Skip to main content

Ontologies in Evolutionary Biology: The Role of the Organism in the Two Syntheses

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Life and Mind

Part of the book series: Interdisciplinary Evolution Research ((IDER,volume 8))

Abstract

This paper examines evolutionary ontologies from Darwin’s work to the genesis and maturation of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, followed by the onset of the more inclusive framework of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. We show how, in an attempt to unify different biological fields under evolutionary principles, the first synthetic theory of evolution progressively disregarded the relevance of organismic-level properties and processes. Yet, failure to reduce the systemic nature and ecological dynamics of the organism (including properties of agency and organization) to that framework raises some important drawbacks. In particular, the two fundamental dimensions of developmental and ecological dynamics were largely neglected. These are the ones that highlight the relational properties of organisms and lead to recent views in, respectively, Evo-Devo and Niche Construction Theory. On this account, we argue that these two aspects illuminate how, while the Modern Synthesis became increasingly reductionist and monistic, the Extended Synthesis is currently being constituted by a pluralistic array of models capable of accommodating different ontological levels, among which that of organisms stands out due to its flexibility and potential inclusiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “In the largest sense, this debate [referring to gradualism-punctuationism] is but one small aspect of a broader discussion about the nature of change: is our world (to construct a ridiculously oversimplified dichotomy) primarily one of constant change (with structure as a mere incarnation of the moment), or is structure primary and constraining, with change as a ‘difficult’ phenomenon, usually accomplished rapidly when a stable structure is stressed beyond its buffering capacity to resist and absorb” (Gould 1982: 383).

  2. 2.

    The notion of “organism” is a neologism appearing at the end of the 1690s to emphasize the organized nature of some entities (not only living beings), as opposed to mechanisms (see, e.g., Cheung 2010).

  3. 3.

    For instance, in the preface to the second edition of The Descent of Man, he emphasizes the relevance of “what I have called ‘correlated’ growth, meaning, thereby, that various parts of the organisation are in some unknown manner so connected, that when one part varies, so do others; and if variations in the one are accumulated by selection, other parts will be modified” (Darwin 1877: vi).

  4. 4.

    Mary Jane West-Eberhard has argued that the occurrence of large variants via environmental induction does not contradict Darwin’s gradualism since they are the product of previous gradual variation (West-Eberhard 2008).

  5. 5.

    The major landmarks in the genesis of the synthetic theory of evolution are books by Dobzhansky (1937), Huxley (1942), and Mayr (1942). Dobzhansky’s Genetics and the Origin of Species studied the genetics of natural populations focusing on geographic variations. He combined Wright’s mathematical models with the populational approach of the Russian school to claim that morphological differences between populations have a genetic basis. Huxley not only coined the term “Modern Synthesis” in his book Evolution: The Modern Synthesis but also worked towards a synthesis of the evolutionary knowledge of the time, aiming at bringing together different biological disciplines from an integrative point of view. Mayr’s Systematics and the Origin of Species explores the mechanisms of speciation and the effects of geographic variation and isolation. He also made major contributions to the history and philosophy of biology, especially through the concepts of the autonomy of biology.

  6. 6.

    Mayr argued that the contribution of mathematical models to evolutionary biology overall was somewhat scarce, due to the “gross simplification” of the biological phenomena that these models required (Mayr 1959, in Provine 2004). Besides, Mayr criticized the role of population genetics within the theory of evolution on the basis of his (admittedly underinformed) idea that population geneticists disregarded phenomena of epistasis, i.e., the interaction between genes (see Rao and Nanjundiah 2011 for a historical review of the so-called Beanbag Dispute between Mayr and Haldane).

  7. 7.

    The task of reviewing biological individuality is beyond the scope of this work. Relevant references can be found in Godfrey-Smith (2013) and Pradeu (2016).

  8. 8.

    Gould portrays this tendency towards a stricter adaptationism in the successive changes undergone by the different editions of the main books of the Modern Synthesis (Gould 1983).

  9. 9.

    The term “Extended Evolutionary Synthesis” was coined by Massimo Pigliucci (2007) to refer to the effort of unifying the theoretical framework of the Modern Synthesis with a theory of forms that would include concepts such as “evolvability, phenotypic plasticity, epigenetic inheritance, complexity theory, and the theory of evolution in highly dimensional adaptive landscapes” (Pigliucci 2007: 2743).

  10. 10.

    Not just any form of organization accounts for the ontology of autonomous organisms. It is required that the components of the system have an active role in the maintenance and functioning of the system, so that both the constituents and the interactions among these components need to be considered from a material and historical stand. Hence, the organism cannot be understood except in relation to the processes and constituents that make it up (Moreno et al. 2008; Ruiz-Mirazo et al. 2000).

  11. 11.

    We thank our anonymous reviewer for helping us to formulate this suggestion.

References

  • Alberch P (1982) Developmental constraints in evolutionary processes. In: Bonner JT (ed) Evolution and development. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 313–332

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Alberch P (1989) The logic of monsters: evidence for internal constraint in development and evolution. Geobios 22:21–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alberch P (1991) From genes to phenotype: dynamical systems and evolvability. Genetica 84(1):5–11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baedke J (2019) O organism, where art thou? Old and new challenges for organism-Centered biology. J Hist Biol 52(2):293–324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baedke J, Fábregas-Tejeda A, Prieto GI (2021) Unknotting reciprocal causation between organism and environment. Biol Philos 36(5):48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonduriansky R, Day T (2020) Extended heredity: a new understanding of inheritance and evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler PJ (2003) Evolution: the history of an idea. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt I (2010) Beyond reduction and pluralism: toward an epistemology of explanatory integration in biology. Erkenntnis 73(3):295–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt I (2015) From developmental constraint to evolvability: how concepts figure in explanation and disciplinary identity. In: Love AC (ed) Conceptual change in biology: scientific and philosophical perspectives on evolution and development. Springer, Netherlands, pp 305–325

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt I (2020) Historical and philosophical perspectives on the study of developmental bias. Evol Dev 22(1–2):7–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks DR (2000) The nature of the organism: life has a life of its own. Ann N Y Acad Sci 901(1):257–265

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown RL (2022) Structuralism and adaptationism: friends? Or foes? Semin Cell Dev Biol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2022.02.022

  • Cheung T (2010) What is an “organism”? On the occurrence of a new term and its conceptual transformations 1680-1850. Hist Philos Life Sci 32(2–3):155–194

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crick F (1970) Central dogma of molecular biology. Nature 227(5258):561–563

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C (1877) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins R (1982) The extended phenotype. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Delisle RG (2011) What was really synthesized during the evolutionary synthesis? A historiographic proposal. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C: Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 42(1):50–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Depew DJ, Weber BH (2011) The fate of Darwinism: evolution after the modern synthesis. Biol Theory 6(1):89–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky T (1937) Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, Columbia

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky T (1973) Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Am Biol Teach 35(3):125–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge N (1985) Unfinished synthesis: biological hierarchies and modern evolutionary thought. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge N, Gould SJ (1972) Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf TJ (ed) Models in paleobiology. Freeman Cooper & Company, San Francisco, pp 82–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Etxeberria A, Nuño de la Rosa L (2021) Pere Alberch (1954-1998). In: Nuño de la Rosa L, Müller G (eds) Evolutionary developmental biology—a reference guide. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Etxeberria A, Umerez J (2006) Organismo y Organización En la Biología Teórica ¿Vuelta Al Organicismo? Ludus Vitalis 14(26):3–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Fábregas-Tejeda A, Vergara-Silva F (2018a) The emerging structure of the extended evolutionary synthesis: where does evo-devo fit in? Theory Biosci 137(2):169–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fábregas-Tejeda A, Vergara-Silva F (2018b) Hierarchy theory of evolution and the extended evolutionary synthesis: some epistemic bridges, some conceptual rifts. Evol Biol 45(2):127–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gayon J, Huneman P (2019) The modern synthesis: theoretical or institutional event? J Hist Biol 52(4):519–535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith P (2013) Darwinian individuals. In: Bouchard F, Huneman P (eds) From groups to individuals: evolutionand emerging individuality. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 17–36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1982) Darwinism and the expansion of evolutionary theory. Science 216(4544):380–387

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1983) The hardening of the modern synthesis. In: Grene M (ed) Dimensions of Darwinism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 71–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ, Lewontin RC (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biol Sci 205(1161):581–598

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grene M (1959) Two evolutionary theories. Br J Philos Sci 9(35):110–127. 185–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Grene M (1976) Aristotle and modern biology. In: Grene M, Mendelsohn E (eds) Topics in the philosophy of biology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 3–36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grene M (1990) Evolution, “typology” and “population thinking”. Am Philos Q 27(3):237–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Honenberger P (2015) Grene and Hull on types and typological thinking in biology. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C: Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 50:13–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley JS (1942) Evolution: the modern synthesis. George Allen & Unwin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablonka E, Lamb MJ (2005) Evolution in four dimensions: genetic, epigenetic, Behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life. MIT Press, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis K (2017) Making sense of genes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Laland KN, Matthews B, Feldman MW (2016) An introduction to niche construction theory. Evol Ecol 30:191–202

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Laland KN, Odling-Smee FJ, Feldman MW (1999) Evolutionary consequences of niche construction and their implications for ecology. Proc Natl Acad Sci 96(18):10242–10247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Laland KN, Odling-Smee J, Hoppitt W, Uller T (2013) More on how and why: cause and effect in biology revisited. Biol Philos 28(5):719–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levis NA, Isdaner AJ, Pfennig DW (2018) Morphological novelty emerges from pre-existing phenotypic plasticity. Nat Ecol Evol 2(8):1289–1297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levis NA, Pfennig DW (2019) Phenotypic plasticity, canalization, and the origins of novelty: evidence and mechanisms from amphibians. Semin Cell Dev Biol 88:80–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin RC (1983) The organism as the subject and object of evolution. Scientia 77(18)

    Google Scholar 

  • Love AC (2010) Rethinking the structure of evolutionary theory for an extended synthesis. In: Pigliucci M, Müller G (eds) Evolution—the extended synthesis. MIT Press, Massachusetts, pp 403–441

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1942) Systematics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, Columbia

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1959) Where are we? Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 24:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1961) Cause and effect in biology: kinds of causes, predictability, and teleology are viewed by a practicing biologist. Science 134(3489):1501–1506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1991) One long argument: Charles Darwin and the genesis of modern evolutionary thought. Harvard University Press, Harvard

    Google Scholar 

  • Meloni M (2016) Political biology: science and social values in human heredity from eugenics to epigenetics. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno A, Etxeberria A, Umerez J (2008) The autonomy of biological individuals and artificial models. Biosystems 91(2):309–319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Müller GB (2017) Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary. Interface Focus 7:20170015

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson DJ (2014) The return of the organism as a fundamental explanatory concept in biology. Philos Compass 9(5):347–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble D (2021) The illusions of the modern synthesis. Biosemiotics 14(1):5–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuño de la Rosa L, Etxeberria A (2009) Partes y funciones en el desarrollo y la evolución. Hacia un darwinismo sistémico. In: Dopazo H, Navarro A (eds) Evolución y Adaptación: 150 años después del Origen de las Especies. Obrapropia, Valencia, pp 465–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Paaby AB, Testa ND (2021) Developmental plasticity and evolution. In: Nuño de la Rosa L, Müller GB (eds) Evolutionary developmental biology: a reference guide. Springer International Publishing, pp 1073–1086

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Milan, pp 211–228

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M (2007) Do we need an extended evolutionary synthesis? Evolution 61(12):2743–2749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M (2009) An extended synthesis for evolutionary biology. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1168:218–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M, Murren CJ, Schlichting CD (2006) Phenotypic plasticity and evolution by genetic assimilation. J Exp Biol 209(12):2362–2367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pradeu T (2016) Organisms or biological individuals? Combining physiological and evolutionary individuality. Biol Philos 31(6):797–817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provine WB (2004) Ernst Mayr: genetics and speciation. Genetics 167(3):1041–1046

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Radick G (2005) Other histories, other Biologies. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements 56:21–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao V, Nanjundiah V (2011) J. B. S. Haldane, Ernst Mayr and the beanbag genetics dispute. J Hist Biol 44(2):233–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Mirazo K, Etxeberria A, Moreno A, Ibáñez J (2000) Organisms and their place in biology. Theory Biosci 119(3–4):209–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shan Y (2021) Beyond Mendelism and biometry. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part A 89:155–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smocovitis VB (1996) Unifying biology: the evolutionary synthesis and evolutionary biology. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Smocovitis VB (2001) G. Ledyard Stebbins and the evolutionary synthesis. Annu Rev Genet 35(1):803–814

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sober E, Orzack SH (2003) Common ancestry and natural selection. Br J Philos Sci 54(3):423–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suárez J (2018) The importance of symbiosis in philosophy of biology: an analysis of the current debate on biological individuality and its historical roots. Symbiosis 76(2):77–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svensson E (2021) The structure of evolutionary theory: beyond neo-Darwinism, neo-Lamarckism and biased historical narratives about the modern synthesis. In: Dickins TE, Dickins JA (eds) Evolutionary biology: contemporary and historical reflections upon core theory. Springer International Publishing, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Uller T, Feiner N, Radersma R, Jackson ISC, Rago A (2020) Developmental plasticity and evolutionary explanations. Evol Dev 22(1–2):47–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waddington CH (1953) Genetic assimilation of an acquired character. Evolution 7(2):118–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddington CH (1957) The strategy of the genes: a discussion of some aspects of theoretical biology. Allen & Unwin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddington CH (1959) Canalization of development and genetic assimilation of acquired characters. Nature 183(4676):1654–1655

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waddington CH (1968) Towards a theoretical biology. Nature 218(5141):525–527

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh DM (2015) Organisms, agency, and evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • West-Eberhard MJ (2003) Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • West-Eberhard MJ (2008) Toward a modern revival of Darwin’s theory of evolutionary novelty. Philos Sci 75(5):899–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and natural selection: a critique of some current evolutionary thought. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

DCG and AEA take part in Funding for Research Groups of the Basque Government [IT1668-22] and in the Metaphysics of Biology MICINN Research Project [PID2021-127184NB-I00]. AEA is also part of the Outonomy MICINN Research Project [Ref PID2019-104576GB-I00]. DCG has pre-doctoral contract from the UPV/EHU (PIF-2020). We thank our editors for their kindness and our anonymous referees for the very generous comments and advise they did to the previous versions of this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Cortés-García .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cortés-García, D., Etxeberria Agiriano, A. (2023). Ontologies in Evolutionary Biology: The Role of the Organism in the Two Syntheses. In: Viejo, J.M., Sanjuán, M. (eds) Life and Mind. Interdisciplinary Evolution Research, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30304-3_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics