Titlebook: Structuralism and Form in Literature and Biology; Critiquing Genetic M Peter McMahon Book 2024 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author

ARRAY

書目名稱Structuralism and Form in Literature and Biology影響因子(影響力)




書目名稱Structuralism and Form in Literature and Biology影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Structuralism and Form in Literature and Biology網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度




書目名稱Structuralism and Form in Literature and Biology網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Structuralism and Form in Literature and Biology被引頻次




書目名稱Structuralism and Form in Literature and Biology被引頻次學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Structuralism and Form in Literature and Biology年度引用




書目名稱Structuralism and Form in Literature and Biology年度引用學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Structuralism and Form in Literature and Biology讀者反饋




書目名稱Structuralism and Form in Literature and Biology讀者反饋學(xué)科排名

象形文字

aviator

Structuralism, Vitalism, and Bioengineering, on potential consequences (beneficial vs. harmful), rather than its underlying premises. Ethical grounds for genetic manipulation in the non-human sphere have remained largely unquestioned. While the technology was first developed in the 1970s, it was promoted earlier with the rise of molecular bio

遣返回國(guó)

The Debate: Cuvier and Geoffroy, homology under a unitary body plan, changed to one endorsing a discontinuous taxonomy in which . (phyla) are united by the great functions of life. The old, rational order was seriously challenged. Georges Cuvier was instrumental to this transition, adopting methods of comparative anatomy to develo

描繪

Setting the Stage for Evolutionary Theory,s, the adaptationist thesis developed by Darwin rejects formalist aspects of early French biology. It has been proposed that Darwin’s theory was even more anti-Cuverian than anti-Lamarckian, since Georges Cuvier’s adapted organism contradicted any notion of continuous change over time. On the other

ETHER

品嘗你的人

導(dǎo)師

,Prague Structuralism?and the Poetic Function,guistic theory firmly separated synchrony and diachrony, as changes were inconsistent with the functionality of the system (langue). Formalist models, such as Cuvier’s organism, are also fixed, giving no account of change. Saussure’s deprioritisation of diachronic changes in language was addressed b

獨(dú)裁政府

Immanent Evolution,ntury against a background of religious orthodoxy, which endorsed fixism (stable types) and preformationism. Proposals of change and epigenesis (material transformation) were considered radical at the time. Homological series and unity of composition were instrumental to the eventual acceptance of e

標(biāo)準(zhǔn)

Phenotype then Gene,genetic accommodation, and phenotypic adjustment. The evolution of novelty (and species) under the modern synthesis is thought to arise from the reproductive isolation of populations and their genes. Changes are proposed to occur incrementally by mutational changes at the later stages of development