This contribution to the adaptationism debate elaborates the nature of constraints and their importance in evolutionary explanation and argues that the adaptationism debate should be limited to the issue of how to privilege causes in evolutionary explanation. I argue that adaptationist explanations are deeply conceptually dependent on developmental constraints, and explanations that appeal to constraints are dependant on the results of natural selection. I suggest these explanations should be integrated into the framework of historical causal explanation. Each strategy explicitly appeals (...) to some aspect of the evolutionary process, while implicitly appealing to others. Thus, adaptationists and anti-adaptationists can offer complementary causal explanations of the same explanandum. This eliminates much of the adaptationism debate and explains why its adversaries regularly agree with each other more than they would like. The adaptationism issue that remains is a species of the general issue of how to privilege causes in explanation. I show how a proposed solution to this general problem might be brought to bear on evolutionary explanations, and investigate some difficulties that might arise due to the nature of the evolutionary process. (shrink)

Embryos, cells, genes, and organisms : reflections on the history of evolutionary developmental biology / Manfred D. Laubichler and Jane Maienschein The organismic systems approach : streamlining the naturalistic agenda / Werner Callebaut, Gerd B. Müller, and Stuart A. Newman Complex traits : genetics, development, and evolution / H. Frederik Nijhout Functional and developmental constraints on life-cycle evolution : an attempt on the architecture of constraints / Gerhard Schlosser Legacies of adaptive development / Roger Sansom Evo-devo meets the mind : (...) toward a developmental evolutionary psychology / Paul E. Griffiths Reproducing entrenchments to scaffold culture : the central role of development in cultural evolution / William C. Wimsatt and James R. Griesemer. (shrink)

One current version of the internalism/externalism debate in evolutionary theory focuses on the relative importance of developmental constraints in evolutionary explanation. The received view of developmental constraints sees them as an internalist concept that tend to be shared across related species as opposed to selective pressures that are not. Thus, to the extent that constraints can explain anything, they can better explain similarity across species, while natural selection is better able to explain their differences. I challenge both of these aspects (...) of the received view and propose a hierarchical view of constraints. (shrink)

Understanding the operation and evolution of gene regulation networks is critical to understanding ontogeny and evolution. According to Stuart Kauffman's view, (1) each cell type cycles through its own repeated pattern of gene expression, (2) the order of ontogeny is dependent on these cycles being short, and (3) evolution is possible because these cycles mutate gradually. This view of gene regulation reflects Kauffman's view that ontogeny is fundamentally the process of cells repeating cycles of activity. I criticize Kauffman's view of (...) gene regulation networks and offer the connectionist theory of gene regulation as an alternative. On this view, the generic order of gene regulation mechanisms is due to the qualitatively consistent way that one gene product influences the expression of another. This allows networks to be stable and evolve to regulate accurately, allowing cells to react appropriately to their microenvironments, due to design by natural selection. 1. Introduction2. Kauffman's Model of Gene Regulation3. Explaining the Order of Kauffman's K = 2 Networks4. The Importance and Relevance of Kauffman's Explanations of the Order of Gene Regulation5. Additional Orderly Facts of Transcription6. The Order of Network Accuracy7. The Accuracy of Connectionist Networks8. The Evolvability of Gene Regulation Networks9. Laws of Structure. (shrink)

I show that gene regulation networks are qualitatively consistent and therefore sufficiently similar to linearly seperable connectionist networks to warrant that the connectionist framework be applied to gene regulation. On this view, natural selection designs gene regulation networks to overcome the difficulty of development. I offer some general lessons about their evolvability that can be learned by examining the generic features of connectionist networks.

Empirical advances in biology led to the popularity of a view known as gene selectionism, most recently championed by Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" . On this view, natural selection "looked through" the organism right to the genome; evolution was a change in the genomes of a species over time and the process of development is rendered epiphenominal to that process. Recently, support for gene selectionism has waned in favor of a pluralistic view. On this view, natural selection operates at (...) many different levels, including: genes, traits of organisms, organisms, groups, species and clades. Because the process of development occurs at many of these levels, a complete understanding of evolution will include an understanding of the developmental process. This dissertation is a contribution to the integration of evolution and development that has become known as the developmental synthesis. ;I argue that the adaptationism debate has raged for so long because it is based on an incoherent picture of the world, according to which, some traits are due to natural selection and others are due to constraints. In fact, all traits are due to both natural selection and constraints. Whether we explain a trait in terms of natural selection or constraints is a matter of pragmatics. Evolutionary explanations are causal explanations and different types of evolutionary explanations appeal to different aspects of the evolutionary process. ;I also offer two general theories on how natural selection can design organisms capable of complex development. The first focuses on the nature of gene control networks. I argue that they are connectionist networks designed by natural selection to overcome the difficulty of development. The second focuses on the evolvability of ontogeny. I argue that ontogeny can be designed by natural selection for increased evolvability, primarily through designed functional modularity. (shrink)

James Shapiro’s view of evolution is inspired by looking at the molecular mechanisms of mutation. Finding these systems to be intelligent and the mutations non-gradual, Shapiro concludes that neither the role of DNA in development, nor and the role of natural selection in evolution are what we thought them to be. The cases discussed are interesting and may require some modification of theory in biology, but this reviewer finds many of Shapiro’s conclusions unwarranted.