evolutionary theories, however it is obvious that he is weighing heavily in favor of Charles Darwin. The evolutionary concepts of Lamarck are also heavily referenced by Freeman and can be seen as prime importance for his paper, David Rodriguez specifically when referencing species theory and “progress.” A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 16 Freeman, Derek. 1974. The evolutionary theories of other contributors surround (1) Darwin and Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current Spencer’s definitions of “evolution” and “progress,” Anthropology 15(3):211-237. (2) debate on the validity and reach of Spencer’s evolution as compared to Darwin’s, and (3) if these Derek Freeman digs into Darwin’s steps to two theories of evolution are in discovery and thought processes along the way in an opposition/permanently divided due to non- effort to differentiate his contributions to our commensurable differences in methodology. contemporary ideas of “evolution” as separate from the contributions of Spencer. Specifically, Freeman’s goal is to reassure us that evolutionary thought from the 1830’s does support the “evolutionary synthesis,” that Harris’ Rise of Anthropological Theory would have us believe. In fact, Freeman claims that Harris’ notion of inevitable evolutionary synthesis (between Darwin and Spencer) is “unwarranted” due to their disparate definitions of “progress,” beliefs on the “inevitability” of progress or whether it even exists, and perhaps most importantly, the mechanisms of change that creates this difference in phenotype or character in the first place. It’s essential to point out, as Carl Bajema highlights, that different definitions of progress led to different definitions of evolution. Darwin saw progress as “no invariable rule” while Spencer followed a more Lamarckian perspective in that progress is carried out by a metaphysical force of nature that is “unknowable.” Similarly, Spencer defined evolution as a change in a particular direction, change of simple into complex (homogeneous into heterogeneous). Darwin essentially considered evolution to be any hereditary change occurring within a species over time (descent with modification) regardless of the direction of change. The extent to which Darwin’s inspiration for Dobzahnsky expresses that Culture, now perhaps “natural selection” came from Malthus’ work the most powerful proponent in evolution, is remains a point of contention. Freeman explains that acquired and transmitted not through genes but Malthus’ influence served solely as “maieutic through symbol formation and symbolic language; stimulus” while both Harris and Gillispie reiterate yet this non-genetic transmission does indeed have a Darwin’s reliance on social theory as the foundation genetic, natural selective, foundation. Darwin has of his realization for mechanisms through which expressed this belief time and again, but Freeman evolution functions. Specifically, Gillispie states that fails to realize that Spencer also expands on this the theories and language explaining political later in his career. According to Carneiro, Spencer’s economy (profit, increments, persistence, Principles of Sociology shows how cross-cultural inheritance, saving, utility, and progress through awareness and analysis led to changes in his own competition) in An Essay on the Principle of Population “stubborn” beliefs, like that of his a priori greatly affected Darwin’s ability to realize and “inheritance of acquired character” theory which is communicate the mechanisms of natural selection. unfortunately still exploited in efforts to disprove However, sources of inspiration aside, the main ideas Spencer’s theories from biology to the social at issue here between the Freeman, Harris, and the sciences. A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 17 Lastly, it is invaluable to show that no matter how 2004). Freeman believes that Harris imprecise in his empirical Darwin’s studies are defined to have been, analysis, and that natural selection was theorized by regardless of Harris’ argument that there was no Darwin “prior to his reading of Malthus” (Freeman uninterrupted observation of speciation under the 1974: 213). To this point, Ernst Mayr, a figurehead effect of natural selection, and however deductively in modern evolutionary synthesis, writes to affirm philosophical and rhetorical Spencer’s “cosmic” Freeman’s analysis that Darwin did not take the idea evolution is seen (even by Darwin himself) there was of natural selection from Malthus and rather only some level cooperation, evidenced by the borrowing took his ideas on the mathematics for exponential of expressions like “survival of the fittest.” growth of populations to bolster only one aspect of natural selection theory (Freeman 1974: 227). Further, Freeman writes of his disagreement to Harris’ notion of the congruency of Darwin and Spencer’s work into a singular Saliem Shehadeh evolutionary synthesis. Freeman writes that Darwin Freeman, Derek. 1974. The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current Anthropology 15(3):211- 237. and Spencer come from two very different perspectives on evolution and scientific mechanisms. Freeman writes that while Darwin was a natural scientist, used the scientific method, and broke away with Lamarckian theories of evolution, Spencer, on In this article Freeman lays out and clarifies what he deemed common misconceptions and inaccuracies of Darwin and Spencer within Marvin Harris’ The Rise of Anthropological Theory (1968). Freeman notes that Harris attributes Darwin’s theories of natural selection to Malthus’ mathematical theories on population growth, and that it’s wider framing “were an application of social science concepts to biology” (Freeman 1974: 211). As the National Center for Science Education page on evolution writes, natural selection occurs when variation in traits in a population has differing advantages in environmental conditions and will lead to differential reproduction and heredity of traits, over time, the more advantageous trait will be more common in the population; this is but one of the 4 mechanisms of evolution (Natural Selection the other hand, was a philosopher with hats in many subjects, his work was not rooted in empirical methods, and he was a firm supporter of Lamarckian theories. Lamarckian theory dictates that an organism can inherent characteristics that their parents’ have acquired over their lifetimes; Darwin supported Lamarck’s theory on ‘use and disuse inheritance’ and rejected the other aspects. Interestingly for evolutionary studies, while Lamarck’s theories have been replaced with Mendelian theory, there is an ongoing debate on whether the field of epigenetics is Lamarckian theory viewed with a new light. Further, Freeman argues that the Darwin’s and Spencer’s theories differ in their theorizations on the relationship between development, evolution and complexity to which Darwin argued there is no law of development A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 18 and Spencer argued this relationship is the evolution http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/articl of an organism from simple to complex. For these e/evo_25, accessed September 2, 2016 reasons, Freeman finds it incorrect for Harris to presume a singular evolutionary synthesis among Darwin and Spencer. This, however, is a much heated debate in Philip Whitfield evolutionary studies. Robert Carneiro, a prominent social evolutionist, wholly disagrees with Freeman, Freeman, Derek, Carl Jay Bajema, John Blacking, he contends that Spencer was an astute thinker and Robert L. Carneiro, U. M. Cowgill, Santiago scientist whose analysis is corroborated by Genovés, Charles C. Gillispie, et al. 1974. The contemporary evolutionary science, and that it is in evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin and fact Darwin who employs metaphysics in his science Herbert Spencer [and comments and replies] by attributing evolution in some part to his notion of Current Anthropology 15(3): 211-237. a Creator (Freeman 1974: 223). Michael Ghiselin, a noted philosopher of biological evolution, widely Critical Summary #2 agrees with Freeman but with the one clarification Derek Freeman wrote this article to combat the that Darwin’s reading of Malthus was indeed one in growing interest at the time in Herbert Spencer and which connections were made between the social and the idea, advanced by Marvin Harris in The Rise of biological sciences. Marvin Harris, to whom Anthropological Theory, that there was an Freeman addressed this article, responds that it is Freeman who has misread and misinterpreted much of Darwin’s and Spencer’s writings on their positons of natural selection, Malthus, and Lamarck; and that Freeman’s points stem from a “post-Darwinian development” and does not analyze their positions in their totality. (Freeman 1974: 225). Reference Page: Freeman, Derek. 1974. The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current Anthropology 15(3):211- 237. Natural Selection. 2004. Natural Selection. University “evolutionary synthesis” between the theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer (Freeman 1974: 211). Freeman begins by outlining Darwin’s original inspirations for the idea of natural selection. He refutes Harris’ position that Darwin got his idea originally from Malthus and was borrowing a theory from the social sciences and applying it to biology. Freeman then moves on to invalidate Harris’ belief in the inevitable fusion of 19th century evolutionary theory. He quotes Darwin distancing himself from the Lamarckian view of the biological tendency towards progress due to the inheritance of acquired traits on a number of occasions. He notes that of California Museum of Paleontology & National according to Darwinism natural selection is the main Center for Science Education. driver of evolution. He then ties Spencer firmly to the Lamarckian belief in the primary importance in evolution of the inheritance of traits acquired A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 19 through the conscious will of individuals. In this way ongoing debate about the importance of the various he highlights the disparities between Darwin and factors that influence evolution, including Spencer’s respective theories. After this Freeman epigenetics, with some scientists now arguing for a describes the downfall of Lamarkian-influenced new evolutionary synthesis, and that debate will social theories such as Spencerism with the likely never cease (Jablonka and Lamb 2008). discovery in cytology of the non-heritability of acquired traits. He goes on to describe more areas References: where Spencer and Darwin were at odds before Bowler, J Peter. 2003. Evolution: The history of an closing with his greatest concerns when it comes to idea. 3rd edition. Berkeley, CA. University of confusing Darwinism with “obsolete” ideas of California Press Spencer (1974: 221). Harris, Marvin 1968. The rise of anthropological Freeman’s section is followed by comments from a theory. London. Routledge and Kegan Paul. number of different academics expressing praise, Jablonka, Eva and Marion J. Lamb. 2008. Soft offering more context, pointing out oversights or inheritance: challenging the modern synthesis. manipulations in the argument, and suggesting Genetics and Molecular Biology. 31(2): 389-395. additional ways Freeman is right. Marvin Harris also replies, saying that even though there are distinctions between Darwin and Spencer, Freeman is underestimating the similarities. Freeman ends the article with a final reply to the comments’ authors and a defense of his viewpoint. Lamarkian-influenced ideas of social evolution were prevalent throughout the western world in the 19th and early 20th centuries. These ideas can be traced to many controversial and detrimental practices (Bowler 2003). For followers of the Darwinian idea of the primacy of natural selection in evolution such as Freeman someone who advances ideas based on the importance of acquired traits, such as Marvin Harris’ with cultural materialism could be seen to do, is a dangerous threat to the soundness of the widely-accepted theory. However, the comments included in the article point to a much more complicated picture than Freeman paints. As Marvin Harris notes Darwin himself did not have a full understanding of evolution, and he believed things we now know to be false. In truth there is an A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 20