Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Evolutionary neuroscience
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=== Major arguments === Over time, there are several arguments that would come to define the history of evolutionary neuroscience. The first is the argument between [[รtienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire|E.G. St. Hilaire]] and [[Georges Cuvier|G. Cuvier]] over the topic of "common plan versus diversity".<ref name=Kaas-2007/> St. Hilaire argued that all animals are built based on a single plan or [[archetype]] and he stressed the importance of [[Homology (biology)|homologies]] between organisms, while Cuvier believed that the structure of organs was determined by their function and that knowledge of the function of one organ could help discover the functions of other organs.<ref name=Kaas-2007/><ref name=Northcutt-2001/> He argued that there were at least four different archetypes. After Darwin, the idea of evolution was more accepted and St. Hilaire's idea of homologous structures was more accepted. The second major argument is that of Aristotle's [[Aristotle's biology|''scala naturae'']] (scale of nature) and the [[great chain of being]] versus the phylogenetic bush. The ''scala naturae'', later also called the phylogenetic scale, was based on the premise that phylogenies are linear or like a scale while the phylogenetic bush argument was based on the idea that phylogenies were not linear, and more resembled a bush โ the currently accepted view. A third major argument dealt with the size of the brain and whether relative size or absolute size was more relevant in determining function. In the late 18th century, it was determined that brain to body ratio reduces as body size increases. However more recently, there is more focus on absolute [[brain size]] as this scales with internal structures and functions, with the degree of structural complexity, and with the amount of [[white matter]] in the brain, all suggesting that absolute size is much better predictor of brain function. Finally, a fourth argument is that of natural selection ([[Darwinism]]) versus developmental constraints (concerted evolution). It is now accepted that the evolution of development is what causes adult species to show differences and evolutionary neuroscientists maintain that many aspects of brain function and structure are conserved across species.<ref name=Kaas-2007/>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)