Advertisement

Inherency

  • Stuart A. Newman
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Inherency in development and evolution is the idea that aspects of the phenotype are latent in the organism’s material identity and that these features will spontaneously emerge if the conditions are right. This chapter is primarily concerned with inherency of form in the animals (metazoans). Regarding development, inherency means that certain structural motifs (e.g., tissue layers, lumens, segments, appendages) can be readily generated by physical organizing forces acting on tissue masses, with minimal programming by the genome. With respect to evolution, it means that body plans and organ forms will inescapably be characterized by these motifs despite their not having arisen by multiple cycles of selection for improved fitness. The notion of inherency is therefore at odds with the theory of natural selection and its twentieth-century embodiment, the modern evolutionary synthesis. While a recently proposed extended synthesis relaxes the gradualism, gene-centrism, and assumption of unbiased modes of variation of the modern synthesis, it is similarly challenged by inherency, since in most renditions it remains focused on adaptation as the criterion of evolutionary success. Inherency makes generation of form ontologically prior to its uses. It implies that since organisms are limited with respect to potential morphologies, and innovation within these limits may be sudden and unprecedented, the major factor in establishment of new lineages is not competitive struggle in preexisting niches but ingenuity of organisms in using the means at their disposal.

Keywords

Mesoscale physics Natural selection Diploblasty Triploblasty Segmentation Macroevolution 

References

  1. Alberch P (1989) The logic of monsters: evidence for internal constraint in development and evolution. Geobios 19:21–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold ML, Kunte K (2017) Adaptive genetic exchange: a tangled history of admixture and evolutionary innovation. Trends Ecol Evol 32:601–611.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.05.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonner JT (2013) Randomness in evolution. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cubas P, Vincent C, Coen E (1999) An epigenetic mutation responsible for natural variation in floral symmetry. Nature 401:157–161.  https://doi.org/10.1038/43657 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dawkins R (1996) Climbing mount improbable, 1st American edn. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Forgacs G, Newman SA (2005) Biological physics of the developing embryo. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gould SJ (1989) Wonderful life. W.W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Hubaud A, Pourquié O (2014) Signalling dynamics in vertebrate segmentation. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 15:709–721CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Indjeian VB et al (2016) Evolving new skeletal traits by cis-regulatory changes in bone morphogenetic proteins. Cell 164:45–56.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.12.007 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Kondo S, Miura T (2010) Reaction-diffusion model as a framework for understanding biological pattern formation. Science 329:1616–1620CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Laland KN (2015) On evolutionary causes and evolutionary processes. Behav Process 117:97–104.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Laland KN et al (2015) The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions. Proc Biol Sci 282.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019
  13. Linde-Medina M (2010) Two “evodevos”. Biol Theor 5:7–11Google Scholar
  14. Levin S, Scott T, Cooper H, West S (2017) Darwin’s aliens International Journal of Astrobiology:1–9  https://doi.10.1017/S1473550417000362
  15. Mayr E (1982) The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Müller GB (2017) Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary. Interface Focus 7:20170015CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Newman SA (2016a) ‘Biogeneric’ developmental processes: drivers of major transitions in animal evolution. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 371.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0443
  18. Newman SA (2016b) Origination, variation, and conservation of animal body plan development. Rev Cell Biol Mol Med 2:130–162.  https://doi.org/10.1002/3527600906.mcb.200400164.pub2 Google Scholar
  19. Newman SA, Bhat R (2009) Dynamical patterning modules: a “pattern language” for development and evolution of multicellular form. Int J Dev Biol 53:693–705.  https://doi.org/10.1387/ijdb.072481sn CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Newman SA, Linde-Medina M (2013) Physical determinants in the emergence and inheritance of multicellular form. Biol Theor 8:274–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Newman SA, Müller GB (2005) Genes and form: inherency in the evolution of developmental mechanisms. In: Neumann-Held E, Rehmann-Sutter C (eds) Genes in development: re-reading the molecular paradigm. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 38–73Google Scholar
  22. Newman SA, Niklas KJ (2018) Dynamical patterning modules link genotypes to morphological phenotypes in multicellular evolution. In: Hall BK, Moody A (eds) Cells in evolutionary biology. CRC Press, Boca Raton. (in press)Google Scholar
  23. Newman SA, Glimm T, Bhat R (2018) The vertebrate limb: an evolving complex of self-organizing systems. Prog Biophys Mol Biol (in press)Google Scholar
  24. Ruiz-Trillo I (2016) What are the genomes of premetazoan lineages telling us about the origin of Metazoa? In: Niklas KJ, Newman SA (eds) Multicellularity: origins and evolution. Vienna series in theoretical biology. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 171–184Google Scholar
  25. Shapiro MD et al (2013) Genomic diversity and evolution of the head crest in the rock pigeon. Science.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230422
  26. Street SE, Navarrete AF, Reader SM, Laland KN (2017) Coevolution of cultural intelligence, extended life history, sociality, and brain size in primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620734114
  27. Sturtevant AH (1924) An interpretation of orthogenesis. Science 59:579–580.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.59.1539.579-a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Turing AM (1952) The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 237:37–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vedel V, Chipman AD, Akam M, Arthur W (2008) Temperature-dependent plasticity of segment number in an arthropod species: the centipede Strigamia maritima. Evol Dev 10:487–492.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-142X.2008.00259.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Vermeij GJ (2015) Forbidden phenotypes and the limits of evolution. Interface Focus 5:20150028.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2015.0028 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New York Medical CollegeValhallaUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Gerd B. Müller
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.The KLI InstituteKlosterneuburgAustria
  2. 2.University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations