Skip to main content

Hierarchy, determinism, and specificity in theories of development and evolution

When I kill a fly, I don’t think and must not think which organization is destroyed (Goethe (1959 [1817], 802), translation UD).

Every living thing is not single, but multiple; even insofar as it appears to us as an individual it remains nonetheless an association of living self-sufficient beings, which though alike in idea or plan, can in their manifestations be identical or similar, unlike or dissimilar. The less developed the creature is, the more alike or similar are these parts and the more they resemble the whole. The more highly developed the creature becomes, the more dissimilar become the parts. The more alike the parts are, the less they are subordinated. Subordination of parts points to a more highly developed creature (Goethe [1817], English translation quoted from Reynolds (2008), 126).

Abstract

The concepts of hierarchical organization, genetic determinism and biological specificity (for example of species, biologically relevant macromolecules, or genes) have played a crucial role in biology as a modern experimental science since its beginnings in the nineteenth century. The idea of genetic information (specificity) and genetic determination was at the basis of molecular biology that developed in the 1940s with macromolecules, viruses and prokaryotes as major objects of research often labelled “reductionist”. However, the concepts have been marginalized or rejected in some of the research that in the late 1960s began to focus additionally on the molecularization of complex biological structures and functions using systems approaches. This paper challenges the view that ‘molecular reductionism’ has been successfully replaced by holism and a focus on the collective behaviour of cellular entities. It argues instead that there are more fertile replacements for molecular ‘reductionism’, in which genomics, embryology, biochemistry, and computer science intertwine and result in research that is as exact and causally predictive as earlier molecular biology.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. See the programme of the workshop available at http://www.vanleer.org.il/sites/files/LandscapesCollectivity_3.pdf (accessed 20/09/2017).

References

  • Aebersold, R., Hood, L. E., & Watts, J. D. (2000). Equipping scientists for the new biology. Nature Biotechnology, 18, 359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amundson R. ([2005] 2007). The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Birney, E. (2012). Lessons for big-data projects. Nature, 489, 49–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. R. (1868). The variation of animals and plants under domestication. London: John Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, E. H. (2006). The regulatory genome: Gene regulatory networks in development and evolution. Burlington, MA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, E. H. (2016). Genomics, “Discovery Science”, systems biology, and causal explanation. What really works? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 58, 165–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deichmann, U. (2007a). Empiricism and the discreteness of nature: Ferdinand Cohn (1828–1998), the founder of microbiology. In U. Charpa & U. Deichmann (Eds.), Jews and sciences in German contexts: Case studies from the 19th and 20th centuries (pp. 39–50). Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deichmann, U. (2007b). “Molecular” versus “colloidal”: Controversies in biology and biochemistry, 1900–1940. Bulletin for the History of Chemistry, 32, 105–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deichmann, U. (2014). The Concept of the causal role of chromosomes and genes in heredity and development. Opponents from Darwin to Lysenko. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 57, 57–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deichmann, U. (2016). Epigenetics: The origins and evolution of a fashionable topic. Developmental Biology, 416, 249–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doolittle, W. F. (2013). Is junk DNA bunk? A critique of ENCODE. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 110(14), 5294–5300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ENCODE Project Consortium. (2012). An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature, 489, 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erwin, D. (2015). Novelty and innovation in the history of life. Current Biology, 25, R930–R940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erwin, D., & Davidson, E. H. (2009). The evolution of hierarchical gene regulatory networks. Nature Reviews Genetics, 10, 141–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, R. (2014). Biology comes of age. Israel Journal of Ecology & Evolution, 59, 186–188. doi:10.1080/15659801.2013.898403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florkin, M. (1972). A history of biochemistry. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith, P. (2001). On the status and explanatory structure of developmental systems theory. In S. Oyama et al. (Eds.), Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution (pp. 283–297). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goethe, J. W. V. (1959 [1817]). Schriften zur Morphologie I. Stuttgart: Cotta-Verlag.

  • Goldenfeld, N., & Woese, C. (2007). Biology’s next revolution. Nature, 445, 369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golub, T. (2010). Counterpoint: Data first. Nature, 464, 679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graur, D., et al. (2015). An evolutionary classification of genomic function. Genome Biology and Evolution, 7(3), 642–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, P., & Gray, R. (1994). Developmental systems and evolutionary explanation. Journal of Philosophy, 91, 277–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, P., & Gray, R. (2001). Darwinism and developmental systems. In S. Oyama et al. (Eds.), Cycles of contingency (pp. 195–218). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, P., & Gray, R. (2004). The developmental systems perspective: Organism-environment systems as units of development and evolution. In M. Pigliucci & K. Preston (Eds.), Phenotypic integration: Studying the ecology and evolution of complex phenotypes (pp. 409–430). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, F. (1973). The logic of life. A history of heredity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kell, D. B., & Oliver, S. G. (2003). Here is the evidence, now what is the hypothesis? The complementary roles of inductive and hypothesis-driven science in the post-genomic era. BioEssays, 26, 99–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1998). From the world of science to the world of research. Science, 280, 208–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature. How to bring the sciences into democracy (C. Porter, Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Loeb, J. (1916). The organism as a whole from a physicochemical viewpoint. New York: Putnam’s Sons.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marinacci, B. (Ed.). (1995). Linus Pauling in his own words: Selections from his writings, speeches and interviews. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazumdar, P. (1995). Species and specificity (p. 1995). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • modENCODE Consortium. (2010). Identification of functional elements and regulatory circuits by Drosophila modENCODE. Science, 330(6012), 1787–1797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morange, M. (2001). The misunderstood gene. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morange, M. (2014). Genome as a multipurpose structure built by evolution. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 57, 162–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Wille, S., & Rheinberger, H. J. (2012). A cultural history of heredity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Niu, D. K., & Jiang, L. (2013). Can ENCODE tell us how much junk DNA we carry in our genome? Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 430(4), 1340–1343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyama, S., Griffiths, P. E., & Gray, R. D. (2001). Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavé, A. (2006). Hierarchical organization of biological and ecological systems. In D. Pumain (Ed.), Hierarchy in natural and social sciences (pp. 39–70). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Peluffo, A. E. (2015). The “genetic program”: Behind the genesis of an influential metaphor. Genetics, 200, 685–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peter, I., & Davidson, E. H. (2015). Genomic control process: Development and evolution. Amsterdam: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter, I. S., Faure, E., & Davidson, E. H. (2012). Predictive computation of genomic logic processing functions in embryonic development. PNAS, 109(41), 16434–16442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pumain, D. (Ed.). (2006). Hierarchy in natural and social sciences. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, A. (2008). Ernst Haeckel and the theory of the cell state: Remarks on the history of a bio-political metaphor. History of Science, 46, 123–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, S. (2011). Evolution und Fortschritt. Zum Problem der Höherentwicklung in der organischen Evolution. In T. Schlicht (Ed.), Zweck und Natur. Historische und systematische Untersuchungen zur Teleologie. München: Wilhelm Funk Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothenberg, E. (2016). Eric Davidson: Steps to a gene regulatory network for development. Developmental Biology, 412, S7–S19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verdier, N. (2006). Hierarchy: A short history of a word in Western thought. In D. Pumain (Ed.), Hierarchy in natural and social sciences (pp. 13–38). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, R. (2010). Point: Hypotheses first. Nature, 464, 678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weismann, A. (1893). The germ-plasm. A theory of heredity (English translation in Charles Scribner’s Sons). Chapter VI: The formation of germ cells—The continuity of the germ plasm. German original: Weismann, A. 1893. Das Keimplasma, Eine Theorie der Vererbung. Jena: G. Fischer.

  • Wilson, E. B. ([1896] 1928). The cell in development and heredity. New York: Macmillan.

  • Woese, C. (2004). A new biology for a new century. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 68(2), 173–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ute Deichmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deichmann, U. Hierarchy, determinism, and specificity in theories of development and evolution. HPLS 39, 33 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-017-0160-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-017-0160-3

Keywords