6
个编辑
更改
跳到导航
跳到搜索
第153行：
第153行： + + − + − + + + 第191行：
第195行： − + 第207行：
第211行： + + + + 第215行：
第223行： − + − − 第243行：
第249行： + + 第251行：
第259行： − + 第265行：
第273行： − +
无编辑摘要
另一个例子是，在人类中出现了乳糖耐受性(即乳糖分解酶持续性) ，而人类在饲养家畜产奶方面有着悠久的传统。这种观点认为，乳制品文化通过一个反馈循环增加了这种遗传特性的选择优势，而普通群体的基因型增加了乳制品文化的集体回报。
另一个例子是，在人类中出现了乳糖耐受性(即乳糖分解酶持续性) ，而人类在饲养家畜产奶方面有着悠久的传统。这种观点认为，乳制品文化通过一个反馈循环增加了这种遗传特性的选择优势，而普通群体的基因型增加了乳制品文化的集体回报。
==Controversy and acceptance 争议和接受==
==Controversy and acceptance 争议和接受==
--[[用户:不思议|不思议]]（[[用户讨论:不思议|讨论]]） 【审校】“争议和接受”中的“接受”改为“认同”
Initially Baldwin's ideas were not incompatible with the prevailing, but uncertain, ideas about the mechanism of transmission of hereditary information and at least two other biologists put forward very similar ideas in 1896.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Morgan |first=C. L. |authorlink=C. Lloyd Morgan |year=1896 |title=On modification and variation |journal=Science|volume=4|issue=99 |pages=733–740 |doi=10.1126/science.4.99.733|pmid=17735249 |url=https://zenodo.org/record/1448227 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Osborne |first=H. F. |authorlink=Henry Fairfield Osborne |year=1896 |title=Ontogenic and phylogenic variation |journal=Science |volume=4|issue=100 |pages=786–789 |doi=10.1126/science.4.100.786|pmid=17734840 |url=https://zenodo.org/record/1448151 }}</ref> In 1901, [[Maurice Maeterlinck]] referred to behavioural adaptations to prevailing climates in different species of bees as ‘what had merely been an idea, therefore, and opposed to instinct, has thus by slow degrees become an instinctive habit’.<ref>{{Cite book |title=The Life of the Bee|last=Materlinck |first=Maurice |authorlink=Maurice Maeterlinck |publisher=Dodd, Mead and Co. |year=1901 |location=New York |pages=Chapter VII section 102}}</ref> The Baldwin effect theory subsequently became more controversial, with scholars being split between "Baldwin boosters" and "Baldwin skeptics".<ref name="depew03">Depew, David J. (2003), "Baldwin Boosters, Baldwin Skeptics" in: {{cite book |title=Evolution and learning: The Baldwin effect reconsidered |last=Weber |first=Bruce H. |first2=David J. |last2=Depew |year=2003 |publisher=MIT Press |location=Cambridge, MA |isbn=978-0-262-23229-6 |pages=3–31 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yBtRzBilw1MC&pg=PR9&dq=baldwin+effect#v=onepage&q&f=false }}</ref> The theory was first called the "Baldwin effect" by [[George Gaylord Simpson]] in 1953.<ref name="depew03" /> Simpson "admitted that the idea was theoretically consistent, that is, not inconsistent with the [[Modern synthesis (20th century)|modern synthesis]]",<ref name="depew03" /> but he doubted that the phenomenon occurred very often, or if so, could be proven to occur. In his discussion of the reception of the Baldwin-effect theory Simpson points out that the theory appears to provide a reconciliation between a neo-Darwinian and a [[Lamarckism|neo-Lamarckian]] approach and that "Mendelism and later genetic theory so conclusively ruled out the extreme neo-Lamarckian position that reconciliation came to seem unnecessary".<ref>{{cite journal |title=The Baldwin effect |authorlink=George Gaylord Simpson |author=Simpson, George Gaylord |year=1953 |journal=Evolution |volume=7 | issue=2 |pages=110–117 |doi=10.2307/2405746|jstor=2405746 }}</ref> In 1942, the evolutionary biologist [[Julian Huxley]] promoted the Baldwin effect as part of the modern synthesis, saying the concept had been unduly neglected by evolutionists.<ref name=Julian1942>{{cite book | authorlink=Julian Huxley |author=Huxley, Julian |year=1942 |location=London |title=Evolution: The Modern Synthesis |publisher=George Allen & Unwin Ltd|title-link=Evolution: The Modern Synthesis }}</ref>
Initially Baldwin's ideas were not incompatible with the prevailing, but uncertain, ideas about the mechanism of transmission of hereditary information and at least two other biologists put forward very similar ideas in 1896.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Morgan |first=C. L. |authorlink=C. Lloyd Morgan |year=1896 |title=On modification and variation |journal=Science|volume=4|issue=99 |pages=733–740 |doi=10.1126/science.4.99.733|pmid=17735249 |url=https://zenodo.org/record/1448227 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Osborne |first=H. F. |authorlink=Henry Fairfield Osborne |year=1896 |title=Ontogenic and phylogenic variation |journal=Science |volume=4|issue=100 |pages=786–789 |doi=10.1126/science.4.100.786|pmid=17734840 |url=https://zenodo.org/record/1448151 }}</ref> In 1901, [[Maurice Maeterlinck]] referred to behavioural adaptations to prevailing climates in different species of bees as ‘what had merely been an idea, therefore, and opposed to instinct, has thus by slow degrees become an instinctive habit’.<ref>{{Cite book |title=The Life of the Bee|last=Materlinck |first=Maurice |authorlink=Maurice Maeterlinck |publisher=Dodd, Mead and Co. |year=1901 |location=New York |pages=Chapter VII section 102}}</ref> The Baldwin effect theory subsequently became more controversial, with scholars being split between "Baldwin boosters" and "Baldwin skeptics".<ref name="depew03">Depew, David J. (2003), "Baldwin Boosters, Baldwin Skeptics" in: {{cite book |title=Evolution and learning: The Baldwin effect reconsidered |last=Weber |first=Bruce H. |first2=David J. |last2=Depew |year=2003 |publisher=MIT Press |location=Cambridge, MA |isbn=978-0-262-23229-6 |pages=3–31 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yBtRzBilw1MC&pg=PR9&dq=baldwin+effect#v=onepage&q&f=false }}</ref> The theory was first called the "Baldwin effect" by [[George Gaylord Simpson]] in 1953.<ref name="depew03" /> Simpson "admitted that the idea was theoretically consistent, that is, not inconsistent with the [[Modern synthesis (20th century)|modern synthesis]]",<ref name="depew03" /> but he doubted that the phenomenon occurred very often, or if so, could be proven to occur. In his discussion of the reception of the Baldwin-effect theory Simpson points out that the theory appears to provide a reconciliation between a neo-Darwinian and a [[Lamarckism|neo-Lamarckian]] approach and that "Mendelism and later genetic theory so conclusively ruled out the extreme neo-Lamarckian position that reconciliation came to seem unnecessary".<ref>{{cite journal |title=The Baldwin effect |authorlink=George Gaylord Simpson |author=Simpson, George Gaylord |year=1953 |journal=Evolution |volume=7 | issue=2 |pages=110–117 |doi=10.2307/2405746|jstor=2405746 }}</ref> In 1942, the evolutionary biologist [[Julian Huxley]] promoted the Baldwin effect as part of the modern synthesis, saying the concept had been unduly neglected by evolutionists.<ref name=Julian1942>{{cite book | authorlink=Julian Huxley |author=Huxley, Julian |year=1942 |location=London |title=Evolution: The Modern Synthesis |publisher=George Allen & Unwin Ltd|title-link=Evolution: The Modern Synthesis }}</ref>
Initially Baldwin's ideas were not incompatible with the prevailing, but uncertain, ideas about the mechanism of transmission of hereditary information and at least two other biologists put forward very similar ideas in 1896. In 1901, Maurice Maeterlinck referred to behavioural adaptations to prevailing climates in different species of bees as ‘what had merely been an idea, therefore, and opposed to instinct, has thus by slow degrees become an instinctive habit’. The Baldwin effect theory subsequently became more controversial, with scholars being split between "Baldwin boosters" and "Baldwin skeptics". The theory was first called the "Baldwin effect" by George Gaylord Simpson in 1953. In 1942, the evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley promoted the Baldwin effect as part of the modern synthesis, saying the concept had been unduly neglected by evolutionists.
Initially Baldwin's ideas were not incompatible with the prevailing, but uncertain, ideas about the mechanism of transmission of hereditary information and at least two other biologists put forward very similar ideas in 1896. In 1901, Maurice Maeterlinck referred to behavioral adaptations to prevailing climates in different species of bees as ‘what had merely been an idea, therefore, and opposed to instinct, has thus by slow degrees become an instinctive habit’. The Baldwin effect theory subsequently became more controversial, with scholars being split between "Baldwin boosters" and "Baldwin skeptics". The theory was first called the "Baldwin effect" by George Gaylord Simpson in 1953. In 1942, the evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley promoted the Baldwin effect as part of the modern synthesis, saying the concept had been unduly neglected by evolutionists.
最初，鲍德温的观点与广泛流传但未加验证的关于遗传信息传递机制的观点并不矛盾，且在1896年至少有两位生物学家提出了非常相似的观点。1901年，'''莫里斯·梅特林克 Maurice Maeterlinck'''提到不同种类的蜜蜂对当时气候的行为适应性，称其之前仅仅是一种想法，因此，与本能相反，慢慢地变成了一种本能的习惯。鲍德温效应理论随后变得更具争议性，学者们分为“鲍德温支持者”和“鲍德温怀疑论者”。1953年'''乔治·盖洛德·辛普森 George Gaylord Simpson'''首次命名该理论为“鲍德温效应”。1942年，进化生物学家'''朱利安·赫胥黎 Julian Huxley'''将鲍德温效应作为现代进化综论的一部分加以推广，称进化论者过度忽视了这一概念。
最初，鲍德温的观点与广泛流传但未加验证的关于遗传信息传递机制的观点并不矛盾，且在1896年至少有两位生物学家提出了非常相似的观点。1901年，'''莫里斯·梅特林克 Maurice Maeterlinck'''提到不同种类的蜜蜂对当时气候的行为适应性，称其之前仅仅是一种想法，因此，与本能相反，慢慢地变成了一种本能的习惯。鲍德温效应理论随后变得更具争议性，学者们分为“鲍德温支持者”和“鲍德温怀疑论者”。1953年'''乔治·盖洛德·辛普森 George Gaylord Simpson'''首次命名该理论为“鲍德温效应”。1942年，进化生物学家'''朱利安·赫胥黎 Julian Huxley'''将鲍德温效应作为现代进化综论的一部分加以推广，称进化论者过度忽视了这一概念。
--[[用户:不思议|不思议]]（[[用户讨论:不思议|讨论]]） 【审校】“1901年，'''莫里斯·梅特林克 Maurice Maeterlinck'''提到不同种类的蜜蜂对当时气候的行为适应性，称其之前仅仅是一种想法，因此，与本能相反，慢慢地变成了一种本能的习惯”改为“1901年，'''莫里斯·梅特林克 Maurice Maeterlinck'''提到不同种类的蜜蜂对当时气候的行为适应，称这种适应“因此，过去仅仅是一种昆虫的聪明才智，与本能相对立的东西，慢慢地变成了一种本能的习惯””
--[[用户:不思议|不思议]]（[[用户讨论:不思议|讨论]]） 【审校】“学者们分为“鲍德温支持者”和“鲍德温怀疑论者””一句中的“分为”改成“分化为”
In the 1960s, the evolutionary biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] contended that the Baldwin effect theory was untenable because
In the 1960s, the evolutionary biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] contended that the Baldwin effect theory was untenable because
假定表型刚性有选择性优于表型柔性。
假定表型刚性有选择性优于表型柔性。
--[[用户:不思议|不思议]]（[[用户讨论:不思议|讨论]]） 【审校】“假定表型刚性有选择性优于表型柔性”一句中的“有选择性”改为“有选择地”
In 1987 [[Geoffrey Hinton]] and Steven Nowlan demonstrated by computer simulation that learning can accelerate evolution, and they associated this with the Baldwin effect.<ref>{{cite journal |title=How learning can guide evolution |last=Hinton |first=Geoffrey E. |author-link=Geoffrey Hinton |last2=Nowlan |first2=Steven J. |year=1987 |journal=Complex Systems |volume=1 |pages=495–502}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=When learning guides evolution|authorlink=John Maynard Smith |author=Maynard Smith, John |year=1987 |journal=Nature |volume=329 |issue=6142 |pages=761–762 |doi=10.1038/329761a0|pmid=3670381 }}</ref><ref name=Puentedura2003>{{cite book| author=Puentedura, Ruben R. |year=2003|location=Cambridge, MA |chapter=The Baldwin effect in the age of computation |title=Evolution and Learning: The Baldwin Effect Reconsidered |editor-last=Weber |editor-first=Bruce H. |editor-last2=Depew |editor-first2=David J.|publisher=MIT press |pages=219–234}}</ref>
In 1987 [[Geoffrey Hinton]] and Steven Nowlan demonstrated by computer simulation that learning can accelerate evolution, and they associated this with the Baldwin effect.<ref>{{cite journal |title=How learning can guide evolution |last=Hinton |first=Geoffrey E. |author-link=Geoffrey Hinton |last2=Nowlan |first2=Steven J. |year=1987 |journal=Complex Systems |volume=1 |pages=495–502}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=When learning guides evolution|authorlink=John Maynard Smith |author=Maynard Smith, John |year=1987 |journal=Nature |volume=329 |issue=6142 |pages=761–762 |doi=10.1038/329761a0|pmid=3670381 }}</ref><ref name=Puentedura2003>{{cite book| author=Puentedura, Ruben R. |year=2003|location=Cambridge, MA |chapter=The Baldwin effect in the age of computation |title=Evolution and Learning: The Baldwin Effect Reconsidered |editor-last=Weber |editor-first=Bruce H. |editor-last2=Depew |editor-first2=David J.|publisher=MIT press |pages=219–234}}</ref>
'''保罗·格里菲斯 Paul Griffiths'''指出了人们对鲍德温效应持续兴趣的两个原因。首先，我们可以理解心智在这种效果中所扮演的角色。二是其中发展与演变的关系。鲍德温关于神经生理学和意识心理因素如何促成这种效应的解释，使人们更加关注意识可能的存在价值问题。
'''保罗·格里菲斯 Paul Griffiths'''指出了人们对鲍德温效应持续兴趣的两个原因。首先，我们可以理解心智在这种效果中所扮演的角色。二是其中发展与演变的关系。鲍德温关于神经生理学和意识心理因素如何促成这种效应的解释，使人们更加关注意识可能的存在价值问题。
--[[用户:不思议|不思议]]（[[用户讨论:不思议|讨论]]） 【审校】“指出了人们对鲍德温效应持续兴趣的两个原因”一句中的“持续兴趣”改为“怀有持久兴趣”
--[[用户:不思议|不思议]]（[[用户讨论:不思议|讨论]]） 【审校】“我们可以理解心智在这种效果中所扮演的角色”一句中的“效果”改为“效应”
--[[用户:不思议|不思议]]（[[用户讨论:不思议|讨论]]） 【审校】“鲍德温关于神经生理学和意识心理因素如何促成这种效应的解释”一句中的“神经生理学”改为“神经生理”
[[File:Carpodacus mexicanus -Madison, Wisconsin, USA-8.jpg|thumb|The [[house finch]]'s colonisation of North America has provided empirical evidence of the Baldwin effect.<ref name=Badyaev/>]]
[[File:Carpodacus mexicanus -Madison, Wisconsin, USA-8.jpg|thumb|The [[house finch]]'s colonisation of North America has provided empirical evidence of the Baldwin effect.<ref name=Badyaev/>]]
[图一：家朱雀在北美的定殖提供了鲍德温效应的经验证明。]
[图一：家朱雀在北美的定殖提供了鲍德温效应的经验证明。]
--[[用户:不思议|不思议]]（[[用户讨论:不思议|讨论]]） 【审校】“家朱雀在北美的定殖提供了鲍德温效应的经验证明”一句改为“家朱雀在北美洲的定殖为鲍德温效应提供了实证证据”
Still, observes David Depew, "it is striking that a rather diverse lot of contemporary evolutionary theorists, most of whom regard themselves as supporters of the Modern Synthesis, have of late become 'Baldwin boosters{{'"}}<ref name="depew03" /> These Baldwin boosters
Still, observes David Depew, "it is striking that a rather diverse lot of contemporary evolutionary theorists, most of whom regard themselves as supporters of the Modern Synthesis, have of late become 'Baldwin boosters{{'"}}<ref name="depew03" /> These Baldwin boosters
Still, observes David Depew, "it is striking that a rather diverse lot of contemporary evolutionary theorists, most of whom regard themselves as supporters of the Modern Synthesis, have of late become 'Baldwin boosters These Baldwin boosters
Still, observes David Depew, "it is striking that a rather diverse lot of contemporary evolutionary theorists, most of whom regard themselves as supporters of the Modern Synthesis, have of late become 'Baldwin boosters These Baldwin boosters
/ blockquote
/ blockquote
--[[用户:不思议|不思议]]（[[用户讨论:不思议|讨论]]） 【审校】“令人惊讶的是，很多当代进化论理论家（其中大多数人自认为是现代进化综论的支持者）”一句中的“很多”改为“许多各派的”
--[[用户:不思议|不思议]]（[[用户讨论:不思议|讨论]]） 【审校】“这些人是典型的致力于寻找“很难找到的”，群体可以通过行为试错达到人脑、语言和思维快速共同进化的适应性图景之场景的'''<font color="#ff8000">进化心理学 Evolutionary Psychology</font>'''家。他们正在寻找被丹尼尔·丹尼特（鲍德温的支持者）所称的“进化起重机”（快速升高重物的工具）”一句改为“这些鲍德温支持者是典型的进化心理学家，他们正在寻找这样的场景，在这样的场景中，一个群体能够通过行为的反复试验使其进入到一个“难以发现”的适应环境中，在这个环境中，人类的大脑、语言和思维都能快速地共同进化。他们正在寻找被丹尼尔·丹尼特——一位鲍德温支持者，称为“进化起重机”的一种工具，这种工具能够迅速地抬起重物。”
According to [[Daniel Dennett]], recent work has rendered the Baldwin effect "no longer a controversial wrinkle in orthodox Darwinism".<ref name="dennett03">[[Daniel Dennett|Dennett, Daniel]] (2003), "The Baldwin Effect: a Crane, not a Skyhook" in: {{cite book |title=Evolution and learning: The Baldwin effect reconsidered |last=Weber |first=Bruce H. |first2=David J. |last2=Depew |year=2003 |publisher=MIT Press |location=Cambridge, MA |isbn=978-0-262-23229-6 |pages=69–106 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yBtRzBilw1MC&pg=PR9&dq=baldwin+effect#v=onepage&q&f=false }}</ref> Potential genetic mechanisms underlying the Baldwin effect have been proposed for the evolution of natural (genetically-determinant) antibodies.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Anderson|first=Russell|date=1996|title=How the adaptive antibodies facilitate the evolution of natural antibodies|url=|journal=Immunology and Cell Biology|volume=74 | issue = 2 |pages=286–291|doi=10.1038/icb.1996.50|pmid=8799730}}</ref> In 2009, empirical evidence for the Baldwin effect was provided from the colonisation of North America by the [[house finch]].<ref name=Badyaev>{{cite journal |last1=Badyaev |first1=Alexander V. |title=Evolutionary significance of phenotypic accommodation in novel environments: an empirical test of the Baldwin effect |journal=Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B |date=March 2009 |volume=364 |issue=1520 |doi=10.1098/rstb.2008.0285 |pmid=19324617 |pages=1125–1141|pmc=2666683 }}</ref>
According to [[Daniel Dennett]], recent work has rendered the Baldwin effect "no longer a controversial wrinkle in orthodox Darwinism".<ref name="dennett03">[[Daniel Dennett|Dennett, Daniel]] (2003), "The Baldwin Effect: a Crane, not a Skyhook" in: {{cite book |title=Evolution and learning: The Baldwin effect reconsidered |last=Weber |first=Bruce H. |first2=David J. |last2=Depew |year=2003 |publisher=MIT Press |location=Cambridge, MA |isbn=978-0-262-23229-6 |pages=69–106 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yBtRzBilw1MC&pg=PR9&dq=baldwin+effect#v=onepage&q&f=false }}</ref> Potential genetic mechanisms underlying the Baldwin effect have been proposed for the evolution of natural (genetically-determinant) antibodies.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Anderson|first=Russell|date=1996|title=How the adaptive antibodies facilitate the evolution of natural antibodies|url=|journal=Immunology and Cell Biology|volume=74 | issue = 2 |pages=286–291|doi=10.1038/icb.1996.50|pmid=8799730}}</ref> In 2009, empirical evidence for the Baldwin effect was provided from the colonisation of North America by the [[house finch]].<ref name=Badyaev>{{cite journal |last1=Badyaev |first1=Alexander V. |title=Evolutionary significance of phenotypic accommodation in novel environments: an empirical test of the Baldwin effect |journal=Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B |date=March 2009 |volume=364 |issue=1520 |doi=10.1098/rstb.2008.0285 |pmid=19324617 |pages=1125–1141|pmc=2666683 }}</ref>
丹尼尔•丹尼特表示，最近的研究工作已使鲍德温效应“在正统达尔文主义中不再是争议性问题”。科学家已提出鲍德温效应背后潜在的遗传机制用于自然（基因决定）抗体的进化。2009年，'''家朱雀 House Finch'''在北美的定殖为鲍德温效应提供了经验证明。
丹尼尔•丹尼特表示，最近的研究工作已使鲍德温效应“在正统达尔文主义中不再是争议性问题”。科学家已提出鲍德温效应背后潜在的遗传机制用于自然（基因决定）抗体的进化。2009年，'''家朱雀 House Finch'''在北美的定殖为鲍德温效应提供了经验证明。
--[[用户:不思议|不思议]]（[[用户讨论:不思议|讨论]]） 【审校】“在北美的定殖为鲍德温效应提供了经验证明”一句中的“经验证明”改为“实证证据”
==Comparison with genetic assimilation 与遗传同化的区别==
==Comparison with genetic assimilation 与遗传同化的区别==
鲍德温效应与另一种同样基于'''<font color="#ff8000">表型可塑性 Henotypic Plasticity</font>'''的进化理论——C.H.华丁顿的'''<font color="#ff8000">遗传同化 Genetic Assimilation</font>'''相混淆，有时甚至混为一谈。实际上，鲍德温效应包括遗传调节，其中一种类型是遗传同化。
鲍德温效应与另一种同样基于'''<font color="#ff8000">表型可塑性 Henotypic Plasticity</font>'''的进化理论——C.H.华丁顿的'''<font color="#ff8000">遗传同化 Genetic Assimilation</font>'''相混淆，有时甚至混为一谈。实际上，鲍德温效应包括遗传调节，其中一种类型是遗传同化。
--[[用户:不思议|不思议]]（[[用户讨论:不思议|讨论]]） 【审校】“鲍德温效应包括遗传调节”一句中的“遗传调节”改为“遗传顺化”
==See also 参见==
==See also 参见==