Neo-Darwinism / R.J. Berry.

  • Berry, R. J. (Robert James)
Date:
1982
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Credit: Neo-Darwinism / R.J. Berry. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    5/76 (page III)
    General Preface to the Seríes Because it is no longer possible for one textbook to cover the whole field of biology while remaining sufficiently up to date, the Institute of Biology proposed this series so that teachers and students can learn about significant developments. The enthusiastic acceptance of 'Studies in Biology' shows that the books are providing authoritative views of biological topics. The features of the series include the attention given to methods, the selected list of books for further reading and, wherever possible, suggestions for practical work. Readers' comments will be welcomed by the Education Officer of the Institute. 1982 Institute of Biology 41 Queen's Gate London SW7 5HU Preface Biologists are increasingly taught to approach problems from first principles. This is generally a good thing, but it can lead to difficulties if all the relevant information is not used. For example, when we ask: 'Is evolution true?', the discussion tends to revolve round gaps in evidence. This is the wrong centre for the debate. Evolutionary ideas form a synthesis involving virtually the entire span of biological disciplines. Someone starting from scratch is faced with a jigsaw which took an army of biologists over a century to complete, involving fact and theory, error and arrogance, superstition and success. Neo-Darwinism is the picture on the jigsaw box, as it were, charting the progress in our understanding of evolution from Darwin and Wallace's original paper in 1858 to the present. Most biologists tend to be impatient with history; I hope that readers of Neo-Darwinism will be able to bear enough of it to recognize that virtually all the criticisms about evolution raised today are repeats of old ones. Knowing the strength and solution of past debates can save time in dealing with the present situation, quite apart from forming a spring-board for the next advances in biology overall. Professor Arthur Cain of Liverpool University and Mr Ian Lacey of Shrewsbury School read the book in draft, and made various criticisms. Most of them I have incorporated; my thanks are due to them for their comments, and my apologies for sticking to the points where I think I am right and they are wrong. London,1982 R.J.B.