Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 889–899 | Cite as

Why development matters

  • Rachael L. Brown
Review Essay


Günter Wagner’s Homology, Genes, and Evolutionary Innovation is a compelling, and empirically well-supported account of the evolution of character identity and character origination which emphasizes the importance of homology and novelty as central explananda for 21st century evolutionary biology (and developmental bias as a key explanans). In this essay review, I focus on the similarities and differences between the structuralist picture of evolutionary biology advocated by Wagner, and that presented by standard evolutionary theory. First, I outline the ways in which Wagner’s genetic theory of homology diverges from the account of homology offered by standard evolutionary theory. Then, I consider the motivations for these divergences. Lastly, I discuss a number of concerns with Wagner’s view, and offer some concluding thoughts on the relationship between structuralism and adaptationism.


Structuralism Adaptationism Evo-devo Homology Novelty Innovation Extended evolutionary synthesis 


  1. Amundson R (2005) The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: the roots of evo-devo. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Calcott B (2009) Lineage explanations: explaining how biological mechanisms change. Br J Philos Sci 60(1):51–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coyne J (2014) Does evolution need a revolution? Why evolution is true blog. Accessed 9 March 2015
  4. Dobzhansky TG (1957) On methods of evolutionary biology and anthropology. Am Sci 45:381–392Google Scholar
  5. Dobzhansky TG (1971) Genetics of the evolutionary process. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Laland KN, Sterelny K, Odling-Smee J, Hoppitt W, Uller T (2011) Cause and effect in biology revisited: is Mayr’s proximate–ultimate dichotomy still useful? Science 334:1512–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Laland KN, Odling-Smee J, Hoppitt W, Uller T (2013) More on how and why: cause and effect in biology. Biol Philos 28(5):719–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Laland KN, Uller T, Feldman M, Sterelny K, Müller GB, Moczek A, Jablonka E, Odling-Smee J (2014) Does evolutionary biology need a rethink? Point: yes, urgently. Nature 514:161–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lewens T (2004) Organisms and artifacts: design in nature and elsewhere. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Mayr E (1954) Change of genetic environment and evolution. Evol Process 157:180Google Scholar
  11. Mayr E (1961) Cause and effect in biology. Science 134:1501–1506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mayr E (1982) The growth of biological thought. The Belknap Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Mayr E, Provine WB (1981) The evolutionary synthesis. Bull Am Acad Arts Sci 34:17–32Google Scholar
  14. Owen R (1843) Lectures on the comparative anatomy and physiology of the vertebrate animals. Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Simpson GG (1961) Principles of animal taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Wagner G (2014) Homology, genes, and evolutionary innovation. Princeton University Press, New JerseyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. West-Eberhard MJ (2003) Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Williams GC (1992) Natural selection: domains, levels and challenges. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Wray GA, Futuyma DA, Lenski RE, MacKay TFC, Schluter D, Strassman JE, Hoekstra HE (2014) Does evolutionary biology need a rethink? Counterpoint: no, all is well. Nature 514:161–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations