Advertisement

Theory in Biosciences

, Volume 137, Issue 2, pp 169–184 | Cite as

The emerging structure of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: where does Evo-Devo fit in?

  • Alejandro Fábregas-TejedaEmail author
  • Francisco Vergara-SilvaEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) debate is gaining ground in contemporary evolutionary biology. In parallel, a number of philosophical standpoints have emerged in an attempt to clarify what exactly is represented by the EES. For Massimo Pigliucci, we are in the wake of the newest instantiation of a persisting Kuhnian paradigm; in contrast, Telmo Pievani has contended that the transition to an EES could be best represented as a progressive reformation of a prior Lakatosian scientific research program, with the extension of its Neo-Darwinian core and the addition of a brand-new protective belt of assumptions and auxiliary hypotheses. Here, we argue that those philosophical vantage points are not the only ways to interpret what current proposals to ‘extend’ the Modern Synthesis-derived ‘standard evolutionary theory’ (SET) entail in terms of theoretical change in evolutionary biology. We specifically propose the image of the emergent EES as a vast network of models and interweaved representations that, instantiated in diverse practices, are connected and related in multiple ways. Under that assumption, the EES could be articulated around a paraconsistent network of evolutionary theories (including some elements of the SET), as well as models, practices and representation systems of contemporary evolutionary biology, with edges and nodes that change their position and centrality as a consequence of the co-construction and stabilization of facts and historical discussions revolving around the epistemic goals of this area of the life sciences. We then critically examine the purported structure of the EES—published by Laland and collaborators in 2015—in light of our own network-based proposal. Finally, we consider which epistemic units of Evo-Devo are present or still missing from the EES, in preparation for further analyses of the topic of explanatory integration in this conceptual framework.

Keywords

Extended Evolutionary Synthesis Evolutionary biology Paradigm Scientific research program Epistemic units Evo-Devo 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the advice and assistance of Fátima Sofía Ávila-Cascajares during the conception of Fig. 1, and thank Casandra Lizbeth Méndez-Martínez for her aid in the design of Fig. 1. Diana Martínez Almaguer and Julio César Montero Rojas (Graphic Design Unit, Instituto de Biología, UNAM) assisted in the design of all figures of the article. We also thank Mario Casanueva for discussions and his critical remarks about the structure of the EES. The comments and feedback received from Alan Love and Kevin Laland during the presentation of this work at the 2017 Meeting of the International Society for History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Biology (ISHPSSB) in São Paulo, Brazil, were valuable for the preparation of revised versions of this work; at the same meeting, we also benefited from conversations with Eva Jablonka, Marion Lamb and Jan Baedke about the sociological, epistemological and political dimensions involved in the EES debate. AFT is indebted to participants in the poster session of the Sixth Meeting of the European Society for Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Uppsala, July 2016), especially to Mark Jonas. AFT also thanks Francesco Suman for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript and discussions on the structure of the EES and the pluralist landscape of contemporary evolutionism (Washington D.C., September 2016). FVS acknowledges facilities provided by libraries at the Instituto de Biología, UNAM and other academic institutions in Mexico City, Uppsala and London during his long-term research projects on the historiography, epistemology and sociology of biology. Finally, we thank an anonymous reviewer for critical comments which substantially improved the original manuscript. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest, and that they did not receive any specific funding during the research and writing of this work.

References

  1. Abouheif E, Sears K (2015) It’s time to get together: announcing the new society for evolutionary developmental biology in the Americas. Evol Dev 17:1.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ede.12114 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Amundson R (2005) The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Arthur W (1997) The origin of animal body plans. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Arthur W (2002) The emerging conceptual framework of evolutionary developmental biology. Nature 415:757–764PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Arthur W (2011) Evolution: a developmental approach. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  6. Bateson P, Gluckman P (2011) Plasticity, robustness, development and evolution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonduriansky R (2012) Rethinking heredity, again. Trends Ecol Evol 27:330–336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonduriansky R, Day T (2018) Extended Heredity. A New Understanding of Inheritance and Evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton and OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonner JT (ed) (1982) Evolution and development. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. Brigandt I (2010) Beyond reduction and pluralism: toward an epistemology of explanatory integration in biology. Erkenntnis 73:295–311Google Scholar
  11. Brigandt I, Love AC (2010) Evolutionary novelty and the Evo-Devo synthesis: field notes. Evol Biol 37:93–99Google Scholar
  12. Brigandt I, Love AC (2012) Conceptualizing evolutionary novelty: moving beyond definitional debates. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 318:417–427PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Brooks DR (2011) The extended synthesis: something old, something new. Evol Edu Outreach 4:3–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0304-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burian RM (1988) Challenges to the evolutionary synthesis. In: Hecht MK, Wallace B (eds) Evolutionary biology, vol 23. Springer, New York, pp 247–269Google Scholar
  15. Callebaut W (2010) The dialectics of dis/unity in the evolutionary synthesis and its extensions. In: Pigliucci M, Müller GB (eds) Evolution: the extended synthesis. MIT Press, Boston, pp 443–481Google Scholar
  16. Callebaut W, Rasskin-Gutman D (eds) (2005) Modularity: understanding the development and evolution of natural complex systems. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Caponi G (2012) Réquiem por el centauro. Aproximación epistemológica a la biología evolucionaria del desarrollo. Centro de Estudios Filosóficos, Políticos y Sociales Vicente Lombardo Toledano, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  18. Carroll SB (2008) Evo-Devo and an expanding evolutionary synthesis: a genetic theory of morphological evolution. Cell 134:25–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Carroll SB, Grenier JK, Weatherbee SD (2001) From DNA to diversity: molecular genetics and the evolution of animal design. Blackwell Science, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  20. Casanueva M (2016) Redes y paisajes conceptuales en la Evo-Devo. Metatheoria 5:83–97Google Scholar
  21. Casanueva M, Martínez M (2014) Marcos causales y síntesis teóricas. Acta Scientiae 16:330–344Google Scholar
  22. Charlesworth D, Barton NH, Charlesworth B (2017) The sources of adaptive variation. Proc Biol Sci 284:20162864.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.2864 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Craig L (2010) The so-called extended synthesis and population genetics. Biol Theory 5:117–123Google Scholar
  24. Craig LR (2015) Neo-Darwinism and Evo-Devo: an argument for theoretical pluralism in evolutionary biology. Perspect Sci 23:243–279Google Scholar
  25. Danchin E (2013) Avatars of information: towards an inclusive evolutionary synthesis. Trends Ecol Evol 28:351–358PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Darden L (1986) Relations among fields in the evolutionary synthesis. In: Bechtel W (ed) Integrating scientific disciplines. Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 113–123Google Scholar
  27. Davidson EH (2006) The regulatory genome: gene regulatory networks in development and evolution. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  28. Delisle RG (2009) Les philosophies du néodarwinisme: Conceptions divergentes sur l’homme et le sens de l’évolution. Presses Universitaires de France, ParisGoogle Scholar
  29. Delisle RG (2018) From Charles Darwin to the evolutionary synthesis: weak and diffused connections only. In: Delisle RG (ed) The Darwinian tradition in context. Research programs in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 133–167Google Scholar
  30. Depew DJ, Weber BH (2011) The fate of Darwinism: evolution after the modern synthesis. Biol Theory 6:89–102Google Scholar
  31. Depew DJ, Weber BH (2013) Challenging Darwinism: expanding, extending, replacing. In: Ruse M (ed) The Cambridge encyclopedia of Darwin and evolutionary thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 405–411Google Scholar
  32. Dieckmann U, Doebeli M (2005) Pluralism in evolutionary theory. J Evol Biol 18:1209–1213PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Diogo R (2016) Where is the Evo in Evo-Devo (evolutionary developmental biology)? J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 326:9–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Duboule D (2010) The Evo-Devo comet. EMBO Rep 11:489PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Eldredge N (1985) Unfinished synthesis: biological hierarchies and modern evolutionary thought. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Eldredge N (2008) Hierarchies and the sloshing bucket: toward the unification of evolutionary biology. Evol Edu Outreach 1:10–15Google Scholar
  37. Eldredge N, Pievani T, Serrelli E, Tëmkin I (eds) (2016) Evolutionary theory: a hierarchical perspective. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  38. Endler JA, McLellan T (1988) The processes of evolution: toward a newer synthesis. Annu Rev Ecol Evol 19:395–421Google Scholar
  39. Fábregas-Tejeda A, Vergara-Silva F (2018) Hierarchy theory of evolution and the extended evolutionary synthesis: some epistemic bridges, some conceptual rifts. Evol Biol 45:127–139Google Scholar
  40. Feyerabend P (1975) Against method. New Left Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Fuentes A (2016) The extended evolutionary synthesis, ethnography, and the human niche: toward an integrated anthropology. Current Anthropology 57(S13):S13–S26Google Scholar
  42. Fusco G (2015) For a new dialogue between theoretical and empirical studies in evo-devo. Front Ecol Evolut.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2015.00097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Futuyma DJ (2015) Can modern evolutionary theory explain macroevolution? In: Serrelli E, Gontier N (eds) Macroevolution. Explanation, interpretation and evidence. Springer, Cham, pp 29–85Google Scholar
  44. Futuyma DJ (2017) Evolutionary biology today and the call for an extended synthesis. Interface Focus 7(5):20160145.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2016.0145 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Gaddis JL (2002) The landscape of history. How historians map the past. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  46. Gilbert SF, Bosch TCG, Ledón-Rettig C (2015) Eco-Evo-Devo: developmental symbiosis and developmental plasticity as evolutionary agents. Nat Rev Genet 16:611–622PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Gottlieb G (1992) Individual development and evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  48. Gould SJ (1980) Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119–130Google Scholar
  49. Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Grant B (2010) Should evolutionary theory evolve? Sci 24:24–31Google Scholar
  51. Griesemer JR (1984) Presentations and the status of theories. In: Asquit PD, Kitcher P (eds) Proceedings of the 1984 Biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association, vol 1. Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, pp 102–114Google Scholar
  52. Hacking I (1979) Imre Lakatos’s philosophy of science. Brit J Philos Sci 30:381–402Google Scholar
  53. Hall BK (1992) Evolutionary developmental biology. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. Handschuh S, Mitteroecker P (2012) Evolution—the extended synthesis. A research proposal persuasive enough for the majority of evolutionary biologists? Hum Ethol Bull 27:18–21Google Scholar
  55. Held LI (2017) Deep homology? Uncanny similarities of humans and flies uncovered by Evo-Devo. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. Hendrikse JL, Parsons TE, Hallgrímsson B (2007) Evolvability as the proper focus of evolutionary developmental biology. Evol Dev 9:393–401PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Hoekstra HE, Coyne JA (2007) The locus of evolution: Evo Devo and the genetics of adaptation. Evolution 61:995–1016PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Irie N, Kuratani S (2014) The developmental hourglass model: a predictor of the basic body plan? Development 141:4649–4655PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Ingold T (2018) Anthropology: Why It Matters. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  60. Jablonka E, Lamb MJ (2007) Précis of evolution in four dimensions. Behav Brain Sci 30:353–389PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Jablonka E, Lamb MJ (2014) Evolution in four dimensions. Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life (revised edition). MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  62. Jaeger J, Laubichler M, Callebaut W (2015) The comet cometh: evolving developmental systems. Biol Theory 10:36–49PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Kellert SH, Longino HE, Waters CK (2006) Introduction: the pluralist stance. In: Kellert SH, Longino HE, Waters CK (eds) Scientific pluralism. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp vii–xxviiiGoogle Scholar
  64. Kiger PJ (2016) Is it time for our understating of evolution to evolve? HowStuffWorks website. http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/extended-evolutionary-synthesis-theory.htm. Accessed 1 July 2017
  65. Kirschner MW, Gerhart JC (2005) The plausibility of life: resolving Darwin’s dilemma. Yale University Press, YaleGoogle Scholar
  66. Kutschera U, Niklas KJ (2004) The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis. Naturwissenschaften 91:255–276PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Lakatos I (1978) The methodology of scientific research programmes. Philosophical papers, vol 1. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  68. Laland KN, O’Brien M (2012) Cultural niche construction: an introduction. Biol Theory 6:191–202Google Scholar
  69. Laland K, Uller T, Feldman MW, Sterelny K, Müller GB, Moczek A, Jablonka E, Odling-Smee J, Wray GA, Hoekstra HE, Futuyma DJ, Lenski RE, Mackay TF, Schulter D, Strassmann JE (2014) Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Nature 514:161–164PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. Laland K, Uller T, Feldman MW, Sterelny K, Müller GB, Moczek A, Jablonka E, Odling-Smee J (2015) The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 282:20151019.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Laland K, Matthews B, Feldman MW (2016) An introduction to niche construction theory. Evol Ecol 30:191–202PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. Laubichler MD (2010) Evolutionary developmental biology offers a significant challenge to the neo-Darwinian paradigm. In: Ayala FJ, Malden RA (eds) Contemporary debates in philosophy of biology. Wiley, Massachusetts, pp 199–212Google Scholar
  73. Laubichler MD, Renn J (2015) Extended evolution: a conceptual framework for integrating regulatory networks and niche construction. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 324:565–577PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. Laubichler MD, Prohaska SJ, Stadler PF (2018) Toward a mechanistic explanation of phenotypic evolution: the need for a theory of theory integration. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 330:5–14Google Scholar
  75. Lewens T (2016) The meaning of science. An introduction to the philosophy of science. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  76. Love AC (2008) Explaining evolutionary innovation and novelty: criteria of adequacy and multidisciplinary prerequisites. Philos Sci 75:874–886Google Scholar
  77. Love AC (2010) Rethinking the structure of evolutionary theory for an extended synthesis. In: Pigliucci M, Müller GB (eds) Evolution: the extended synthesis. MIT Press, Boston, pp 403–441Google Scholar
  78. Love AC (2013) Theory is as theory does: scientific practice and theory structure in biology. Biol Theory 7:325–337Google Scholar
  79. Love AC (2017) Evo-Devo and the structure(s) of evolutionary theory: a different kind of challenge. In: Huneman P, Walsh DM (eds) Challenging the modern synthesis. Adaptation, development, and inheritance. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 159–187Google Scholar
  80. Lynch M (2007) The origins of genome architecture. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  81. Martínez M (2009) Los constreñimientos del desarrollo y la integración EvoDevo: precisiones y distinciones en torno al tema. Acta Biol Colomb 14S:151–168Google Scholar
  82. Martínez M, Esposito M (2014) Multilevel causation and the extended synthesis. Biol Theory 9:209–222Google Scholar
  83. Mayr E (1963) Animal species and evolution. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  84. Mayr E (2004) What makes biology unique? Considerations on the autonomy of a scientific discipline. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  85. McKinney ML, McNamara KJ (eds) (1991) Heterochrony: the evolution of ontogeny. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  86. Minelli A (2010) Evolutionary developmental biology does not offer a significant challenge to the neo-Darwinian paradigm. In: Ayala FJ, Malden RA (eds) Contemporary debates in philosophy of biology. Wiley, Massachusetts, pp 213–226Google Scholar
  87. Minelli A, Pradeu T (eds) (2014) Towards a theory of development. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  88. Moczek AP (2012) The nature of nurture and the future of evodevo: toward a theory of developmental evolution. Integr Comp Biol 52:108–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Müller GB (2007a) Six memos for Evo-Devo. In: Laubichler MD, Maienschein J (eds) From embryology to Evo-Devo: a history of developmental evolution. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 499–524Google Scholar
  90. Müller GB (2007b) Evo-devo: extending the evolutionary synthesis. Nat Rev Genet 8:943–949PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Müller GB (2014) EvoDevo shapes the extended synthesis. Biol Theory 9:119–121Google Scholar
  92. Müller GB (2017) Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary. Interface Focus 7(5):20170015.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  93. Müller GB, Newman SA (2005) The innovation triad: an EvoDevo agenda. J Exp Zool Mol Dev Evol 304:487–503Google Scholar
  94. Nei M (2013) Mutation-driven evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  95. Newman SA (2003) From physics to development: the evolution of morphogenetic mechanisms. In: Müller GB, Newman SA (eds) Origination of organismal form. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 221–239Google Scholar
  96. Newman SA, Bhat R (2009) Dynamical patterning modules: a “pattern language” for development and evolution of multicellular form. Int J Dev Biol 53:693–705PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Nicholson DJ, Gawne R (2015) Neither logical empiricism nor vitalism, but organicism: what the philosophy of biology was. Hist Philos Life Sci 37:281–345Google Scholar
  98. Noble D (2015) Evolution beyond neo-Darwinism: a new conceptual framework. J Exp Biol 218:7–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Noble D, Jablonka E, Joyners MJ, Müller GB, Omholt SW (2014) Evolution evolves: physiology returns to centre stage. J Physiol 592:2237–2244PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  100. Nuño de la Rosa L (2014) On the possible, the conceivable, and the actual in evolutionary theory. Biol Theory 9:221–228Google Scholar
  101. Nuño de la Rosa L (2017) Computing the extended synthesis: mapping the dynamics and conceptual structure of evolvability research front. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 328:395–411PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. Odling-Smee FJ, Laland KN, Feldman MW (2003) Niche construction: the neglected process in evolution. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  103. Oyama S (1986) The ontogeny of information. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  104. Oyama S, Griffiths PE, Gray RD (eds) (2001) Cycles of contingency: developmental systems and evolution. MIT Press, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  105. Palma H (2015) Origen, actualidad y prospectiva de la filosofía de la biología. CTS 28:123–140Google Scholar
  106. Pavličev M, Wagner GP (2012) A model of developmental evolution: selection, pleiotropy and compensation. Trends Ecol Evol 27:316–322PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Pavličev M, Wagner GP (2015) Evolutionary systems biology: shifting focus to the context-dependency of genetic effects. In: Martin LB, Ghalambor GK, Woods HA (eds) Integrative organismal biology. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 91–108Google Scholar
  108. Pennisi E (2008) Modernizing the modern synthesis. Science 321:196–197PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. Pennisi E (2016) Templeton grant funds evolution rethink. Science 352:394–395PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. Peterson EL (2016) The life organic: the theoretical biology club and the roots of epigenetics. University of Pittsburgh Press, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  111. Pievani T (2012) An evolving research programme: the structure of evolutionary theory from a lakatosian perspective. In: Fasolo A (ed) The theory of evolution and its impact. Springer, Italia, pp 211–228Google Scholar
  112. Pievani T (2016a) How to rethink evolutionary theory: a plurality of evolutionary patterns. Evol Biol 43:446–455.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-015-9338-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Pievani T (2016b) Hierarchy theory and the extended synthesis debate. In: Eldredge N, Pievani T, Serrelli EM, Tëmkin I (eds) Evolutionary theory: a hierarchical perspective. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 351–364Google Scholar
  114. Pigliucci M (2007) Do we need an extended evolutionary synthesis? Evolution 61:2743–2749PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. Pigliucci M (2009) An extended synthesis for evolutionary biology. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1168:218–228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. Pigliucci M (2018) Darwinism after the modern synthesis. In: Delisle RG (ed) The Darwinian tradition in context. Research programs in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 98–103Google Scholar
  117. Pigliucci M, Finkelman L (2014) The extended (evolutionary) synthesis debate: where science meets philosophy. Bioscience 64:511–516Google Scholar
  118. Pigliucci M, Müller GB (eds) (2010a) Evolution: the extended synthesis. MIT Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  119. Pigliucci M, Müller GB (2010b) Elements of an extended evolutionary synthesis. In: Pigliucci M, Müller GB (eds) Evolution: the extended synthesis. MIT Press, Boston, pp 3–17Google Scholar
  120. Pradeu T, Laplane L, Prévot K, Hoguet T, Reynaud V, Fusco G, Minelli A, Orgogozo V, Vervoort M (2016) Defining “development”. Curr Top Dev Biol 117:171–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. Raff RA, Wray GA (1989) Heterochrony: developmental mechanisms and evolutionary results. J Evol Biol 2:409–434Google Scholar
  122. Raj K (2013) Beyond postcolonialism…and postpositivism: circulation and the global history of science. Isis 104:337–347PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. Rebeiz M, Patel NH, Hinman VF (2015) Unraveling the tangled skein: the evolution of transcriptional regulatory networks in development. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 16:103–131.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-091212-153423 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. Reiss JO (2012) Footnotes to the synthesis? Metascience 21:163–166Google Scholar
  125. Shubin N, Tabin C, Carroll S (2009) Deep homology and the origins of evolutionary novelty. Nature 457:818–823PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. Sidlauskas B, Ganapathy G, Hazkani-Covo E, Jenkins KP, Lapp H, McCall LW, Price S, Scherle R, Spaeth PA, Kidd DM (2010) Linking big: the continuing promise of evolutionary synthesis. Evolution 64:871–880PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. Smocovitis VB (1996) Unifying biology: the evolutionary synthesis and evolutionary biology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  128. Sommer RJ (2009) The future of Evo-Devo: model systems and evolutionary theory. Nat Rev Genet 10:416–422.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2567 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. Stanley SM (1981) The new evolutionary timetable. Fossils, genes, and the origin of species. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  130. Stoltzfus A (2017) Why we don’t want another “synthesis”. Biol Direct 12:23.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13062-017-0194-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  131. Suman F (2016) An updated evolutionary research programme for the evolution of language. Topoi.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9419-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Svensson EI (2018) On reciprocal causation in the evolutionary process. Evol Biol 45(1):1–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. Tëmkin I, Eldredge N (2015) Networks and hierarchies: approaching complexity in evolutionary theory. In: Serrelli E, Gontier N (eds) Macroevolution: explanation, interpretation, evidence. Springer, Cham, pp 183–226Google Scholar
  134. True JR, Haag ES (2001) Developmental system drift and flexibility in evolutionary trajectories. Evol Dev 3:109–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. von Dassow G, Munro E (1999) Modularity in animal development and evolution: elements of a conceptual framework for EvoDevo. J Exp Zool 285:307–325Google Scholar
  136. Waddington CH (1969) Paradigm for an evolutionary process. In: Waddington CH (ed) Towards a theoretical biology, vol 2. International Union of Biological Sciences & Edinburgh University Press, Paris, pp 106–123Google Scholar
  137. Wagner GP (2000) What is the promise of developmental evolution? Part I: Why is developmental biology necessary to explain evolutionary innovations? J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 288:95–98Google Scholar
  138. Wagner GP (2007) The developmental genetics of homology. Nat Rev Genet 8:473–479PubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. Wagner A (2011) The origins of evolutionary innovations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  140. Wagner GP (2014) Homology, genes and evolutionary innovation. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  141. Wagner GP (2015) Reinventing the organism: evolvability and homology in post-Dahlem evolutionary biology. In: Love AC (ed) Conceptual change in biology. Scientific and philosophical perspectives on evolution and development. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 327–342Google Scholar
  142. Wagner GP (2016) What is “homology thinking” and what is it for? J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 326:3–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. Wassermann GD (1981) On the nature of the theory of evolution. Philos Sci 48:416–437Google Scholar
  144. Weber BH (2011) Extending and expanding the Darwinian synthesis: the role of complex systems dynamics. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 42:75–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  145. Welch JJ (2017) What’s wrong with evolutionary biology? Biol Philos 32:263–279PubMedGoogle Scholar
  146. West-Eberhard MJ (2003) Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  147. Whitfield J (2008) Biological theory: postmodern evolution? Nature 455:281–284PubMedGoogle Scholar
  148. Wicken JS (1987) Evolution, thermodynamics and information: extending the Darwinian program. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  149. Wilkins A (2014) “The genetic tool-kit”: the life-history of an important metaphor. In: Steelman JT (ed) Advances in evolutionary developmental biology. Wiley, Singapore, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  150. Willmore KE (2012) The body plan concept and its centrality in Evo-Devo. Evol Edu Outreach 5:219–230Google Scholar
  151. Winther RG (2015a) The structure of scientific theories. In: Zalta EN (ed) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/structure-scientific-theories/. Accessed 12 July 2016
  152. Winther RG (2015b) Evo-Devo as a trading zone. In: Love AC (ed) Conceptual change in biology: scientific and philosophical perspectives on evolution and development, boston studies in the philosophy of science, vol 307. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 459–482Google Scholar
  153. Zimmer C (2016) Scientists seek to update evolution. Quanta magazine. https://www.quantamagazine.org/scientists-seek-to-update-evolution-20161122. Accessed 1 July 2017

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Biología (Jardín Botánico)Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMexico CityMexico
  2. 2.Posgrado en Filosofía de la CienciaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations