Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inertia, Trend, and Momentum Reconsidered: G. G. Simpson—An Orthogeneticist?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Natural Selection

Part of the book series: Evolutionary Biology – New Perspectives on Its Development ((EBNPD,volume 3))

Abstract

George Gaylord Simpson, one of the architects of Modern Synthesis, was one of the main figures of paleontology who discredited and rejected the theory of orthogenesis in his discipline. Following the neo-Darwinian agenda, he thought that this theory had little basis to be proven. Since then, orthogenesis has been defined in textbooks as a “metaphysical,” “vitalistic,” or “theological” theory. However, in the present analysis, I demonstrate that Simpson indirectly advocated for an explanation of orthogenesis through his explanation of the concept of “parallelism.” In other words, Simpson did not end orthogenesis but rather ended up defending the phenomenon of orthogenesis through the concept of parallelism. I argue that Simpson maintained pluralistic ideas upon including constraints into his evolutionary system as a complementary factor to the argument of natural selection.

The structure of an ancestral group inevitably restricts the lines of possible evolutionary change. That simple fact greatly increases the probability that among the number of descendant lineages several or all will follow one line.

George Gaylord Simpson (1961)

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Whether microevolution is different from macroevolution has been one of the central issues in evolutionary thought; see Adams (2021) in this volume.

  2. 2.

    However, it is important to note that Dobzhansky had doubts about the central role of natural selection in macroevolution through his life; for this discussion, see van de Meer (2021) in this volume.

  3. 3.

    To account for the origin of the species and higher taxa, Simpson argued that there were different modes of evolution. Speciation (splitting up of a population) pertains to species and subspecies. Phyletic evolution (directional shift of average characters of the entire population) was related to the genus level. Quantum evolution (a rapid change of the population from a state of instability to stability) corresponds to higher categories such as families, classes, and orders.

  4. 4.

    Osborn was a champion of the orthogenesis theory as well. He integrated natural selection as one of the several causes which explains evolutionary trends. For more information, see in this volume Ceccarelli 2021.

  5. 5.

    Or we should use the term “developmental bias” to be more precise.

  6. 6.

    This phenomenon is now recognized as stasis (see Gould and Eldredge 1977).

  7. 7.

    For instance, the orthogenesis theories of Osborn and Vialleton are far from being metaphysical or vitalistic. Simpson only recognized this fact in Osborn’s theory. On the other hand, Teilhard de Chardin developed a thought which had nothing to do with orthogenesis, while Robert Broom openly recognized a divine plan.

  8. 8.

    See Simpson (1949, p. 155, 1953, pp. 270–271).

  9. 9.

    Ronal Aylmer Fisher, well-known for founding the population genetics, in his famous book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, argued that orthogenesis was false because experimental experience does not support the assumption that the mutations can be directed toward certain points. Most mutations, according to him, occur randomly and without any adaptive value. However, if the mutations had a steady direction, he reasons, they would have to possess a constancy of rate greater than the required selection to fix the new mutation into the population (see Ochoa 2017).

  10. 10.

    In Principles of Animal Taxonomy (1961), Simpson defines the term of convergence as follows: Convergence is the development of similar characters separately in two or more lineages without a common ancestry pertinent to the similarity but involving adaptation to similar ecological status (Simpson 1961, pp. 78–79; his italics). That is, the characters “may and frequently do also arise as independent convergent adaptations to similar ways of life in taxa of quite different ancestries” (Simpson 1961, p. 78; his italics). For Simpson, and unlike the case of parallelism, similarities instigated under convergence is the product of the action of natural selection on organisms living in similar environments.

References

  • Adams MB (2021) Little evolution, BIG evolution: rethinking the history of Darwinism, population genetics, and the “synthesis”. In: Delisle RG (ed) Natural selection: revisiting its explanatory role in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 195–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Amundson R (2005) The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: roots of evo-devo. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur W (2004) The effect of development on the direction of evolution: toward a twenty-first century consensus. Evol Dev 6:282–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler PJ (1983) The eclipse of Darwinism: anti-Darwinian evolution theories in the decades around 1900. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler PJ (2017) Alternatives to Darwinism in the early twentieth century. In: Delisle RG (ed) The Darwinian tradition in context: research programs in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 195–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain JA (1992) Building a temporal biology: Simpson’s program for paleontology during an American expansion of biology. Earth Sci Hist 11:30–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceccarelli D (2021) Recasting natural selection: Osborn and the pluralistic view of life. In: Delisle RG (ed) Natural selection: revisiting its explanatory role in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 171–194

    Google Scholar 

  • De Renzi M (2014) Evolutionary trends promoted by internal causes versus orthogenesis-a discussion. In: Royo-Torres R, Verdú FJ, Alcalá L (eds) XXX Jornadas de Paleontología de la Sociedad Española de Paleontología. ¡Fundamental! vol 24, pp 57–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Delisle RG (2009) Les philosophies du néo-darwinisme: conceptions divergentes sur l’homme et le sens de l’évolution. PUF, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delisle RG (2017) From Charles Darwin to the evolutionary synthesis: weak and diffused connections only. In: Delisle RG (ed) The Darwinian tradition in context: research programs in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 133–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Diogo R (2017) Evolution driven by organismal behavior: a unifying view of life, function, form, mismatches, and trends. Springer, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky T (1951) Genetics and the origin of species, 3rd edn. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Esposito M (2021) Cathedrals, corals and mycelia: three analogies for the history of evolutionary biology. In: Delisle RG (ed) Natural selection: revisiting its explanatory role in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 11–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt R (1940) The material basis of evolution. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1980) G. G. Simpson, paleontology, and the modern synthesis. In: Mayr E, Provine WB (eds) The evolutionary synthesis: perspectives on the unification of biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 153–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ, Eldredge N (1977) Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology 3:115–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grehan JR, Ainsworth R (1985) Orthogenesis and evolution. Sys Zool 34:174–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas O, Simpson GG (1946) Analysis of some phylogenetic terms, with attempts at redefinition. Proc Am Phil Soc 90:319–349

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jablonski D (2020) Developmental bias, macroevolution, and the fossil record. Evol Dev 22:103–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg VL (1907) Darwinism to-day: a discussion of present-day scientific criticism of the Darwinian selection theories, together with a brief account of the principal other proposed auxiliary and alternative theories of species-forming. G. Bell and Sun, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Laporte LF (2000) George Gaylord Simpson: paleontologist and evolutionist. Columbia University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Levit GS, Olsson L (2006) “Evolution on rails”: mechanisms and levels of orthogenesis. Ann Hist Philos Biol 11:99–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Levit GS, Meister K, Hoßfeld U (2008) Alternative evolutionary theories: a historical survey. J Bioecon 10:71–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1963) Animals species and evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1980a) Prologue: some thoughts on the history of the evolutionary synthesis. In: Mayr E, Provine WB (eds) The evolutionary synthesis: perspectives on the unification of biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1980b) The role of systematics in the evolutionary synthesis. In: Mayr E, Provine WB (eds) The evolutionary synthesis: perspectives on the unification of biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 123–136

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E, Provine WB (eds) (1980) The evolutionary synthesis: perspectives on the unification of biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Moczek AP (2020) Biases in the study of developmental bias. Evol Dev 22:3–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monnet C, Klug C, De Baets K (2015) Evolutionary patterns of ammonoids: phenotypic trends, convergence, and parallel evolution. In: Klug C, Korn D, De Baets K, Kruta I, Mapes RH (eds) Ammonoid paleobiology: from macroevolution to paleogeography. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 95–142

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ochoa C (2017) El eclipse del antidarwinismo: la historia detrás de la síntesis moderna. Centro de Estudios Filosóficos, Políticos y Sociales Vicente Lombardo Toledano, México

    Google Scholar 

  • Ochoa C (2021) The origins of theoretical developmental genetics: reinterpreting William Bateson’s role in the history of evolutionary thought. In: Delisle RG (ed) Natural selection: revisiting its explanatory role in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 261–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Ochoa C, Barahona A (2014) El Jano de la morfología: de la homología a la homoplasia, historia, debates y evolución. UNAM; Centro de Estudios Filosóficos, Políticos y Sociales Vicente Lombardo Toledano, México

    Google Scholar 

  • Ochoa C, Rasskin-Gutman D (2015) Evo-devo mechanisms underlying the continuum between homology and homoplasy. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 324:91–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M (2017) Darwinism after the modern synthesis. In: Delisle RG (ed) The Darwinian tradition in context: research programs in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 89–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Popov I (2009) The problem of constraints on variation, from Darwin to the present. Ludus Vitalis 17:201–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Popov I (2018) Orthogenesis versus Darwinism. Translated by Natalia Lentsman. Springer, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reif W-E (1993) Afterword of OH Schindewolf, basic questions in paleontology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 435–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Schindewolf OH (1993) Basic questions in paleontology: geologic time, organic evolution, and biological systematics. Translated by Judith Schaefer. Original (1950). University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz JH (2021) What’s natural about natural selection? In: Delisle RG (ed) Natural selection: revisiting its explanatory role in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 329–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott WB (1891) On the osteology of Mesohippus and Leptomeryx, with observations on the modes and factors of evolution in the Mammalia. J Morphol 5:301–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott WB (1896) Paleontology as a morphological discipline. Science 4:177–188

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sepkoski D (2019) The unfinished synthesis? Paleontology and evolutionary biology in the 20th century. J Hist Biol 52:687–703

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson GG (1944) Tempo and mode in evolution. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson GG (1945) The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 85:1–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson GG (1948) Biographical memoir of William Berryman Scott, 1858-1947. BMNAS 25:175–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson GG (1949) The meaning of evolution: a study of the history of life and its significance for man. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson GG (1953) The major features of evolution. Columbia University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson GG (1961) Principles of animal taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoltzfus A (2017) Why we don’t want another “Synthesis”. Biol Direct 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13062-017-0194-1

  • Turner DD (2017) Paleobiology’s uneasy relationship with the Darwinian tradition: stasis as data. In: Delisle RG (ed) The Darwinian tradition in context: research programs in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 333–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulett MA (2014) Making the case for orthogenesis: the popularization of definitely directed evolution (1890-1926). Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 45:124–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulett MA (2016) Directed evolution, history of. In: Kliman RM (ed) The encyclopedia of evolutionary biology. Academic Press, Oxford, pp 441–443

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Meer JM (2021) The concept of natural selection in Theodosius Dobzhansky. Its development and interpretation. In: Delisle RG (ed) Natural selection: revisiting its explanatory role in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 291–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Wake DB, Wake MH, Specht CD (2011) Homoplasy: from detecting pattern to determining process and mechanism of evolution. Science 331:1032–1035

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wittington HB (1986) George Gaylord Simpson: 16 June 1902 – 6 October 1984. Biogr Mems Fell R Soc 32:526–539

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank Sandra Naitzé Martínez Byer and Aaron Thompson for the English review. I am very grateful to Richard Delisle for the trust that he has placed in me, his support, and his suggestions that improved this work. I also want to thank the reviewers for their suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Science, Department of Evolutionary Biology, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Coyoacán, Mexico City, Mexico

    Carlos Ochoa

Authors
  1. Carlos Ochoa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlos Ochoa .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Liberal Education and Department of Philosophy, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB, Canada

    Richard G. Delisle

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ochoa, C. (2021). Inertia, Trend, and Momentum Reconsidered: G. G. Simpson—An Orthogeneticist?. In: Delisle, R.G. (eds) Natural Selection. Evolutionary Biology – New Perspectives on Its Development, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65536-5_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation