Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, 34:26 | Cite as

Contingency’s causality and structural diversity

  • Alison K. McConwellEmail author
Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Paleobiology and Philosophy

Abstract

What is the relationship between evolutionary contingency and diversity? The evolutionary contingency thesis emphasizes dependency relations and chance as the hallmarks of evolution. While contingency can be destructive of, for example, the fragile and complex dynamics in an ecosystem, I will mainly focus on the productive or causal aspect of contingency for a particular sort of diversity. There are many sorts of diversities: Gould is most famous for his diversity-to-decimation model, which includes disparate body plans distinguishing different phyla. However, structural diversity construed more broadly spans scales, such as organization in and among cells, structural arrangements and biomechanics on various scales, and even the profile of ancestor-descendent relationships or community structure of interactions within ecosystems. By focusing on stochastic processes in contingent evolution, I argue that contingency causes structural diversity. Specifically, I focus on the plurality of structural types of cells, genetic codes, and phyla diversity as case studies.

Keywords

Contingency Diversity Stochasticity Chance Structure Function Typology Classification Pluralism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Derek Turner and Joyce Havstad for providing challenges to contingency’s causality. They helped to shape a significant portion of this paper. Thanks to Will Bausman for the use of his wonderful sink metaphor, to Celso Neto for comments on previous versions, to the two reviewers whose comments significantly improved the manuscript, and to Marc Ereshefsky and Adrian Currie for their continued guidance on this project overall. Finally, I’m indebted to Ken Waters and everyone in Calgary’s research group From Biological Practice to Scientific Metaphysics for conversations about causation, as well as to Alan Love for his feedback on the very early stages of this work, and everyone at the Philosophy of Paleobiology workshop where these ideas were discussed. And of course, the funding from the John Templeton Foundation was much appreciated during my time at the University of Calgary where a significant portion of this paper was developed, as well as the funding through the Patrick Suppes Center for The History and Philosophy of Science at Stanford University where the paper was finalized.

References

  1. Arendt D, Musser JM, Baker CVH, Bergman A, Cepko C, Erwin DH, Pavlicev M, Schlosser G, Widder S, Laubichler MD, Wagner GP (2016) The origin and evolution of cell types. Nat Rev Genet 17(12):744–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babonis LS, Martindale MQ (2017) Phylogenetic evidence for the modular evolution of metazoan signalling pathways. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 372:20150477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bausman WC (2016) Neutral theory, biased world. Dissertation. University of MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  4. Beatty J (1980) What’s Wrong with the Received View of Evolutionary Theory ? In: PSA: proceedings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association, vol 1980, no 2, pp 397–426Google Scholar
  5. Beatty J (1992) Random drift. In: Keller E, Lloyd L (eds) Keywords in evolutionary biology. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Beatty J (1994) Theoretical pluralism in biology, including systematics. In: Grande L, Rieppel O (eds) Interpreting the hierarchy of nature: from systematic patterns to evolutionary process theories. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 33–60Google Scholar
  7. Beatty J (2006) Replaying life’s tape. J Philos 103:336–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beatty J (1995) The evolutionary contingency thesis. In: Wolters G, Lennox JG (eds) Concepts, theories, and rationality in the biological sciences, the second Pittsburgh-Konstanz colloquium in the philosophy of science, University of Pittsburgh Press, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  9. Ben-Menahem Y (1997) Historical Contingency. Ratio: An Internation J Anal Philos 10(2):99–107Google Scholar
  10. Brigandt I (2007) Typology now: homology and developmental constraints explain evolvability. Biol Philos 22:709–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brigandt I (2017) Typology and natural kinds in evo-devo. In: de la Rosa LN, Müller G (eds) Evolutionary developmental biology: a reference guide. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  12. Brigandt I (2015) From developmental constraint to evolvability: how concepts figure in explanation and disciplinary identity. In: Love AC (ed) Conceptual change in biology: scientific and philosophical perspectives on evolution and development, Springer, Dordrecht, pp 305–325Google Scholar
  13. Briggs DEG, Fortey RA (2005) Wonderful strife: systematics, stem groups, and the phylogenetic signal of the cambrian radiation. Paleobiology 31(2):94–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brysse K (2008) From weird wonders to stem lineages: the second reclassification of the Burgess Shale fauna. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 39:298–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cavalier-Smith T (2017) Origin of animal multicellularity: precursors, causes, consequences—the choanoflagellate/sponge transition, neurogenesis, and the Cambrian explosion. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 372:20150476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cornish-Bowden A, Pereto J, Cardenas ML (2014) Biochemistry and evolutionary biology: two disciplines that need each other. J Biosci 39:13–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cresswell M, Mares E, Rini A (2016) Logical modalities from aristotle to carnap: the story of necessity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crick FH (1968) The origin of the genetic code. J Mol Biol 38(6):357–379Google Scholar
  19. Currie A (2018) Rock, Bone, and Ruin: an optimist’s guide to the historical sciences. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. da Costa C, Galembeck E (2016) The evolution of the Krebs cycle: a promising subject fork meaningful learning of biochemistry. Biochem Mol Bio Educ 44(3):288–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Darlington CD (1939/1958) The evolution of genetic systems. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Desjardins E (2011) Reflections on path dependence and irreversibility: lessons from evolutionary biology. Philos Sci 78(5):724–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Doneley R (2016) The clinical examination. In: Samour J (ed) Avian medicine, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 49–72Google Scholar
  24. Elzanowski A, Jim O (2019) The genetic codes. National center of biotechnology information. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi
  25. Erwin DH (2016) Wonderful life revisited: chance and contingency in the Ediacaran–Cambrian radiation. In: Ramsey G, Spence C (eds) Chance in evolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 277–298Google Scholar
  26. Foote M (1993) Discordance and concordance between morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 19:185–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Garcia-Algarra J, Pastor JM, Iriondo JM, Galeano J (2017) Ranking of critical species to preserve the functionality of mutualistic networks using the k-core decomposition. PeerJ 5:e3321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gould SJ (1989) Wonderful Life. W.W. Norton and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Gould SJ (1991) The disparity of the Burgess Shale Athropod Fauna and the limits of cladistics analysis: why we must strive to quantify morphospace. Paleobiology 17(4):411–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gould SJ (1993) How to analyze the burgess shale disparity: a reply to Ridley. Paleobiology 19:52223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. The President and Fellows of Harvard College, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Gould SJ, Lewontin RC (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Contain Pap Biol Character R Soc G B 205(1161):581–598Google Scholar
  33. Hull D (1987) Geneological actors in ecological roles roles. Biol Philos 2:168–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jordano P (2016) Chasing Ecological Interactions. PLoS Biol 14(9):e1002559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jukes TH, Osawa S (1990) The genetic code in mitochondria and chloroplasts. Experientia 46(11–12):1117–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. King HM, Shubin NH, Coates MI, Hale ME (2011) Behavioural evidence for the evolution of walking and bounding before terrestiality in sarcopterygian fishes. PNAS 108(52):21146–21151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kubyshkin V, Acevedo-Rocha CG, Budisa N (2018) On universal Coding events in protein biogenesis. Biosystems 164:16–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levin M, Anavy L, Cole AG, Winter E, Mostov N, Khair S et al (2016) The mid-developmental transition and the evolution of body plans. Nature 531:637–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Love AC (2009) Typology reconfigured: from the metaphysics of essentialism to the epistemology of representation. Acta Biotheor 57:51–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maclaurin J, Sterelny K (2008) What is biodiversity?. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martin WF, Garg S, Zimorski V (2015) Endosymbiotic theories for eukaryotic origin. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 370:20140330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McConwell AK (2017) Contingency and individuality: a plurality of evolutionary individuality types. Philos Sci 84(5):1104–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McConwell AK, Currie A (2017) Gouldian arguments and sources of contingency. Biol Philos 32(2):243–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Millstein R (2006) Discussion of “four case studies on chance in evolution”: philosophical themes and questions. Philos Sci 73(5):678–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morris SC (2003) Life’s solution: inevitable humans in a lonely universe. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mougi A, Kondoh M (2012) Diversity of interaction types and ecological community stability. Science 337:349–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mukai T, Hayashi A, Iraha F, Sato A, Ohtake K, Yokoyama S, Sakamoto K (2010) Codon reassignment in the Escherichia coli genetic code. Nucleic Acids Res 38(22):8188–8195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Noble D (2013) Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology. Exp Physiol 98(8):1235–1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Penumaka A (2011) The cambrian explosion and the origins of diversity. Harvard Sci Rev 44–47Google Scholar
  51. Pigluicci Massimo (2008) Is evolvability evolvable? Nat Rev Genet 9:75–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Powell R, Mariscal C (2015) Convergent evolution as natural experiment: the tape of life reconsidered. Interface Focus 5:20150040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ridley M (1993) Analysis of the burgess shale. Paleobiology 19(4):519–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schank JC, Wimsatt WC (1986) Generative entrenchment and evolution. In: PSA proceedings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association, vol 1986, pp 33–60Google Scholar
  55. Soyer OS, Bonhoeffer S (2006) Evolution of complexity in signalling pathways. PNAS 103(44):16337–16342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Turner Derek (2011) Gould’s replay revisited. Biol Philos 26:65–79.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-010-9228-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Turner D (2015) Historical contingency and the explanation of evolutionary trends. In: Malaterre C, Braillard P-A (eds) Biological explanation: an enquiry into the diversity of explanatory patterns in the life sciences. Springer, New York, pp 73–90.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9822-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vickaryous MK, Hall BK (2006) Human cell type diversity, evolution, development, and classification with special reference to cells derived from the neural crest. Biol Rev 81:425–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wills MA, Briggs DEG, Fortey RA (1994) Disparity as an evolutionary index: a comparison of Cambrian and recent arthropods. Paleobiology 20(2):93–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Winkler MW, Shoa G, Tran ST, Xie Y, Thomasy S, Raghunathan VK, Murphy C, Brown DJ, Jester JV (2015) A comparative study of vertebrate corneal structure: the evolution of a refractive lens. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 56(4):2764–2772CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Patrick Suppes Center for The History and Philosophy of ScienceStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations