International Journal of Business Trends and Technology- volume2Issue6- 2012

Application of Darwins & Lamarcks theories in Business Management

: A Review Article
Arpita Mehta
Research Scholar
Email: mehta0108@gmail.com
Abstract
Darwinism & Lamarckism have been grossly misunderstood by the public, partly due to lack of
accurate education, partly due to the false impressions created by Social Darwinism & Social
Lamarckism, and partly due to the views of religious leaders. This article attempts to address these
questions by integrating the latest findings of the many disciplines that bear on human evolution
with older findings that draw primarily on Darwins & Lamarcks long-neglected insights on
human behavior & evolution. Both theories established a very solid foundation for our
understanding of human behaviorhence the title of this article. Human evolutionary selection
mechanism needed to explain the evolution of humans from earlier hominids. Scientists use
Darwin & Lamarck theory to create new technologies and same theories can be used in business
management after scientific trial & approval with needed modifications. Building a unified
theory of any complex phenomenon is a matter of putting together many pieces. This review
article may help in the same.

Keywords: Darwin, Theory of Evolution, Lamarck

Introduction
According to The Evolution of Management Theory - Frederick W. Taylor (18561915) is
best known for defining the techniques of scientific management, the systematic study of
relationships between people and tasks for the purpose of redesigning the work process to
increase efficiency. Two prominent followers of Taylor were Frank Gilbreth (18681924) and
Lillian Gilbreth (18781972), who refined Taylors analysis of work movements and made many
contributions to time-and-motion study. Max Weber (18641920) wrote at the turn of the
twentieth century, when Germany was undergoing its industrial revolution. Working at the same
time as Weber but independently of him, Henri Fayol (18411925), the CEO of Comambault
Mining, identified 14 principles that he believed to be essential to increasing the efficiency of the
management process. If F.W. Taylor is considered to be the father of management thought, Mary
Parker Follett (18681933) serves as its mother. She pointed out that management often
overlooks the multitude of ways in which employees can contribute to the organization when
managers allow them to participate and exercise initiative in their everyday work lives. One
series of studies was conducted from 1924 to 1932 at the Hawthorne Works of the Western
Electric Company. This research, now known as the Hawthorne studies, began as an attempt to
investigate how characteristics of the work settingspecifically the level of lighting or
illuminationaffect worker fatigue and performance. Several studies after the Second World
War revealed how assumptions about workers attitudes and behaviour affect managers
behaviour. Perhaps the most influential approach was developed by Douglas McGregor. He

ISSN: 2249-0183 http://www.internationaljournalssrg.org Page 143

International Journal of Business Trends and Technology- volume2Issue6- 2012

proposed that two different sets of assumptions about work attitudes and behaviours dominate
the way managers think and affect how they behave in organizations. McGregor named these
two contrasting sets of assumptions Theory X and Theory Y. Management science theory is a
contemporary approach to management that focuses on the use of rigorous quantitative
techniques to help managers make maximum use of organizational resources to produce goods
and services. In essence, management science theory is a contemporary extension of scientific
management, which, as developed by Taylor, also took a quantitative approach to measuring the
workertask mix in order to raise efficiency. An important milestone in the history of
management thought occurred when researchers went beyond the study of how managers can
influence behavior within organizations to consider how managers control the organizations
relationship with its external environment, or organizational environmentthe set of forces and
conditions that operate beyond an organizations boundaries but affect a managers ability to
acquire and utilize resources. One of the most influential views of how an organization is
affected by its external environment was developed by Daniel Katz, Robert Kahn, and James
Thompson in the 1960s. Another milestone in management theory was the development of
contingency theory in the 1960s by Tom Burns and G.M. Stalker in the United Kingdom and
Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch in the United States.(Chpater 2 : The Evolution of Management
Theory, http://arch.arab-eng.org/uploadfile/uploading/Evolution-of-management-theory.pdf).

The National Research Council (1996) tells us that teaching science as inquiry is the basic
underlying principle of science education as well as the ultimate organizing concept for the
selection of student activities. These activities should include: 1) asking appropriate questions, 2)
planning and conducting investigations, 3) appropriate tools and techniques to gather data, 4)
thinking critically and logically about the relationships between evidence and explanations, and
5) communicating scientific arguments. Following these recommendations, as well as the 5E
cycle (engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate), this exercise is an attempt to
accomplish the previously mentioned tasks by allowing the student to discover the inherent flaws
in the Lamarckian view, while at the same time encouraging the appropriation of a more Neo-
Darwinian concept. The term eusocial as defined by Krebs and Davies (1993) includes animals
that exhibit: 1) cooperative care of the young; 2) a reproductive division of labor - that is, some
castes or classes are less fecund or sterile; 3) an overlap of at least two generations; that is, the
offspring assist the parents during some period of their life.

Each species changes. Does it progress. Man gains ideas. The simplest cannot help.becoming
more complicated; & if we look to first origin there must be progress (Notebooks, 175).

The facts of variability, of the struggle for existence, of adaptation to conditions, were notorious
enough; but none of us had suspected that the road to the heart of the species problem lay through
them, until Darwin and Wallace dispelled the darkness, and the beacon-fire of the Origin guided
the benighted (Huxley, 1900, 1: 179-83).

S.J. Gould (1979): "Cultural evolution has progressed at rates that Darwinian processes cannot
begin to approach. Darwinian evolution continues in Homo Sapiens, but at rates too slow that it
has no longer much impact on our history. This crux in the Earth's history has been reached
because Lamarckian processes have finally been unleashed upon it. Human cultural evolution, in

ISSN: 2249-0183 http://www.internationaljournalssrg.org Page 144

International Journal of Business Trends and Technology- volume2Issue6- 2012

strong opposition to our biological history, is Lamarckian in character. What we learn in one
generation, we transmit directly by teaching and writing. Acquired characters are inherited in
technology and culture. Lamarckian evolution is rapid and accumulative. It explains the cardinal
difference between our past, purely biological mode of change, and our current, maddening
acceleration towards something new and liberating or towards the abyss."

Literature review
Constructivist learning theory tells us that changing this misconception will only take place if our
students' minds have an active cognitive involvement in the processes that allow for the
accommodation of new "replacement" knowledge. Mechanisms such as hands-on / minds-on
laboratory activities, developing alternative hypotheses, designing evaluative experiments, and
arguing about the phenomena under study facilitate this active involvement (Saunders 1992).

In the Autobiography, Darwin mentioned two considerations that had readied him to detect in
Malthus a new possibility for the explanation of species development: the power of artificial
selection and the role of struggle. Lamarck had suggested domestic breeding as the model for
what occurred in nature. Undeterred by Lyells objection that domestic animals and plants were
specially created for man (Lyell, 1830-33, 2: 41).

- P. Medawar (1988): "Cultural Lamarckism has a great inherent plausibility, because social
evolution is so obviously Lamarckian in character - we learn generation by generation and can
propagate our learning to the next generation."

- Theories in the functional sense: Lorenz (1971 p. 231-262) and Popper (1973 p. 164) have
suggested enlarging the notion of theory towards all kinds of problem solving instruments. This
would comprise physical theories in the proper sense in so far as they help us to master technical
problems and to control physical nature; the inborn categories of space and time we use to
interpret perceptions and to coordinate mechanical activities; limbs as instruments for
locomotion; biological species as an instrument of "life" to meet the particular requirements of a
special biotope; social communication and social bodies arising from it as a tool to meet the
requirements of a wider social environment. All these various kinds of theories we will call
theories in the broader sense, as opposed to rationally generated theories in the usual sense such
as physical theories.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution

Similar organisms are related and are descendants of a common ancestor. The possibility
that all organisms may be traced back to only one origin of life is implied.
Variation in populations develops mostly as a result of environmental changes. The
individuals possessing beneficial genes that enable them to survive in specific conditions,
increase and pass it on to their offspring. Those without it will become extinct. In this
way natural selection develops. Genetic characteristics are passed down through the
generations.

ISSN: 2249-0183 http://www.internationaljournalssrg.org Page 145

International Journal of Business Trends and Technology- volume2Issue6- 2012

Modern Darwinian theory contains the following two tenets:

The Tree of Life Hypothesis: All organisms now on earth have a common ancestor.
The Hypothesis of Natural Selection: Natural selection was an important cause of the
similarities and differences exhibited by the organisms now on earth.

The second component of Darwinian theory - the hypothesis of natural selection - also occupies
a position on a continuum, one that concerns the importance that natural selection has had in the
evolutionary process. Here are three important benchmarks on that continuum (Orzack and Sober
[1994a], [1994b]; Sober [1993]):

(U) Natural selection has been an influence on the evolution of most traits in most populations.

(I) Natural selection has been an important influence on the evolution of most traits in most
populations.

(O) Natural selection has been the only important influence on the evolution of most traits in
most populations.

Lamarcks theory of evolution

Each organism or group of organisms has an independent evolutionary line with a

starting point, beginning in spontaneous development and a constant aspiration towards
perfection.

Organs that are in use or become disused, enlarge or shrink. Therefore new
characteristics are acquired, usually as a result of environmental changes. These acquired
traits enable the individual to become better adapted to his environment. The individual
who does not acquire this trait, becomes extinct. The acquired trait is inherited by the
offspring

Lamarcks ([1809]) theory of evolution entails that natural selection is not important and that the
tree of life hypothesis is false. Lamarck thought that lineages originate by spontaneous
generation and then evolve through a preprogrammed sequence of steps. The major changes that
a lineage undergoes are the result of an endogenous drive towards increasing complexity; they
are not an adaptive and opportunistic response to environmental conditions, which can result in
only modest changes. For Lamarck, present day human beings belong to a very old lineage,
because we are very complex; present day worms belong to a lineage that arose more recently,
because worms are relatively simple. According to this theory, present day human beings and
present day worms do not have a common ancestor, even though present day human beings are
descended from worm-like ancestors ([Bowler 1984]). The Lamarckian picture is logically
consistent. The same is true of the position of special creationists, who defend the hypothesis of
separate origination by claiming that natural selection could not generate the diversity we

ISSN: 2249-0183 http://www.internationaljournalssrg.org Page 146

International Journal of Business Trends and Technology- volume2Issue6- 2012

observe if all current life stemmed from a single ancestor. Senapathy ([1994]) takes this view as
well, without invoking the idea of intelligent design.

Conclusion

Although abandoned over 150 years ago, jean Baptiste de Lamarck's theory of acquired
characteristics the concept that changes acquired during an organism's lifetime are somehow
transferred into genetic information and passed on to the offspring - is perhaps more commonly
held as the mechanism of how evolution works, than the more scientifically supported Darwinian
concept of variation and selection (Deadman and Kelly 1978; Firenze 1997; Greene 1990;
Humphreys 1996; and Settlage, 1994).

H.A. Simon (1983, p. 40) said: "According to the behavioural theory, rational choice may require
a great deal of selective search in order to discover adaptive response. The simplest, most
primitive search processes require that possible responses be first generated and then tested for
appropriateness. The generator/test mechanism is the direct analogue, in the behavioural theory
of rationality, of the variation/selection mechanism of the Darwinian theory. Just as in biological
evolution we have variation to produce new organisms, so in the behavioral theory of human
rationality we have some kind of generations of alternatives - some kind of combinatorial
processes that can take simple ideas and put them together in new ways. And similarly, just as in
the biological theory of evolution the mechanism of natural selection weeds out poorly adapted
variants, so in human thinking the testing process rejects ideas other than those which contribute
to solving the problem that is being addressed".

In his various early notebooks (January 1837 to June 1838), Darwin began to work out different
possibilities to explain species change (Richards, 1987, 85-98). Initially, he supposed that a
species might be created for a definite time, so that when its span of years was exhausted, it
went extinct and another, affiliated species took its place (Notebooks, 12, 62). He rather quickly
abandoned the idea of species senescence, and began to think in terms of Lamarcks notion of
the direct effects of the environment, especially the possible impact of the imponderable fluids of
heat and electricity (Notebooks, 175).

According to ( www.theanswerseries.co.za) In 1809 this French biologist introduced his theory

of evolution. Lamarcks theory was based on two related ideas:

The use or disuse of organs can lead to the enlargement or shrinkage (disappearance) of the
organs.
Organisms undergo certain changes during their lifetime and these changes are inherited by
their offspring. Lamarckian evolution the term is used to describe the idea that changes in
the environment lead to changes in the needs of the organisms. The result is change in the
organisms themselves that is also passed down to the offspring.

ISSN: 2249-0183 http://www.internationaljournalssrg.org Page 147

International Journal of Business Trends and Technology- volume2Issue6- 2012

Darwin was a naturalist on board the survey-ship HMS Beagle on a five-year expedition to the
southern hemisphere between 1831-1836. His task as naturalist was to study plants and animals.
His most important observations were recorded at the Galapagos Islands on the South American
west coast. Darwin published his theory of evolution in 1859 as a book On the Origin of
Species by means of Natural Selection. This publication convinced many scientists that
evolution existed and that it developed through natural selection. observations on which Darwin
based his theory of evolution:

Each species produces more offspring than can survive.

There is variation within a species, and some individuals are better adapted for a certain
environment.

In developing his own theory of use-inheritance, Darwin carefully distinguished his ideas from
those of his discredited predecessoror at least he convinced himself that their ideas were quite
different. He attempted to distance himself from the French naturalist by proposing that habits
introduced into a population would first gradually become instinctual before they altered
anatomy. And instinctsinnate patterns of behaviorwould be expressed automatically,
without the intervention of conscious will-power, the presumptive Lamarckian mode (Notebooks,
292).

Proposed Dimensions (Habits) for Business Management (Based on Darwins & Lamarcks
theories)

Relearning & Continuous Evolution(macro & micro level) -Need to modify current
perception & practice in order to consolidate it with scientific learning & experiments
Teamwork & Adaptively- Need for effective networking, flexibility & task force
management for responsive acceptance
Engagement-overall people engagement including customer, seller, government & a
common citizen to serve global village
Green Management & Natural selection - environment protection with technical
development for sustainable growth & survival of all living & non living elements of the
system
Scarcity Leads to Creativity- Management of weakness for optimum performance &
structured productivity
Cultural Diversity Need for cultural evolution , innovation & continuity
Optimum Resource Management- Need for waste & risk management

ISSN: 2249-0183 http://www.internationaljournalssrg.org Page 148

International Journal of Business Trends and Technology- volume2Issue6- 2012

References and Suggested Readings

Alters B. Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1997; 34(1):
39-55.
Arthur, W. (1988): A Theory of the Evolution of Development. New York: John Wiley &
Sons
Bishop B, Anderson C. Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. E.
Lansing (Ml): Institute for Research on Teaching (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 269 254),1986.
Bowler, P. [1984]: Evolutionthe History of an Idea, Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Brunswik, E. (1955): 'Ratiomorphic' models of perception and thinking. In: Acta physiol. 11:
108- 109
Bumbry M. Student perceptions and learning styles associated with the concept of evolution
by natural selection. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Survey. UK, 1979.
Burt, A. [1989]: Comparative Methods Using Phylogenetically Independent Contrasts.
Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 33-53.
Callebaut, W. (1987): Why it makes sense to extend the genotype/phenotype distinction to
culture. La Nuova Critica, Nuova Serie I-II, Problemi epistemologici della biologia 2, 65
Charles Darwin, Cambridge University Library DAR 73.1-4.
Charles Darwin, Cambridge University Library DAR 73.1-4. have discussed the problem of
the social insects in Richards, 1987, 142-52.
Charles Darwin, Personal Journal MS 34, Cambridge University Library, DAR 158.1-76.
Crick, F. [1968]: The Origin of the Genetic Code. Journal of Molecular Biology. 38,
pp.367-379.
Darwin, C. [1859]: The Origin of Species, Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1959.
Darwin, Erasmus. 1796. Zoonomia or the Laws of Organic Life. 2d ed. 2 vols. London:
Johnson.
Davies, P. C. W. (1990a): Why is the physical World so comprehensible? In Complexity,
Entropy and the Physics of Information, Santa Fe Institute studies in the Sciences of
Complexity, ed. W. H. Zurek, Vol VIII, Addison Wesley, p. 61-70.
Davies, P. C. W. (1990b): Why is the universe knowable? To appear in Mathematic and
Science, World Scientific Press, ed. Ronald E. Mickens, p. 14-33.
Dawkins, R. (1982): The extended phenotype. Oxford and San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and
Company.
Dawkins, R. [1983]: Universal Darwinism. In D. Bendall (ed.), Evolution from Molecules
to Men. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 403- 425.
Deadman J, Kelly P. What do secondary school boys understand about evolution and
heredity before they are taught the topic? Journal of Biological Education 1978; 12(l):7-15.
Demastes S, Good R, Peebles P. Patterns of conceptual change in evolution. Journal of
Research In Science Teaching. 1996; 33(4):407-31.
Diettrich, O. (1989): Kognitive, organische und gesellschaftliche Evolution. Berlin Hamburg:
Parey.
Diettrich, O. (1990): Sprache als Theorie. In: Akten des 6. Int. Kongresses der Deutschen
Gesellschaft fr Semiotik (DGS), Passau, Okt. 1990
ISSN: 2249-0183 http://www.internationaljournalssrg.org Page 149
International Journal of Business Trends and Technology- volume2Issue6- 2012

Diettrich, O. (1991a): Realitt, Anpassung und Evolution. Philosophia Naturalis, Bd. 28, p.
147-192
Diettrich, O. (1991b): Induction and evolution of cognition and science. In Gertrudis Van de
Vijver (Ed.): Teleology and Selforganisation. Philosophica Nr. 47/II
Falconer, D. and Mackay, T. [1996]: Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, London:
Longman, 4th edition.
Felsenstein, J. [1985]: Phylogenies and the Comparative Method. American Naturalist,
125, pp. 1?15.
Firenze R. Have the creationists already won? The reaching of faux-biology. Reports of the
National Center for Science Education 1997 Mar/Apr; 17(2):10-4.
Freeland, S. Knight, R., Landweber, L. and Hurst, L. [2000]: Early Fixation of an Optimal
Genetic Code. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 17, pp. 511- 518.
Gerhart, J.C. et al. (1982): The Cellular Basis of Morphogenetic Change. In: Bonner, J.T.
(Ed.) (1982): Evolution and Development. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springe
Godfrey-Smith, P. [2001]: Three Kinds of Adaptationism. In S. Orzack and E. Sober (eds.),
Adaptationism and Optimality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.335-357.
Goodwin, B. C. (1988): Morphogenesis and heredity.
Gould, S. J. (1979): Another Look at Lamarck. New Scientist 4. Oct., 38
Gould, S., and Lewontin, R. [1979]: The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian
Paradigma Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London B, 205, pp. 581-598.
Greene E. The logic of university students' understanding of natural selection. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 1990, 10(4):541-52.
Haeckel, E. [1876]: The History of Creation, 3rd edition. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench &
Co.
Harvey, P. and Pagel, M. [1991]: The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
http://arch.arab-eng.org/uploadfile/uploading/Evolution-of-management-theory.pdf
Humphreys J. Lamarck and the general theory of evolution. Journal of Biological Education
1996; 30(4):295-303.
Huxley, Leonard. 1900. Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley. 2 vols. New York: D.
Appleton.
In Mae-Wan Ho and Sidney, W. F. (1988): Evolutionary Processes and Metaphors. Ney
York: John Wiley & Sons
Jensen M, Finley F. Changes in students' understanding of evolution resulting from different
curricular and instructional strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1996;
33(8):879-900
Katz, M. J. (1982): Ontogenetic Mechanisms: The Middle Ground of Evolution. In J. T.
Bonner (ed.): Evolution and Development. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer
Kimura, M. [1992]: The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Krebs J, Davies N. An introduction to behavioral ecology. London Blackwell Publications,
1993.
Lamarck, J. [1809]: Zoological Philosophy, London: Macmillan, 1914.

ISSN: 2249-0183 http://www.internationaljournalssrg.org Page 150

International Journal of Business Trends and Technology- volume2Issue6- 2012

Lewontin, Richard. 1978. Adaptation, Scientific American, 239: 220. 30

Lorenz, K. (1966): ber tierisches und menschliches Verhalten. Gesammelte Abhandlungen.
Mnchen: Piper
Lorenz, K. (1971): Knowledge, beliefs and freedom. In Weiss, P. (Hrg.): Hierarchically
organized systems in theory and practice. New York: Hafner
Luhman, N. (1990): Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp
Lyell, Charles. 1987. Principles of Geology. 3 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Malthus, Thomas. 1826. An Essay on the Principle of Population. 6th ed. London, Murray.
Mayr, E. [1982]: The Growth of Biological Thought, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
McComas W. Investigating evolutionary biology in the laboratory. Reston (VA): National
Association of Biology Teachers, 1994.
Medawar, P. (1988): Lamarckism. In: Bullock, A. & Stallybrass, Trombley, S. (Eds.): The
Fontana Dictionary of modern Thought. London: Fontana/Collins
National Research Council. National science education standards. Washington: National
Academy Press, 1996.
Orzack, S.H. and Sober, E. [1994a]: How (Not) to Test an Optimality Model. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution, 9, pp. 265-267.
Orzack, S.H. and Sober, E. [1994b]: Optimality Models and the Test of Adaptationism.
American Naturalist, 143, pp. 361-380.
Orzack, S.H. and Sober, E. [2001]: Adaptation, Phylogenetic Inertia, and the Method of
Controlled Comparisons. In S.H. Orzack and E. Sober (eds.), Adaptationism and Optimality.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 45-63.
Parker, G. [1978]: Search for Mates. In J. Krebs and N. Davies (eds.), Behavioral
EcologyAn Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwells, pp. 214-244.
Piaget, J. (1974) Biologie und Erkenntnis. Frankfurt/M: S. Fischer
Popper, R. K. (1973): Objektive Erkenntnis. Hamburg: Hoffman und Campe.
Posner G, Strike K, Hewson P, Gertzog W. (I982). Accommodation of a scientific
conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education 1982; 66(2), 211-27.
Richards, Robert J. 1987. Darwin and the Emergence of Evolutionary Theories of Mind and
Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Richards, Robert J. 1992. The Meaning of Evolution: The Morphological Construction and
Ideological Reconstruction of Darwins Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ridley, M. [1983]: The Explanation of Organic Diversity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Riedl, R. (1975): Die Ordnung des Lebendigen. Berlin: Paul Parey.
Saunders W. The constructivist perspective: Implications and teaching strategies for science.
School Science and Mathematics 1992; 92(3), 136-41.
Sebright, John. 1809. The Art of Improving the Breeds of Domestic Animals. London:
Howlett and Brimmer.
Senapathy, P. [1994]: Independent Birth of Organisms, Madison, WI: Genome Press.
Settlage J. Conceptions of natural selection: A snapshot of the sense-making process. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching 1994; 31(4), 449-57
Simon, H. A. (1983): Reason in human affairs. Stanford, CA.:Stanford University Press
Sober, E. [1993]: Philosophy of Biology, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sober, E. [1999]: Modus Darwin. Biology and Philosophy, 14, pp. 253?278.

ISSN: 2249-0183 http://www.internationaljournalssrg.org Page 151

International Journal of Business Trends and Technology- volume2Issue6- 2012

Sober, E. [2002a]: Instrumentalism, Parsimony, and the Akaike Framework. Philosophy of

Science, forthcoming. Also available at the following URL: http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober.
Sober, E. [2002b]: Reconstructing Ancestral Character StatesA Likelihood Perspective on
Cladistic Parsimony. The Monist, 85, pp. 156-176.
Sober, E., and Steel, M. [forthcoming]: Testing the Hypothesis of Common Ancestry.
Storey R. (1997). A plea to biology professors. The American Biology Teacher 1997; 59(2),
68-9.
Vollmer, G. (1980): Evolutionre Erkenntnistheorie. Stuttgart: S. Hirzel
Waddington, C. H. (1957): The strategy of the genes. London: Allen & Unwin
Waddington, C. H. (1959): Evolutionary systems - animal and human. Nature, 182, 1634-8
Wagner, G. P. (1989): The Origin of Morphological Characters and the Biological Basis of
Homology. In: Evolution, 43(6), 1989. pp. 1157-1171
Wagner, G. P. (1992): Book Review: Diettrich, O. Kognitive, organische und
gesellschaftliche Evolution. In: Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 5, No. 3, p. 545-547
Wilde, G. J. S. (1982): The Theory of Risk Homeostasis: Implications for Safety and Health.
In: Risk Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 209-225
Wilkinson, John. 1820. Remarks on the Improvement of Cattle, etc. in a Letter to Sir John
Saunders Sebright. 3rd ed. Nottingham.
Williams, N. E. (1984): An apparent disjunction between the evolution of form and substance
in the genus Tetrahymnea. Evolution 38: 25-33
www.theanswerseries.co.za
Youatt, William. 1834. Cattle: Their Breeds, Management, and Disease. London: Library of
Useful Knowledge.

ISSN: 2249-0183 http://www.internationaljournalssrg.org Page 152