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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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
Alberch P (1989) The logic of monsters: evidence for internal constraint in development and evolution. Geobios 22:21–57
Alberch P (1991) From genes to phenotype: dynamical systems and evolvability. Genetica 84(1):5–11
Baedke J (2019) O organism, where art thou? Old and new challenges for organism-Centered biology. J Hist Biol 52(2):293–324
Baedke J, Fábregas-Tejeda A, Prieto GI (2021) Unknotting reciprocal causation between organism and environment. Biol Philos 36(5):48
Bonduriansky R, Day T (2020) Extended heredity: a new understanding of inheritance and evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Bowler PJ (2003) Evolution: the history of an idea. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles
Brigandt I (2010) Beyond reduction and pluralism: toward an epistemology of explanatory integration in biology. Erkenntnis 73(3):295–311
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
Brigandt I (2020) Historical and philosophical perspectives on the study of developmental bias. Evol Dev 22(1–2):7–19
Brooks DR (2000) The nature of the organism: life has a life of its own. Ann N Y Acad Sci 901(1):257–265
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
Crick F (1970) Central dogma of molecular biology. Nature 227(5258):561–563
Darwin C (1877) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, United Kingdom
Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dawkins R (1982) The extended phenotype. Oxford University Press, Oxford
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
Depew DJ, Weber BH (2011) The fate of Darwinism: evolution after the modern synthesis. Biol Theory 6(1):89–102
Dobzhansky T (1937) Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, Columbia
Dobzhansky T (1973) Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Am Biol Teach 35(3):125–129
Eldredge N (1985) Unfinished synthesis: biological hierarchies and modern evolutionary thought. Oxford University Press, Oxford
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
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
Etxeberria A, Umerez J (2006) Organismo y Organización En la Biología Teórica ¿Vuelta Al Organicismo? Ludus Vitalis 14(26):3–38
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
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
Gayon J, Huneman P (2019) The modern synthesis: theoretical or institutional event? J Hist Biol 52(4):519–535
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
Gould SJ (1982) Darwinism and the expansion of evolutionary theory. Science 216(4544):380–387
Gould SJ (1983) The hardening of the modern synthesis. In: Grene M (ed) Dimensions of Darwinism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 71–93
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
Grene M (1959) Two evolutionary theories. Br J Philos Sci 9(35):110–127. 185–193
Grene M (1976) Aristotle and modern biology. In: Grene M, Mendelsohn E (eds) Topics in the philosophy of biology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 3–36
Grene M (1990) Evolution, “typology” and “population thinking”. Am Philos Q 27(3):237–244
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
Huxley JS (1942) Evolution: the modern synthesis. George Allen & Unwin, London
Jablonka E, Lamb MJ (2005) Evolution in four dimensions: genetic, epigenetic, Behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life. MIT Press, Massachusetts
Kampourakis K (2017) Making sense of genes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Laland KN, Matthews B, Feldman MW (2016) An introduction to niche construction theory. Evol Ecol 30:191–202
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
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
Levis NA, Isdaner AJ, Pfennig DW (2018) Morphological novelty emerges from pre-existing phenotypic plasticity. Nat Ecol Evol 2(8):1289–1297
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
Lewontin RC (1983) The organism as the subject and object of evolution. Scientia 77(18)
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
Mayr E (1942) Systematics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, Columbia
Mayr E (1959) Where are we? Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 24:1–14
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
Mayr E (1991) One long argument: Charles Darwin and the genesis of modern evolutionary thought. Harvard University Press, Harvard
Meloni M (2016) Political biology: science and social values in human heredity from eugenics to epigenetics. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London
Moreno A, Etxeberria A, Umerez J (2008) The autonomy of biological individuals and artificial models. Biosystems 91(2):309–319
Müller GB (2017) Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary. Interface Focus 7:20170015
Nicholson DJ (2014) The return of the organism as a fundamental explanatory concept in biology. Philos Compass 9(5):347–359
Noble D (2021) The illusions of the modern synthesis. Biosemiotics 14(1):5–24
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
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
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
Pigliucci M (2007) Do we need an extended evolutionary synthesis? Evolution 61(12):2743–2749
Pigliucci M (2009) An extended synthesis for evolutionary biology. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1168:218–228
Pigliucci M, Murren CJ, Schlichting CD (2006) Phenotypic plasticity and evolution by genetic assimilation. J Exp Biol 209(12):2362–2367
Pradeu T (2016) Organisms or biological individuals? Combining physiological and evolutionary individuality. Biol Philos 31(6):797–817
Provine WB (2004) Ernst Mayr: genetics and speciation. Genetics 167(3):1041–1046
Radick G (2005) Other histories, other Biologies. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements 56:21–47
Rao V, Nanjundiah V (2011) J. B. S. Haldane, Ernst Mayr and the beanbag genetics dispute. J Hist Biol 44(2):233–281
Ruiz-Mirazo K, Etxeberria A, Moreno A, Ibáñez J (2000) Organisms and their place in biology. Theory Biosci 119(3–4):209–233
Shan Y (2021) Beyond Mendelism and biometry. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part A 89:155–163
Smocovitis VB (1996) Unifying biology: the evolutionary synthesis and evolutionary biology. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Smocovitis VB (2001) G. Ledyard Stebbins and the evolutionary synthesis. Annu Rev Genet 35(1):803–814
Sober E, Orzack SH (2003) Common ancestry and natural selection. Br J Philos Sci 54(3):423–437
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
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
Uller T, Feiner N, Radersma R, Jackson ISC, Rago A (2020) Developmental plasticity and evolutionary explanations. Evol Dev 22(1–2):47–55
Waddington CH (1953) Genetic assimilation of an acquired character. Evolution 7(2):118–126
Waddington CH (1957) The strategy of the genes: a discussion of some aspects of theoretical biology. Allen & Unwin, London
Waddington CH (1959) Canalization of development and genetic assimilation of acquired characters. Nature 183(4676):1654–1655
Waddington CH (1968) Towards a theoretical biology. Nature 218(5141):525–527
Walsh DM (2015) Organisms, agency, and evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
West-Eberhard MJ (2003) Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford
West-Eberhard MJ (2008) Toward a modern revival of Darwin’s theory of evolutionary novelty. Philos Sci 75(5):899–908
Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and natural selection: a critique of some current evolutionary thought. Princeton University Press, Princeton
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
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30304-3_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-30303-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-30304-3
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)