Advertisement

Biosemiotics

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 263–285 | Cite as

Macroevolutionary Freezing and the Janusian Nature of Evolvability: Is the Evolution (of Profound Biological Novelty) Going to End?

  • Jan Toman
  • Jaroslav FlegrEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

In a macroevolutionary timescale, evolvability itself evolves. Lineages are sorted based on their ability to generate adaptive novelties, which leads to the optimization of their genotype-phenotype map. The system of translation of genetic or epigenetic changes to the phenotype may reach significant horizontal and vertical complexity, and may even exhibit certain aspects of learning behaviour. This continuously evolving semiotic system probably enables the origin of complex yet functional and internally compatible adaptations. However, it also has a second, “darker”, side. As was pointed out by several authors, the same process gradually reduces the probability of the origination of significant evolutionary novelties. In a similar way to the evolution of societies, teachings, or languages, in which the growing number of internal linkages gradually solidifies their overall structure and the structure or interpretation of their constitutive elements, the evolutionary potential of lineages decreases during biological evolution. Possible adaptations become limited to small “peripheral” modifications. According to the Frozen Evolution theory, some of the proximate causes of this “macroevolutionary freezing” are more pronounced or present exclusively in sexual lineages. Sorting based on the highest (remaining) evolvability probably leads to the establishment of certain structural features of complex organisms, e.g. the modular character of their development and morphology. However, modules also “macroevolutionary freeze” whereas the hypothetical “thawing” of modules or their novel adaptive combinations becomes rarer and rarer. Some possible ways out of this dead end include the rearrangement of individual development, e.g. neoteny, radical simplification, i.e. sacculinization, and transition to a higher level of organization, e.g. symbiosis or symbiogenesis. The evolution of evolvability is essentially a biosemiotic process situated at the intersection of the genocentric modern synthesis and the evo-devo-centric extended synthesis. Therefore, evolvability may eventually connect these three not necessarily contradictory approaches.

Keywords

Evolvability Evolutionary theory Extended synthesis Macroevolution Stability-based sorting Frozen evolution theory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Charlie Lotterman for the final revisions of our text.

Funding

This work was supported by the Grant Agency of the Charles University in Prague (project no: 578416); and the Charles University Research Centre (UNCE 204004). The funding sources had no role in study design, the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, the writing of the report and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Arthur, W. (1982). A developmental approach to the problem of variation in evolutionary rates. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 18(3), 243–261.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1982.tb02038.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arthur, W. (1984). Mechanisms of morphological evolution: A combined genetic, developmental, and ecological approach. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Azevedo, R., Lohaus, R., Srinivasan, S., Dang, K., & Burch, C. (2006). Sexual reproduction selects for robustness and negative epistasis in artificial gene networks. Nature, 440(7080), 87–90.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04488.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonner, J. (1988). The evolution of complexity by means of natural selection. Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brigandt, I. (2015). From developmental constraint to evolvability: How concepts figure in explanation and disciplinary identity. In A. Love (Ed.), Conceptual change in biology (pp. 305–352). Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  6. Budd, G. (2006). On the origin and evolution of major morphological characters. Biological Reviews, 81(4), 609–628.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793106007135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Budd, G., & Jackson, I. (2016). Ecological innovations in the Cambrian and the origins of the crown group phyla (article). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 371(1685).  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0287,20150287.
  8. Calcott, B., & Sterelny, K. (2001). The major transitions in evolution revisited. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Callebaut, W., & Rasskin-Gutman, D. (2005). Modularity: Understanding the development and evolution of natural complex systems. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Canning, E., Okamura, B., Baker, J., Muller, R., & Rollinson, D. (2004). Biodiversity and evolution of the myxozoa. Advances in Parasitology, 56(56), 43–131.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-308X(03)56002-X.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carroll, S. (2001). Chance and necessity: The evolution of morphological complexity and diversity. Nature, 409(6823), 1102–1109.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35059227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carroll, S. (2005). Evolution at two levels: On genes and form. PLoS Biology, 3(7), 1159–1166.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clune, J., Mouret, J., & Lipson, H. (2013). The evolutionary origins of modularity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 280(1755), 20122863.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2863.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davidson, E., & Erwin, D. (2006). Gene regulatory networks and the evolution of animal body plans. Science, 311(5762), 796–800.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1113832.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davies, A. (2014) On the interaction of function, constraint and complexity in evolutionary systems (Doctoral disertation). University of Southampton.Google Scholar
  17. Dawkins, R. (1976). Selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dawkins, R. (1989). The evolution of evolvability. In Langton (Ed.), Artificial life (Santa Fe institute studies in the sciences of complexity, Vol. VI) (pp. 201–220). Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  19. de Beer, G. (1954). Archaeopteryx lithographica: A study based upon the British museum specimen. London: Trustees of the British Museum.Google Scholar
  20. Dececchi, T., & Larsson, H. (2013). Body and limb size dissociation at the origin of birds: Uncoupling allometric constraints across a macroevolutionary transition. Evolution, 67(9), 2741–2752.  https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dennett, D. (1995). Darwin's dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York, USA: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  22. DiMichele, W., & Bateman, R. (1996). Plant paleoecology and evolutionary inference: Two examples from the Paleozoic. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 90(3–4), 223–247.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-6667(95)00085-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Domes, K., Norton, R., Maraun, M., & Scheu, S. (2007). Reevolution of sexuality breaks Dollo's law. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(17), 7139–7144.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0700034104.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eble, G. (1998). The role of development in evolutionary radiations. In M. McKinney & J. Drake (Eds.), Biodiversity dynamics: Turnover of populations, taxa, and communities (pp. 132–161). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Eble, G. (1999). Originations: Land and sea compared. Geobios, 32(2), 223–234.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-6995(99)80036-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eble, G. (2005). Morphological modularity and macroevolution: Conceptual and empirical aspects. In W. Callebaut, & R.-G. D (Eds.), Modularity: Understanding the development and evolution of natural complex systems (pp. 221–238). Cambridge, London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Erwin, D. (2007). Disparity: Morphological pattern and developmental context. Palaeontology, 50, 57–73.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00614.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Erwin, D., Valentine, J., & Sepkoski, J. (1987). A comparative study of diversification events: The early Paleozoic versus the Mesozoic. Evolution, 41(6), 1177–1186.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2409086.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Espinosa-Soto, C. (2014). Evolution of modularity. In M. Benítez, O. Miramontes, & A. Valiente-Banuet (Eds.), Frontiers in ecology, evolution and complexity. CopIt-arXives: Mexico City, Mexico.Google Scholar
  30. Flegr, J. (1998). On the "origin" of natural selection by means of speciation. Rivista Di Biologia-Biology Forum, 91(2), 291–304.Google Scholar
  31. Flegr, J. (2010). Elastic, not plastic species: Frozen plasticity theory and the origin of adaptive evolution in sexually reproducing organisms. Biology Direct, 5, −.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6150-5-2.
  32. Flegr, J. (2013). Microevolutionary, macroevolutionary, ecological and taxonomical implications of punctuational theories of adaptive evolution. Biology Direct, 8.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6150-8-1.
  33. Flegr, J. (2015). Evoluční tání aneb O původu rodů. (On the Origin of Genera). Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
  34. Foote, M. (1997). The evolution of morphological diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 28, 129–152.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gerhart, J., & Kirschner, M. (2007). The theory of facilitated variation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 8582-8589.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701035104.
  36. Glenner, H., & Hebsgaard, M. (2006). Phylogeny and evolution of life history strategies of the parasitic barnacles (Crustacea, Cirripedia, Rhizocephala). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 41(3), 528–538.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2006.06.004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gould, S. (1989). Wonderful life: The burgess shale and the nature of history. New York, London: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  38. Haiyang, H., Masahiro, U., Song, G., Kotaro, S., Tsai-Ming, L., Fang, L., et al. (2017). Constrained vertebrate evolution by pleiotropic genes. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1(11), 1722–1730.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0318-0.
  39. Hansen, T. (2003). Is modularity necessary for evolvability? Remarks on the relationship between pleiotropy and evolvability. Biosystems, 69(2–3), 83–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0303-2647(02)00132-6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hansen, T. (2016). Quantitative genetics of evolvability. In R. Kliman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary Biology (pp. 83–89). Oxford: Elsevier Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hoekstra, H., & Coyne, J. (2007). The locus of evolution: Evo devo and the genetics of adaptation. Evolution, 61(5), 995–1016.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00105.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hoffmeyer, J., & Stjernfelt, F. (2016). The great chain of Semiosis. Investigating the steps in the evolution of semiotic competence. Biosemiotics, 9(1), 7–29.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-015-9247-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hughes, M., Gerber, S., & Wills, M. (2013). Clades reach highest morphological disparity early in their evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(34), 13875–13879.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1302642110.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ikemoto, Y., & Sekiyama, K. (2014). Modular network evolution under selection for robustness to noise. Physical Review E, 89(4).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.89.042705.
  45. Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. (2005). Evolution in four dimensions. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Jablonski, D. (2007). Scale and hierarchy in macroevolution. Palaeontology, 50, 87–109.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00615.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kemp, T. (2007). The concept of correlated progression as the basis of a model for the evolutionary origin of major new taxa. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 274(1618), 1667–1673.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.0288.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kirschner, M., & Gerhart, J. (1998). Evolvability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95(15), 8420–8427.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.15.8420.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kirschner, M., & Gerhart, J. (2005). The plausibility of life: Resolving Darwin's dilemma. New Haven, USA: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Laland, K., Uller, T., Feldman, M., Sterelny, K., Müller, G. B., Moczek, A., Jablonka, E., Odling-Smee, J., Wray, G. A., Hoekstra, H. E., Futuyma, D. J., Lenski, R. E., Mackay, T. F. C., Schluter, D., & Strassmann, J. E. (2014). Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Nature, 514(7521), 161–164.  https://doi.org/10.1038/514161a.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Laland, K., Uller, T., Fellman, M., Sterelny, K., Muller, G., Moczek, A., et al. (2015). The extended evolutionary synthesis: Its structure, assumptions and predictions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 282(1813).  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019
  52. Lee, M., Soubrier, J., & Edgecombe, G. (2013). Rates of phenotypic and genomic evolution during the Cambrian explosion. Current Biology, 23(19), 1889–1895.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.07.055.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lewontin, R. (1978). Adaptation. Scientific American, 239(3), 212–231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lindholm, M. (2015). DNA dispose, but subjects decide. Learning and the extended synthesis. Biosemiotics, 8(3), 443–461.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-015-9242-3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lynch, V., & Wagner, G. (2010). Did egg-laying boas break dollo's law? Phylogenetic evidence for reversal to oviparity in sand boas (Eryx: Boidae). Evolution, 64(1), 207–216.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00790.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lynch, M., Burger, R., Butcher, D., & Gabriel, W. (1993). The mutational meltdown in asexual populations. Journal of Heredity, 84(5), 339–344.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Manser, T. (1990). The efficiency of antibody affinity maturation: Can the rate of B-cell division be limiting? Immunology Today, 11(9), 305–309.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-5699(90)90124-R.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Margulis, L., & Fester, R. (1991). Symbiosis as a source of evolutionary innovation: Speciation and morphogenesis. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  59. Markoš, A. (2014). Biosphere as semiosphere: Variations on Lotman. Sign System Studies, 42(4), 487–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Markoš, A. (2015). The birth and life of species–cultures. Biosemiotics, 9(1), 73–84.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-015-9252-1.
  61. Markoš, A., & Cvrčková, F. (2013). The Meaning(s) of Information, Code … and Meaning. Biosemiotics, 6(1), 61–75.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-012-9155-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Markoš, A., & Das, P. (2016). Levels or domains of life? Biosemiotics, 9(3), 319–330.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-016-9271-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Markoš, A., & Faltýnek, D. (2011). Language metaphors of life. Biosemiotics, 4(2), 171–200.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-010-9097-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Marshall, C., & Valentine, J. (2010). The importance of preadapted genomes in the origin of the animal bodyplans and the cambrian explosion. Evolution, 64(5), 1189–1201.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00908.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Maynard Smith, J., & Szathmáry, E. (2010). The major transitions in evolution. New York: Oxford University Press Inc..Google Scholar
  66. Mayr, E. (2003). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. In Cambridge, Massacusetts. London, UK: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  67. McShea, D. (1996). Metazoan complexity and evolution: Is there a trend? Perspective. Evolution, 50(2), 477–492.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2410824.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. McShea, D. (2000). Functional complexity in organisms: Parts as proxies. Biology and Philosophy, 15(5), 641–668.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006695908715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. McShea, D. (2001a). The hierarchical structure of organisms: A scale and documentation of a trend in the maximum. Paleobiology, 27(2), 405–423.  https://doi.org/10.1666/0094-8373(2001)027<0405:THSOOA>2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. McShea, D. (2001b). The minor transitions in hierarchical evolution and the question of a directional bias. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14(3), 502–518.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2001.00283.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Meyer, A., & Van de Peer, Y. (2005). From 2R to 3R: Evidence for a fish-specific genome duplication (FSGD). BioEssays, 27(9), 937–945.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.20293.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Muller, H. (1964). The relation of recombination to mutational advance. Mutation Research, 1(1), 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Murchison, E. (2008). Clonally transmissible cancers in dogs and Tasmanian devils. Oncogene, 27, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. OED Online. (2017). "evolvability, n.". Online: Oxford University Press. www.oed.com/view/Entry/269743. Accessed 25 September 2017.
  75. Ostdiek, G. (2011). Cast in plastic: Semiotic plasticity and the pragmatic reading of Darwin. Biosemiotics, 4(1), 69–82.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-010-9108-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pepper, J. (2000). The evolution of modularity in genome architecture. In C. Maley, & E. Boudreau (Eds.), Artificial Life 7 Workshop Proceedings (pp. 9–12).Google Scholar
  77. Pigliucci, M. (2008). Opinion - is evolvability evolvable? Nature Reviews Genetics, 9(1), 75–82.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2278. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Pigliucci, M. (2009). An extended synthesis for evolutionary Biology. Year in Evolutionary Biology, 2009(1168), 218–228.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04578.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pigliucci, M., & Müller, G. (2010). Evolution: The extended synthesis. USA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Queller, D. (1997). Cooperators since life began. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 72(2), 184–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Queller, D. (2000). Relatedness and the fraternal major transitions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 355(1403), 1647–1655.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2000.0727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rasnicyn, A. (2005). Collected works in evolutionary biology (Izbrannye trudy po evolucionnoj biologii). Moscow: Tovarisevstvo naucnych izdanii KMK.Google Scholar
  83. Rasskin-Gutman, D. (2005). Modularity: Jumping forms within morphospace. In W. Callebaut, & R.-G. D (Eds.), Modularity: Understanding the development and evolution of natural complex systems (pp. 207–219). Cambridge, London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  84. Riedl, R. (1977). A systems-analytical approach to macro-evolutionary phenomena. Quarterly Review of Biology, 52(4), 351–370.  https://doi.org/10.1086/410123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Riedl, R. (1978). Order in living organisms: A systems analysis of evolution. New York, USA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  86. Rosa, D. (1899). La Riduzione progressiva della variabilità e i suoi rapporti coll'estinzione e coll'origine delle specie. Torino: Clausen.Google Scholar
  87. Rutherford, S., & Lindquist, S. (1998). Hsp90 as a capacitor for morphological evolution. Nature, 396(6709), 336–342.  https://doi.org/10.1038/24550.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Schank, J., & Wimsatt, W. (1986). (1986). Generative entrenchment and evolution. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association Number Two: Symposia and Invited Papers, 1986, 33–60.Google Scholar
  89. Schlosser, G. (2002). Modularity and the units of evolution. Theory in Biosciences, 121(1), 1–80.  https://doi.org/10.1078/1431-7613-00049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Schlosser, G. (2004). The role of modules in development and evolution. In G. Schlosser & G. Wagner (Eds.), Modularity in development and evolution (pp. 519–582). Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  91. Schlosser, G., & Wagner, G. (2004). Modularity in development and evolution. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  92. Schoch, R. (2010). Riedl's burden and the body plan: Selection, constraint, and deep time. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B-Molecular and Developmental Evolution, 314B(1), 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.b.21300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Sharov, A. (2014). Evolutionary constraints or opportunities? Biosystems, 123, 9–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2014.06.004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Sharov, A. (2016). Evolutionary biosemiotics and multilevel construction networks. Biosemiotics, 9(3), 399–416.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-016-9269-0.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Shcherbakov, V. (2012). Stasis is an inevitable consequence of every successful evolution. Biosemiotics, 5(2), 227–245.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-011-9122-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Shcherbakov, V. (2013). Biological species as a form of existence, the higher form. In I. Pavlinov (Ed.), The species problem - ongoing issues (pp. 65–91). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.Google Scholar
  97. Simon, H. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), 467–482.Google Scholar
  98. Stern, D., & Orgogozo, V. (2008). The loci of evolution: How predictable is genetic evolution ? Evolution, 62(9), 2155–2177.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00450.x.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Stern, D., & Orgogozo, V. (2009). Is genetic evolution predictable? Science, 323(5915), 746–751.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1158997.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Szathmáry, E. (2015). Toward major evolutionary transitions theory 2.0. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(33), 10104–10111.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1421398112.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Szathmáry, E., & Maynard Smith, J. (1995). The major evolutionary transitions. Nature, 374(6519), 227–232.  https://doi.org/10.1038/374227a0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Thomas, R. (2005). Hierarchical integration of modular structures in the evolution of animal skeletons. In W. Callebaut, & R.-G. D (Eds.), Modularity: Understanding the development and evolution of natural complex systems (pp. 239–258). Cambridge, London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  103. Toman, J., & Flegr, J. (2017). Stability-based sorting: The forgotten process behind (not only) biological evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 435, 29–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Turney, P. (1999) 'Increasing Evolvability considered as a large-scale trend in evolution' Proceedings of the 1999 genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO-99). Orlando, FL: National Research Council of Canada.Google Scholar
  105. Valentine, J. (1995). Why no new phyla after the cambrian? Genome and ecospace hypotheses revisited. PALAIOS, 10(2), 190–194.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3515182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Vermeij, G. (1973). Biological versatility and earth history. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 70(7), 1936–1938.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.70.7.1936.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. von Uexküll, J. (1909). Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. Berlin: J. Springer.Google Scholar
  108. Wagner, G. (1995). The biological role of homologues: A building block hypothesis. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie - Abhandlungen, 19, 279–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Wagner, A. (2005). Robustness and evolvability in living systems. Princeton, USA: University Press Princeton.Google Scholar
  110. Wagner, G., & Altenberg, L. (1996). Perspective: Complex adaptations and the evolution of evolvability. Evolution, 50(3), 967–976.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2410639.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wagner, G., & Laubichler, M. (2004). Rupert Riedl and the re-synthesis of evolutionary and developmental biology: Body plans and evolvability. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B-Molecular and Developmental Evolution, 302B(1), 92–102.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.b.20005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wagner, G., Mezey, J., & Calabretta, R. (2005). Natural selection and the origin of modules. In W. Callebaut & D. Rasskin-Gutman (Eds.), Modularity: Understanding the development and evolution of natural complex systems (pp. 33–49). Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  113. Wagner, G., Pavlicev, M., & Cheverud, J. (2007). The road to modularity. Nature Reviews Genetics, 8(12), 921–931.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2267.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Watson, R., & Szathmary, E. (2016). How can evolution learn? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31(2), 147–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.11.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Watson, R., Wagner, G., Pavlicev, M., Weinreich, D., & Mills, R. (2014). The evolution of phenotypic correlations and “developmental memory”. Evolution, 68(4), 1124–1138.  https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12337.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Watson, R., Mills, R., Buckley, C., Kouvaris, K., Jackson, A., Powers, S., et al. (2016). Evolutionary connectionism: Algorithmic principles underlying the evolution of biological organisation in Evo-Devo, Evo-eco and evolutionary transitions. Evolutionary Biology, 43(4), 553–581.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-015-9358-z.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Webster, M. (2007). A Cambrian peak in morphological variation within trilobite species. Science, 317(5837), 499–502.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1142964.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. West-Eberhard, M. (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  119. Whiting, M., Bradler, S., & Maxwell, T. (2003). Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects. Nature, 421(6920), 264–267.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01313.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Wimsatt, W. (2013). The role of generative entrenchment and robustness in the evolution of complexity. In C. Lineweaver, P. Davies, & M. Ruse (Eds.), Complexity and the arrow of time (pp. 308–331). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Wimsatt, W., & Schank, J. (2004). Generative entrenchment, modularity, and evolvability: When genic selection meets the whole organism. In G. Schlosser & G. Wagner (Eds.), Modularity in development and evolution (pp. 359–394). Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Evolutionary Biology, Department of Philosophy and History of Sciences, Faculty of ScienceCharles University in PraguePrague 2Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations