Progress in Organismal Design

  • D. C. Fisher
Part of the Dahlem Workshop Reports book series (DAHLEM, volume 36)

Abstract

The question of whether or not large-scale historical trends in the design of organisms represent progress (i.e., improvement of design) has attracted attention since the beginning of evolutionary thought but has proved extremely resistant to objective analysis. Some of this difficulty reflects the range of time scales and phylogenetic contexts for which the question might be posed, but a more fundamental problem involves the definition of improvement itself. When improvement of design is discussed within the context of current evolutionary thought, it is frequently portrayed as the expected outcome of the sustained operation of natural selection on variation within populations. Such an interpretation of large-scale historical trends in morphology frequently involves some degree of orthoselection and/or adaptive replacement. An alternative interpretation is that many such trends reflect little more than the Markovian aspect of the evolutionary process. Trends do have a finite, and not always small, probability of occurrence in systems whose underlying causal structure behaves in a pseudorandom fashion. According to this second interpretation, the appropriate level for causal analysis may be well below that at which the trend is manifested. This is equivalent to suggesting that the causal basis of the trend may be extremely heterogeneous. Both selectionist and Markovian models of morphologic change can be tested, but it is always a particular model, defined by its own assumptions and boundary conditions, that is corroborated or refuted, not the whole class of selectionist or Markovian models. Certain large-scale morphologic trends documented in the fossil record (e.g., increases in brain size within mammals) indeed appear to represent the intermittent or sustained operation of directional selection. Other trends (e.g., changes in morphologic complexity or in amount of genetic information within most phyla or classes) show patterns that are best interpreted as a simple random walk or a branching process (depending on the phylogenetic structure of the problem). However, a large number of trends (e.g., body size within certain higher taxa) can be explained by “diffusion” models or models of branching processes in which directionality is imposed by the position of the initial state of the system relative to the total range of accessible states. Because of the frequency of environmental change, the multiplicity of factors underlying fitness, the possibility of frequency-dependent and epistatic interactions among features, and the consequent possibility of nontransitive fitness relations between phenotypes, selection acting within populations frequently, though not inevitably, fails to produce unidirectional trends. The extent to which unidirectional trends dominate, or fail to dominate, the fossil record is therefore not a measure of the adequacy of neo-Darwinian mechanisms as causes of large-scale patterns in evolution.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arnold AJ, Fristrup K (1982) The theory of evolution by natural selection: a hierarchical expansion. Paleobiology 8: 113–129Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ayala FJ (1974) The concept of biological progress. In: Studies in the philosophy of biology, eds Ayala FJ, Dobzhansky T, pp 339–355. London: MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bakker RT (1977) Tetrapod mass extinctions—a model of the regulation of speciation rates and immigration by cycles of topographic diversity. In: Patterns of evolution, ed Hallam A, pp 439–468. Amsterdam: ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheverud J (1984) Quantitative genetics and developmental constraints on evolution by selection. J Theor Biol 110: 155–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Connor EF, Simberloff DS (1979) The assembly of species communities: chance or competition? Ecology 60: 1132–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection. London: MurrayGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1979) Arms races between and within species. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 205: 489–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dobzhansky T, Ayala FJ, Stebbins GL, Valentine JW (1977) Evolution. San Francisco: FreemanGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dullemeijer P (1980) Functional morphology and evolutionary biology. Acta Biotheor 29: 151–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feller W (1968) An introduction to probability theory and its applications. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fisher DC (1985) Evolutionary morphology: beyond the analogous, the anecdotal, and the ad hoc. Paleobiology 11: 120–138Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goudge TA (1961) The ascent of life. Toronto: University PressGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gould SJ (1977) Eternal metaphors of paleontology. In: Patterns of evolution, ed Hallam A, pp 1–26. Amsterdam: ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gould SJ (1984) Covariance sets and ordered geographic variation in Cerion from Aruba, Bonaire and Curacao: a way of studying nonadaptation. Syst Zool 33: 217–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gould SJ (1985) The paradox of the first tier: an agenda for paleobiology. Paleobiology 11: 2–12Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gould SJ, Lewontin RC (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 205: 581–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hildebrand M, Bramble DM, Liem KF, Wake DB (eds) (1985) Functional vertebrate morphology. Cambridge: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hofstadter DR (1979) Gödel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid. New York: Random HouseGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huxley JS (1942) Evolution: The modern synthesis. New York: HarperGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huxley JS (1953) Evolution in action. New York: HarperGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hyatt A (1880) The genesis of the Tertiary species of Planorbis at Steinheim. Anniv Mem Boston Soc Nat Hist (1830–1880): 1–114Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kimura M (1961) Natural selection as the process of accumulating genetic information in adaptive evolution. Genet Res 2: 127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Klee RL (1984) Micro-determinism and concepts of emergence. Phil Sci 51: 44–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mayr E (1982) The growth of biological thought. Cambridge: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mills S, Beatty J (1979) The propensity definition of fitness. Phil Sci 46: 263–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Osborn HF (1922) Orthogenesis as observed from paleontological evidence beginning in the year 1889. Am Nat 56: 134–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Radinsky L (1978) Evolution of brain size in carnivores and ungulates. Am Nat 112: 815–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Raup DM (1977) Stochastic models in evolutionary paleontology. In: Patterns of evolution, ed Hallam A, pp 59–78. Amsterdam: ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Raup DM (1985) Mathematical models of cladogenesis. Paleobiology 11: 42–52Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Raup DM, Gould SJ (1974) Stochastic simulation and the evolution of morphology—towards a nomothetic paleontology. Syst Zool 23: 305–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Raup DM, Gould SJ, Schopf TJM, Simberloff DS (1973) Stochastic models of phylogeny and the evolution of diversity. J Geol 81: 525–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Raup DM, Michelson A (1965) Theoretical morphology of the coiled shell. Science 147: 1294–1295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Raup DM, Stanley SM (1978) Principles of paleontology, 2nd ed. San Francisco: FreemanGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rensch B (1947) Evolution above the species level. New York: Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Riedl R (1978) Order in living organisms. New York: Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rudwick MJS (1964) The inference of function from structure in fossils. Brit J Phil Sci 15: 27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Saunders PT, Ho MW (1981) On the increase in complexity in evolution. II. The relativity of complexity and the principle of minimum increase. J Theor Biol 90: 515–530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sawyer S (1976) Branching diffusion processes in population genetics. Adv Appl Prob 8: 659–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Simpson GG (1953) The major features of evolution. New York: Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Slatkin M (1981) A diffusion model of species selection. Paleobiology 7: 421–425Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sober E (1984) The nature of selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stanley SM (1973) An explanation for Cope’s rule. Evolution 26: 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stanley SM, Signor PW III, Lidgard S, Karr AF (1981) Natural clades differ from “random” clades: simulations and analyses. Paleobiology 7: 115–127Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stebbins GL (1969) The basis of progressive evolution. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina PressGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wake DB, Roth G, Wake MH (1983) On the problem of stasis in organismal evolution. J Theor Biol 101: 211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wimsatt W (1974) Complexity and organization. In: Boston studies in the philosophy of science, eds Schaffner KF, Cohen RS, pp 67–86. Dordrecht: ReidelGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wimsatt W (1980) Reductionistic research strategies and their biases in the units of selection controversy. In: Scientific discovery, ed Nickles T, pp 213–259. Dordrecht: ReidelGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. S. Bernhard, Dahlem Konferenzen 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. C. Fisher
    • 1
  1. 1.Museum of PaleontologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations