Paleontology and Darwin’s theory of evolution

• Verfasst von: Tamborini, Marco [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Paleontology and Darwin’s theory of evolution
• Titelzusatz: the subversive role of statistics at the end of the 19th century
• Verf.angabe: Marco Tamborini
• E-Jahr: 2015
• Jahr: 11 March 2015
• Umfang: 38 S.
• Fussnoten: Gesehen am 29.06.2020
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: Journal of the history of biology
• Ort Quelle: Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 1968
• Jahr Quelle: 2015
• Band/Heft Quelle: 48(2015), 4, Seite 575-612
• ISSN Quelle: 1573-0387
• DOI: doi:10.1007/s10739-015-9402-y
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• K10plus-PPN: 1702835286

Abstract

This paper examines the subversive role of statistics paleontology at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. In particular, I will focus on German paleontology and its relationship with statistics. I argue that in paleontology, the quantitative method was questioned and strongly limited by the first decade of the 20th century because, as its opponents noted, when the fossil record is treated statistically, it was found to generate results openly in conflict with the Darwinian theory of evolution. Essentially, statistics questions the gradual mode of evolution and the role of natural selection. The main objections to statistics were addressed during the meetings at the Kaiserlich-Königliche Geologische Reichsanstalt in Vienna in the 1880s. After having introduced the statistical treatment of the fossil record, I will use the works of Charles Léo Lesquereux (1806-1889), Joachim Barrande (1799-1833), and Henry Shaler Williams (1847-1918) to compare the objections raised in Vienna with how the statistical treatment of the data worked in practice. Furthermore, I will discuss the criticisms of Melchior Neumayr (1845-1890), one of the leading German opponents of statistical paleontology, to show why, and to what extent, statistics were questioned in Vienna. The final part of this paper considers what paleontologists can derive from a statistical notion of data: the necessity of opening a discussion about the completeness and nature of the paleontological data. The Vienna discussion about which method paleontologists should follow offers an interesting case study in order to understand the epistemic tensions within paleontology surrounding Darwin’s theory as well as the variety of non-Darwinian alternatives that emerged from the statistical treatment of the fossil record at the end of the 19th century.