Skip to main content

Visions of Evolution: Self-organization Proposes What Natural Selection Disposes

Biological Theory volume 3, pages 17–29 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

This article reviews the seven “visions” of evolution proposed by Depew and Weber (1995, Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), concluding that each posited relationship between natural selection and self-organization has suited different aims and approaches. In the second section of the article, we show that these seven viewpoints may be collapsed into three fundamentally different ones: (1) natural selection drives evolution; (2) self-organization drives evolution; and (3) natural selection and self-organization are complementary aspects of the evolutionary process. We then argue that these three approaches are not mutually exclusive, since each may apply to different stages of development of different systems. What emerges from our discussion is a more encompassing view: that self-organization proposes what natural selection disposes.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Arnold SJ (1992) Constraints on phenotypic evolution. American Naturalist 140: 85–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brakefield PM (2006) Evo-devo and constraints on selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 362–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks D, Wiley E (1986) Evolution as Entropy: Toward a Unified Theory of Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks DR, McLennan DA (1991) Phylogeny, Ecology and Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camazine S, Deneubourg J-L, Franks NR, Sneyd J, Theraulaz G, Bonabeau E (2001) Self-Organization in Biological Systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell JH (1987) The new gene and its evolution. In: Rates of Evolution (Campbell K, Day MF, eds), 283–309. London: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth B, Lande R, Slatkin M (1982) A neo-Darwinian commentary on macroevolution. Evolution 36: 474–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad M (1983) Adaptability: The Significance of Variability from Molecule to Ecosystem. New York: Plenum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Conway Morris S (2003) Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crutchfield JP (1994) Is anything evernew? Considering emergence. In: Complexity: Metaphors, Models, and Reality (Cowan G, Pines D, Meltzer D, eds), 515–537. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crutchfield JP, Young K (1989) Inferring statistical complexity. Physical Review Letters 63: 105–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins R (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Depew D, Weber B (1995) Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewar RC (2005) Maximum entropy production and the fluctuation theorem. Journal of Physics A 38: 371–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyke C, Depew D (1988) Should natural selection be an explanation of last resort? Well, maybe not the last resort, but…. Rivista di Biologia 81: 115–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endler JA (1986) Natural Selection in the Wild. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RA (1929/1958) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. New York: Dover Publications. Variorum edition, Oxford University Press, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank S (1997) Developmental selection and self-organization. BioSystems 40: 237–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fusco G (2001) How many processes are responsible for phenotypic evolution? Evolution and Development 3: 279–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1982) Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? In: Evolution Now: A Century after Darwin (Maynard Smith J, ed), 119–130. San Francisco: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ, Lewontin R (1979) The spandrels of San Marcos and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 205: 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haken H (1983) Advanced Synergetics. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinton GE, Nowlan SJ (1996) How learning can guide evolution. In: Adaptive Individuals in Evolving Populations (Belew RK, Mitchell M, eds), 447–454. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson G (2002) Darwinism in economics: From analogy to ontology. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 12: 259–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoelzer GA, Smith E, Pepper JW (2006) On the logical relationship between natural selection and self-organization. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 19: 1785–1793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jablonka E, Lamb MJ (1995) Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman S (1983) Developmental constraints: Internal factors in evolution. In: Development and Evolution (Goodwin B, Holder N, Wylie C, eds), 195–225. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman S (1985) Self-organization, selective adaptation and its limits: A new pattern of inference in evolution and development. In: Evolution at a Crossroads: The New Biology and the New Philosophy of Science (Depew D, Weber B, eds), 67–77. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman S (1993) The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman S (1995) At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman S (2000) Investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimura M (1983) The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsolver JG, Hoekstra HE, Hoekstra JM, Berrigan D, Vignieri SN, Hill CE, Hoang A, Gilbert P, Beerli P (2001) The strength of phenotypic evolution in natural populations. American Naturalist 157: 245–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin R (2005) A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin R, Pines D (2000) The theory of everything. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 97: 28–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke JL (2000) Opening up closure: Semiotics across scales. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 901: 100–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotka A (1922) Contributions to the energetics of evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 8: 147–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J, Burian R, Kauffman S, Alberch P, Campbell J, Goodwin B, Lande R, Raup D, Wolpert L (1985) Developmental constraints and evolution. Quarterly Review of Biology 60: 265–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J, Szathmáry E (1995) The Major Transitions in Evolution. San Francisco: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1963) Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mittenthal JE, Baskin AB, eds (1992) The Principles of Organization in Organisms. New York: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitton JB (1997) Selection in Natural Populations. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson R, Winter S (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinowitz N (2005) Emergence: An algorithmic formulation. Honors thesis, University of Western Australia, Perth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid RGB (2007) Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reznick DN, Travis J (1996) The empirical study of adaptation. In: Adaptation (Rose M, Lauder G, eds), 243–289. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson MK, Chipman AD (2003) Developmental constraints in a comparative framework: A test case using variations in phalanx number during amniote evolution. Journal of Experimental Zoology 296 B: 8–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell B (1921) The Analysis of Mind. London: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan A (2007) Emergence is coupled to scope, not level. Complexity 13: 67–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salthe SN (1985) Evolving Hierarchical Systems: Their Structure and Representation. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salthe SN (1993) Development and Evolution: Complexity and Change in Biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salthe SN (2000) Ecology and infodynamics [Review of Ulanowicz 1997]. Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 21: 223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salthe SN (2002) Summary of the principles of hierarchy theory. General Systems Bulletin 31: 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salthe SN (2004) The natural philosophy of ecology: Developmental systems ecology. Ecological Complexity 2: 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salthe SN (2007) The natural philosophy of work. Entropy 9: 83–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salthe SN (2008) Natural selection in relation to complexity. Artificial Life 14 (3): 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneirla TC (1971) Army Ants: A Study in Social Organization. San Francisco: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shalizi C (2001) Causal architecture, complexity and self-organization in time series and cellular automata. PhD thesis, University of Michigan. http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/thesis/.

  • Skinner BF (1981) Selection by consequences. Science 213: 501–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smolin L (1997) The Life of the Cosmos. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley SM (1979) Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swenson R (1989) Emergent attractors and the law of maximum entropy production: Foundations to a general theory of evolution. Systems Research 6: 187–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swenson R (1991) End-directed physics and evolutionary ordering: Obviating the problem of the population of one. In: The Cybernetics of Complex Systems: Self-organization, Evolution, and Social Change (Geyer F, ed), 41–60. Salinas, CA: Intersystems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swenson R (1995) Spontaneous Order, Evolution and Natural Law. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulanowicz R (1986) Growth and Development: Ecosystems Phenomenology. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ulanowicz R (1997) Ecology: The Ascendent Perspective. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulanowicz R (2002) The balance between adaptability and adaptation. BioSystems 64: 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner PJ, Kosnik MA, Lidgard S (2006) Abundance distributions imply elevated complexity in post-Paleozooic marine ecosystems. Science 314: 1289–1292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber B, Deacon T (2000) Thermodynamic cycles, developmental systems and emergence. Cybernetics and Human Knowing 7: 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber B, Depew D (1996) Natural selection and self-organization: Dynamical models as clues to a new evolutionary synthesis. Biology and Philosophy 11: 33–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicken JS (1987) Evolution, Thermodynamics and Information: Extending the Darwinian Program. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willey A (1911) Convergence in Evolution. New York: Dutton.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wills C (1989) The Wisdom of the Genes: New Pathways in Evolution. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson DS (2005) Natural selection and complex systems: A complex interaction. In: Self-organization and Evolution in Biological and Social Systems (Hemelrijk C, ed), 151–165. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt W, Schank J (2004) Generative entrenchment, modularity, and evolvability: When selection meets the whole organism. In: Modularity in Development and Evolution (Schlosser G, Wagner G, eds), 359–394. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt WC (1986) Developmental constraints, generative entrenchment, and the innate-acquired distinction. In: Integrating Scientific Disciplines (Bechtel W, ed), 185–208. Dordrecht: Nijhoff.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Winfree AT (1980) The Geometry of Biological Time. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia

    David Batten

  2. Department of Biological Sciences, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY, USA

    Stanley Salthe

  3. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Wembley, Western Australia, Australia

    Fabio Boschetti

Authors
  1. David Batten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stanley Salthe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fabio Boschetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Batten.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Batten, D., Salthe, S. & Boschetti, F. Visions of Evolution: Self-organization Proposes What Natural Selection Disposes. Biol Theory 3, 17–29 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1162/biot.2008.3.1.17

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/biot.2008.3.1.17

Keywords

  • complex systems
  • development
  • evolution
  • natural selection
  • self-organization