Editing Orthogenesis (section)

===With Darwin===
[[File:Voyages_de_la_Commission_scientifique_du_Nord,_en_Scandinavie,_en_Laponie,_au_Spitzberg_et_aux_Feröe_-_no-nb_digibok_2009040211001-118.jpg|thumb|upright|Reviewing Darwin's ''[[Origin of Species]]'', [[Karl Ernst von Baer]] argued for a directed force guiding [[evolution]].<ref name=Brown2001/>]]

Ruse observed that "Progress ''(sic, his capitalisation)'' became essentially a nineteenth-century belief. It gave meaning to life—it offered inspiration—after the collapse [with [[Malthus]]'s pessimism and the shock of the [[French Revolution]]] of the foundations of the past."{{sfn|Ruse|1996|p=29}}
The Baltic German biologist [[Karl Ernst von Baer]] (1792–1876) argued for an orthogenetic force in nature, reasoning in a review of Darwin's 1859 ''[[On the Origin of Species]]'' that "Forces which are not directed—so-called blind forces—can never produce order."<ref name=Brown2001>{{cite book |last1=Brown |first1=Keven |last2=Von Kitzing |first2=Eberhard |title=Evolution and Bahá'í Belief: ʻAbduʼl-Bahá's Response to Nineteenth-century Darwinism |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=egDAfpkONRsC&pg=PA159 |year=2001 |publisher=Kalimat Press |isbn=978-1-890688-08-0 |page=159}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Barbieri |first=Marcello |date=2013 |title=Biosemiotics: Information, Codes and Signs in Living Systems |publisher=Nova Science Publishers |page=7 |isbn=978-1-60021-612-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Jacobsen |first=Eric Paul |date=2005 |title=From Cosmology to Ecology: The Monist World-view in Germany from 1770 to 1930 |page=100 |publisher=Peter Lang |isbn=978-0-8204-7231-7}}</ref> 
In 1864, the Swiss anatomist [[Albert von Kölliker]] (1817–1905) presented his orthogenetic theory, ''[[heterogenesis]]'', arguing for wholly separate lines of descent with no common ancestor.<ref name=Vucinich1988>{{cite book |last=Vucinich |first=Alexander |date=1988 |title=Darwin in Russian Thought |publisher=University of California Press |page=137 |isbn=978-0-520-06283-2}}</ref>
In 1884, the Swiss botanist [[Carl Nägeli]] (1817–1891) proposed a version of orthogenesis involving an "inner perfecting principle". [[Gregor Mendel]] died that same year; Nägeli, who proposed that an "[[idioplasm]]" transmitted inherited characteristics, dissuaded Mendel from continuing to work on plant genetics.<ref name=Mawer2006>{{cite book |last=Mawer |first=Simon |author-link=Simon Mawer |title=Gregor Mendel: planting the seeds of genetics |date=2006 |publisher=Harry N. Abrams |isbn=978-0-8109-5748-0 |url=https://archive.org/details/gregormendelplan00simo }}</ref> According to Nägeli many evolutionary developments were nonadaptive and variation was internally programmed.{{sfn|Bowler|1989|pages=268–270}} [[Charles Darwin]] saw this as a serious challenge, replying that "There must be some efficient cause for each slight individual difference", but was unable to provide a specific answer without knowledge of genetics. Further, Darwin was himself somewhat progressionist, believing for example that "Man" was "higher" than the [[barnacle]]s he studied.<ref name=WatsonAngle>{{cite book |last1=Watson |first1=Marc |last2=Angle |first2=Barbara |title=Man's Selection: Charles Darwin's Theory of Creation, Evolution, And Intelligent Design |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4lVGDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT149 |year=2017 |publisher=BookBaby |isbn=978-1-936883-14-1 |pages=146–150}}</ref>{{sfn|Ruse|1996|pp=154–155, 162}}
Darwin indeed wrote in his 1859 ''[[Origin of Species]]'':<ref name=Darwin1859>{{cite book |last=Darwin |first=Charles |author-link=Charles Darwin |year=1859 |url=https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1228/1228-h/1228-h.htm#chap10 |title=On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life| at=Chapters 10, 14}}</ref>

{{quote|The inhabitants of each successive period in the world's history have beaten their predecessors in the race for life, and are, insofar, higher in the scale of nature; and this may account for that vague yet ill-defined sentiment, felt by many palaeontologists, that organisation on the whole has progressed. [Chapter 10]<ref name=Darwin1859/>}}

{{quote|As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Silurian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection. [Chapter 14]<ref name=Darwin1859/>}}

[[File:Titanothere Osborn.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]]'s 1934 version of orthogenesis,  ''[[aristogenesis]]'', argued that aristogenes, not mutation or natural selection, created all novelty.<ref name=Wallace2005/> Osborn supposed that the horns of [[Titanothere]]s evolved into a [[baroque]] form, way beyond the [[Adaptation|adaptive]] optimum.{{sfn|Ruse|1996|pages=266–267}}]]

In 1898, after studying [[butterfly]] coloration, [[Theodor Eimer<!--mild overlink, seems helpful here-->]] (1843–1898) introduced the term orthogenesis with a widely read book, ''On Orthogenesis: And the Impotence of Natural Selection in Species Formation''. Eimer claimed there were trends in [[evolution]] with no [[adaptation|adaptive]] significance that would be difficult to explain by natural selection.<ref name=Shanahan2004>{{cite book |last=Shanahan |first=Timothy |date=2004 |title=The Evolution of Darwinism: Selection, Adaptation, and Progress in Evolutionary Biology |publisher=Cambridge University Press |page=121 |isbn=978-0-521-54198-5}}</ref> To supporters of orthogenesis, in some cases [[species]] could be led by such trends to [[extinction]].<ref name=Sapp2003>{{cite book |author-link=Jan Sapp |last=Sapp |first=Jan |date=2003 |title=Genesis: The Evolution of Biology |pages=[https://archive.org/details/genesisevolution00sapp/page/69 69–70] |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-515619-5 |url=https://archive.org/details/genesisevolution00sapp/page/69 }}</ref> Eimer linked orthogenesis to [[Lamarckism|neo-Lamarckism]] in his 1890 book ''Organic Evolution as the Result of the Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics According to the Laws of Organic Growth''. He used examples such as the [[evolution]] of the [[horse]] to argue that evolution had proceeded in a regular single direction that was difficult to explain by random variation. Gould described Eimer as a [[materialist]] who rejected any [[vitalist]] or [[teleological]] approach to orthogenesis, arguing that Eimer's criticism of natural selection was common amongst many evolutionists of his generation; they were searching for alternative mechanisms, as they had come to believe that natural selection could not create new [[species]].<ref name=Gould2002>{{cite book |author-link=Stephen Jay Gould |last=Gould |first=Stephen Jay |date=2002 |title=The Structure of Evolutionary Theory |publisher=Harvard University Press |pages=[https://archive.org/details/structureofevolu00goul/page/355 355–364] |isbn=978-0-674-00613-3 |url=https://archive.org/details/structureofevolu00goul/page/355 }}</ref>