Major problems in evolutionary transitions: how a metabolic perspective can enrich our understanding of macroevolution
- 721 Downloads
The model of major transitions in evolution (MTE) devised by Maynard Smith and Szathmáry has exerted tremendous influence over evolutionary theorists. Although MTE has been criticized for inconsistently combining different types of event, its ongoing appeal lies in depicting hierarchical increases in complexity by means of evolutionary transitions in individuality (ETIs). In this paper, we consider the implications of major evolutionary events overlooked by MTE and its ETI-oriented successors, specifically the biological oxygenation of Earth, and the acquisitions of mitochondria and plastids. By reflecting on these missed events, we reveal a central philosophical disagreement over the explanatory goals of major transitions theory that has yet to be made explicit in the literature. We go on to argue that this philosophical disagreement is only reinforced by Szathmáry’s recent revisions of MTE in the form of MTE 2.0. This finding motivates us to propose an alternative explanatory strategy: specifically, an interactionist metabolic perspective on major transitions. A metabolic framework not only avoids many of the criticisms that beset classic and revised MTE models, but also accommodates missing events and provides crucial explanatory components for standard major transitions. Although we do not provide a full-blown alternative theory and do not claim to achieve unity, we explain why foregrounding metabolism is crucial for any attempt to capture the major turning points in evolution, and why it does not lead to unmanageable pluralism.
KeywordsMacroevolution Major transitions Metabolism
The authors would like to thank Robert Brandon, Adrian Currie, Catherine Driscoll, Marc Ereshefsky, Doug Erwin, Peter Godfrey-Smith, Dan McShea, Kepa Ruiz-Mirazo, Nicholas Shea, members of the Duke University Philosophy of Biology reading group and Dalhousie’s Evolution Studies Group, audiences at the American Philosophical Association, Australasian Association of Philosophy, AAPNZ, and SANU Philosophy of Biology meetings, and two anonymous referees for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Maureen O’Malley acknowledges funding from the University of Sydney’s Bridging Support scheme; Russell Powell is grateful to Templeton Foundation Grant # 43160 for support of this research.
- Beatty J (1995) The evolutionary contingency thesis. In: Lennox JG, Wolters G (eds) Concepts, theories and rationality in the biological sciences. University of Konstanz Press, Konstanz, pp 45–81Google Scholar
- Calcott B, Sterelny K (eds) (2011a) The major transitions in evolution revisited. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Ellis B (2001) Scientific essentialism. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Gould SJ (1997) Life’s grandeur: the spread of excellence from Plato to Darwin. Vintage, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Maynard Smith J (1988) Evolutionary progress and the levels of selection. In: Nitecki MH (ed), Evolutionary progress. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 219–230Google Scholar
- Maynard Smith J, Szathmáry E (1997) The major transitions in evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- McShea DW, Simpson C (2011) The miscellaneous transitions in evolution. In: Calcott B, Sterelny K (eds) The major transitions in evolution revisited. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 17–33Google Scholar
- Ruse M (1996) From monad to man: the concept of progress in evolutionary biology. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Van Valen L (1976) Energy and evolution. Evol Theory 1:179–229Google Scholar