Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 30, Issue 5, pp 653–670 | Cite as

The proximate–ultimate distinction and evolutionary developmental biology: causal irrelevance versus explanatory abstraction

  • Raphael Scholl
  • Massimo Pigliucci
Article

Abstract

Mayr’s proximate–ultimate distinction has received renewed interest in recent years. Here we discuss its role in arguments about the relevance of developmental to evolutionary biology. We show that two recent critiques of the proximate–ultimate distinction fail to explain why developmental processes in particular should be of interest to evolutionary biologists. We trace these failures to a common problem: both critiques take the proximate–ultimate distinction to neglect specific causal interactions in nature. We argue that this is implausible, and that the distinction should instead be understood in the context of explanatory abstractions in complete causal models of evolutionary change. Once the debate is reframed in this way, the proximate–ultimate distinction’s role in arguments against the theoretical significance of evo-devo is seen to rely on a generally implicit premise: that the variation produced by development is abundant, small and undirected. We show that a “lean version” of the proximate–ultimate distinction can be maintained even when this isotropy assumption does not hold. Finally, we connect these considerations to biological practice. We show that the investigation of developmental constraints in evolutionary transitions has long relied on a methodology which foregrounds the explanatory role of developmental processes. It is, however, entirely compatible with the lean version of the proximate–ultimate distinction.

Keywords

Proximate–ultimate distinction Ernst Mayr Evolutionary developmental biology Niche construction Plasticity Abstraction Methodology Pere Alberch 

Notes

Acknowledgments

An early version of this paper was presented at the second meeting of the European Society for Evolutionary Developmental Biology in Ghent, Belgium, in 2008. We are particularly grateful to the following for comments on earlier drafts of the paper: Mark Jonas, Kärin Nickelsen, Tim Räz, and the members of the Lake Geneva Biology Interest Group (LG-BIG). We have also greatly benefitted from the comments of an anonymous referee for Biology & Philosophy.

References

  1. Alberch P (1982) Developmental constraints in evolutionary processes. In: Bonner JT (ed) Evolution and development. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 313–332Google Scholar
  2. Alberch P (1985) Developmental constraints: why St. Bernards often have an extra digit and poodles never do. Am Nat 126(3):430–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alberch P, Gale EA (1985) A developmental analysis of an evolutionary trend: digital reduction in amphibians. Evolution 39(1):8–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amundson R (1994) Two concepts of constraint: adaptationism and the challenge from developmental biology. Philos Sci 61(4):556–578. http://www.jstor.org/stable/188335 Google Scholar
  5. Amundson R (2005) The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought. Roots of Evo-Devo. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ariew A (2003) Ernst Mayr’s’ ultimate/proximate’ distinction reconsidered and reconstructed. Biol Philos 18(4):553–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arthur W (2001) Developmental drive: an important determinant of the direction of phenotypic evolution. Evol Dev 3(4):271–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beatty J (1994) The proximate/ultimate distinction in the multiple careers of Ernst Mayr. Biol Philos 9(3):333–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brigandt I (2010) Beyond reduction and pluralism: toward an epistemology of explanatory integration in biology. Erkenntnis 73(3):295–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calcott B (2013) Why how and why aren’t enough: more problems with Mayr’s proximate–ultimate distinction. Biol Philos 28:767–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Darwin CR (1859) On the origin of species. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Dickins TE, Barton RA (2012) Reciprocal causation and the proximate–ultimate distinction. Biol Philos 28:747–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Futuyma DJ (1998) Evolutionary biology. Sinauer Associates Incorporated, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  14. Gardner A (2013) Ultimate explanations concern the adaptive rationale for organism design. Biol Philos 28:787–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gompel N, Prud’homme B, Wittkopp PJ, Kassner VA, Carroll SB (2005) Chance caught on the wing: cis-regulatory evolution and the origin of pigment patterns in drosophila. Nature 433(7025):481–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gould SJ (1983) The hardening of the modern synthesis. In: Grene M (ed) Dimensions of Darwinism: themes and counter themes in twentieth-century evolutionary theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Gould SJ (1989) A developmental constraint in cerion, with comments of the definition and interpretation of constraint in evolution. Evolution 43(3):516–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard University Press, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  19. Gould SJ, Lewontin RC (1979) The spandrels of san marco and the panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc Biol Sci 205(1161):581–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haig D (2013) Proximate and ultimate causes: how come? And what for? Biol Philos Biol Philos 28(5):781–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hochman A (2012) The phylogeny fallacy and the ontogeny fallacy. Biol Philos 28(4):593–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hodgkinson A, Eyre-Walker A (2011) Variation in the mutation rate across mammalian genomes. Nat Rev Genet 12(11):756–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knell S, Weber M (2009) Menschliches Leben. De Gruyter, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laland KN, Sterelny K, Odling-Smee J, Hoppitt W, Uller T (2011) Adaptive evolution of pelvic reduction in sticklebacks by recurrent deletion of a pitx1 enhancer. Science 334(6062):1512–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laland KN, Odling-Smee J, Hoppitt W, Uller T (2012) More on how and why: cause and effect in biology revisited. Biol Philos 28(5):1–27Google Scholar
  26. Love A (2006) Evolutionary morphology and evo-devo: hierarchy and novelty. Theory Biosci 124(3–4):317–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Machamer P, Darden L, Craver CF (2000) Thinking about mechanisms. Philos Sci 67(1):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maynard-Smith J, Burian R, Kauffman S, Alberch P (1985) Developmental constraints and evolution: a perspective from the mountain lake conference on development and evolution. Q Rev Biol 60(3):265–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayr E (1961) Cause and effect in biology. Science 134(3489):1501–1506. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1707986 Google Scholar
  30. Mayr E (1984) The triumph of evolutionary synthesis. Times Lit Suppl 2:1261–1262Google Scholar
  31. Mayr E (1997) The objects of selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94(6):2091–2094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Minelli A (2003) The development of animal form. Ontogeny, morphology, and evolution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Odling-Smee FJ, Laland KN, Feldman MW (2003) Niche construction: the neglected process in evolution. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  34. Pigliucci M, Boudry M (2013) Prove it! The burden of proof game in science vs. pseudoscience disputes. Philosophia. doi: 10.1007/s11406-013-9500-z
  35. Prud’homme B, Gompel N, Carroll SB (2007) Emerging principles of regulatory evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(S1):8605–8612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sober E (1998) Six sayings about adaptationism. In: Hull DL, Ruse M (eds) The philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Wagner GP (2000) What is the promise of developmental evolution? Part I: why is developmental biology necessary to explain evolutionary innovations? J Exp Zool 288(2):95–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wagner GP (2001) What is the promise of developmental evolution? Part II: a causal explanation of evolutionary innovations may be impossible. J Exp Zool 291(4):305–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wagner GP, Larsson HCE (2003) What is the promise of developmental evolution? III. The crucible of developmental evolution. J Exp Zool Part B Mol Dev Evol 300(1):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wallace B (1986) Can embryologists contribute to an understanding of evolutionary mechanisms? In: Bechtel W (ed) Integrating scientific disciplines. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  41. West-Eberhard MJ (2003) Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. West-Eberhard MJ (2005) Phenotypic accommodation: adaptive innovation due to developmental plasticity. J Exp Zool Part B Mol Dev Evol 304B(6):610–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.History and Philosophy of Science, Institute of PhilosophyUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Philosophy Program, The Graduate CenterCity University of New YorkNew York CityUSA

Personalised recommendations