Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:20:24.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the dual nature of chance in evolutionary biology and paleobiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Gunther J. Eble
Gunther J. Eble*
Affiliation:
Committee on Evolutionary Biology, University of Chicago, 5734 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60637
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The identification of randomness and nonrandomness is a perennial problem in evolutionary research. Stochastic thinking in evolutionary biology and paleobiology has solidified the use of a statistical notion of chance, but the idea of chance in evolutionary studies goes beyond statistics. A duality arises from the use of a statistical meaning on the one hand, and a more strictly evolutionary meaning on the other. The former implies a combination of indiscriminate sampling and unpredictability due to multiple causes; the latter codifies independence from adaptation and the directionality imposed by natural selection. Often these meanings are kept separate in evolutionary research, used in isolation according to the empirical situation or the goal of the investigator (recognition of pattern versus process). I argue that evolutionary studies in general and paleobiological studies in particular can benefit from the simultaneous application of statistical and evolutionary notions of chance. Following some background on the notion of chance and its use, I discuss a series of examples in which insight can be gained by explicit consideration of both meanings. Thus, typologies of extinction become clearer when phenomena like wanton extinction are made explicit; exaptive radiations are exposed as an alternative to adaptive radiations; the possible nonadaptive nature of deterministic chaos becomes sensible; the nonrandomness of community-assembly is put into question; parallel taxonomies of sorting rooted in different notions of nonrandomness are suggested as a means of facilitating understanding of relationships across the hierarchy; developmental constraints and self-organization are more easily distinguished from selective constraints; and a new term, “incidentals,” is suggested to refer to both exaptations and nonaptations. Finally, I point to ways in which the dichotomy between chance and necessity can be approached in evolutionary theory, by showing that the dual nature of chance in evolution entails a distinction between functional and structural necessity, and that chance ultimately becomes a unifying concept for a number of criticisms to neo-Darwinism.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , Winter 1999 , pp. 75 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Adler, M. J. ed. 1952. The great ideas I. A syntopicon University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Antonovics, J. and van Tienderen, P. H. 1991. Ontoecogenophyloconstraints? The chaos of constraint terminology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 6: 166–168.Google Scholar
Bambach, R. K. 1996. Progress by chance. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 28: A178.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1996. Exploring the pattern of coordinated stasis: simulations and extinction scenarios. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 127: 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, J. 1984. Chance and natural selection. Philosophy of Science. 51: 183–211.Google Scholar
Beatty, J. 1987. The probabilistic revolution in evolutionary biology—an overview. Pp. 229–232. Kru¨ger, L., Gigerenzer, G., Morgan, M. S.The probabilistic revolution. Vol. 2. Ideas in the sciences MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Beatty, J. 1992. Random drift. Pp. 273–281. in Keller, E. F., Lloyd, E. A. eds. Keywords in evolutionary biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Beatty, J. 1995. The evolutionary contingency thesis. Pp. 45–81. Wolters, G., Lennox, J. G. eds. (in collaboration withMcLaughlin), P.Concepts, theories, and rationality in the biological sciences. Universita¨tsverlag Konstanz and University of Pittsburgh Press, Konstanz, Pittsburgh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennington, J. B. and Bambach, R. K. 1996. Statistical testing for paleocommunity recurrence: are similar fossil assemblages ever the same? Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 127: 107–133.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E. and Baird, G. C. 1995. Coordinated stasis and evolutionary ecology of Silurian to Middle Devonian faunas in the Appalachian Basin. Pp. 285–315. Erwin, D. H., Anstey, R. L.New approaches to speciation in the fossil record Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Brundin, L. Z. 1986. Evolution by orderly stepwise subordination and largely nonrandom mutations. Systematic Zoology 35: 602–607.Google Scholar
Charlesworth, B., Lande, R., and Slatkin, M. 1982. A neo-Darwinian commentary on macroevolution. Evolution 36: 474–498.Google Scholar
Dembski, W. A. 1991. Randomness by design. Nou∘s. 25: 75–108.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. 1974. Two contrasting world views. Pp. 131–141. in.Lewis, J. ed. Beyond chance and necessity. Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, N.J.Google Scholar
Drake, J. A. 1990. Communities as assembled structures: do rules govern pattern? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5: 159–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eble, G. J. 1998a. Diversification of disasteroids, holasteroids and spatangoids in the Mesozoic. Pp. 629–638. in Mooi, R., Telford, M. eds. Echinoderms: San Francisco. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Eble, G. J. 1998b. The role of development in evolutionary radiations. Pp. 132–161. in McKinney, M. L., Drake, J. A. eds. Biodiversity dynamics: turnover of populations, taxa, and communities. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Ferriere, R. and Fox, G. A. 1995. Chaos and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10: 480–485.Google Scholar
Fox, S. W. 1984. Proteinoid experiments and evolutionary theory. Pp. 15–60. in Ho, and Saunders, 1984b.Google Scholar
Futuyma, D. J. 1998. Evolutionary biology. 3d ed.Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Swijtink, Z., Porter, T., Daston, L., Beatty, J., and Kru¨ger, L. 1989. The empire of chance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Goodwin, B. 1994. How the leopard changed its spots: the evolution of complexity. Scribner, New York.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1980. The promise of paleobiology as a nomothetic, evolutionary discipline. Paleobiology 6: 96–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1982. Darwinism and the expansion of evolutionary theory. Science 216: 380–387.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1989a. A developmental constraint in Cerion, with comments on the definition and interpretation of constraint in evolution. Evolution. 43: 516–539.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1989b. Wonderful life. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1997. The exaptive excellence of spandrels as a term and prototype. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 94: 10750–10755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gould, S. J. and Lewontin, R. C. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 205: 581–598.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. and Vrba, E. S. 1982. Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8: 4–15.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J., Raup, D. M., Sepkoski, J. J. Jr., Schopf, T. J. M., and Simberloff, D. S. 1977. The shape of evolution: a comparison of real and random clades. Paleobiology 3: 23–40.Google Scholar
Grantham, T. A. 1995. Hierarchical approaches to macroevolution: recent work on species selection and the “effect hypothesis.”. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26: 301–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, M.-W., Saunders, P. T. eds. 1984a. Pluralism and convergence in evolutionary theory. pp. 3–12in Ho and Saunders 1984b.Google Scholar
Ho, M.-W., Saunders, P. T. 1984b. Beyond neo-Darwinism. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Hodge, M. J. S. 1987. Natural selection as a causal, empirical, and probabilistic theory. Pp. 233–270. in Kru, L.¨ger,Gigerenzer, G., Morgan, M. S. eds. The probabilistic revolution. Vol. 2. Ideas in the sciences MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M. 1996. Recognizing artifactually generated coordinated stasis: implications of numerical models and strategies for field tests. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 127: 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1989. The biology of mass extinction: a palaeontological view. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 325: 357–368.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. and Bottjer, D. 1991. Environmental patterns in the origins of higher taxa: the post-Paleozoic fossil record. Science 252: 1831–1833.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. and Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1996. Paleobiology, community ecology, and scales of ecological pattern. Ecology 77: 1367–1378.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. and Valentine, J. W. 1993. Fossil communities: compositional variation at many time scales. Pp. 341–349. in Ricklefs, R. E., Schluter, D. eds. Species diversity in ecological communities: historical and geographical perspectives. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. A. 1989. Origins of order in evolution: self-organization and selection. Pp. 67–88. in Goodwin, B., Saunders, P. eds. Theoretical biology: epigenetic and evolutionary order from complex systems. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. A. 1993. The origins of order. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. A. 1995. At home in the universe. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Kimura, M. 1989. The neutral theory of molecular evolution and the world view of the neutralists. Genome 31: 24–31.Google Scholar
Kitts, D. B. 1975. Stochastic models of phylogeny and the evolution of diversity: a discussion. Journal of Geology 83: 125–126.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. 1966. Is nature probable or capricious?. Bioscience 16: 25–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lima-de-Faria, A. 1988. Evolution without selection. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Lloyd, E. A. and Gould, S. J. 1993. Species selection on variability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 90: 595–599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, C. R. 1995. Darwinism in an age of molecular revolution. Pp. 1–30. in Marshall, C. R., Schopf, J. W. eds. Evolution and the molecular revolution. Jones Bartlett, Sudbury Mass.Google Scholar
Matsuno, K. 1984. Open systems and the origin of protoreproductive units. Pp. 61–88. in Ho Saunders 1984b.Google Scholar
May, R. M. 1987. Chaos and the dynamics of biological populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 413: 27–44.Google Scholar
Smith, J. Maynard, Burian, R., Kauffman, S., Alberch, P., Campbell, J., Goodwin, B., Lande, R., Raup, D., and Wolpert, L. 1985. Developmental constraints and evolution. Quarterly Review of Biology 60: 265–287.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1961. Cause and effect in biology. Science 134: 1501–1506.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1963. Animal species and evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mikkelson, G. M. 1993. How do food webs fall apart? A study of changes in trophic structure during relaxation on habitat fragments. Oikos. 67: 539–547.Google Scholar
Monod, J. 1972. Chance and necessity. Vintage Books, New York.Google Scholar
Morris, P. J., Ivany, L., Schopf, K., and Brett, C. 1995. The challenge of paleoecological stasis: reassessing sources of evolutionary stability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 92: 11269–11273.Google Scholar
Paley, W. 1831. Natural theology. Jonathan Leavitt, New York.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. Reprint, 1992, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1992. Unended quest. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1975. Taxonomic survivorship curves and Van Valen's law. Paleobiology 1: 82–96.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1977. Stochastic models in evolutionary paleontology. Pp. 59–78. in Hallam, A. ed. Patterns of evolution. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1991. Extinction: bad genes or bad luck?. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. and Gould, S. J. 1974. Stochastic simulation and evolution of morphology—towards a nomothetic paleontology. Systematic Zoology 23: 305–322.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. and Schopf, T. J. M. 1978. Stochastic models in paleontology: a prime. Notes for workshop “Species as particles in space and time,” held at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M., Gould, S. J., Schopf, T. J. M., and Simberloff, D. S. 1973. Stochastic models of phylogeny and the evolution of diversity. Journal of Geology 81: 525–542.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M., Gould, S. J., Schopf, T. J. M., and Simberloff, D. S. 1975. Stochastic models of phylogeny and the evolution of diversity: a reply. Journal of Geology 83: 126–127.Google Scholar
Ridley, M. 1993. Evolution. Blackwell Scientific, Boston.Google Scholar
Rosen, D. E. 1982. Do current theories of evolution satisfy the basic requirements of explanation? Systematic Zoology 31: 76–85.Google Scholar
Schaffer, W. M. 1985. Order and chaos in ecological systems. Ecology 66: 93–106.Google Scholar
Schoffeniels, E. 1976. Anti-chance. Pergamon, Exeter, England.Google Scholar
Schopf, T. J. M. 1979. Evolving paleontological views on deterministic and stochastic approaches. Paleobiology 5: 337–352.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1991. Population biology models in macroevolution. In Gilinsky, N. L., Signor, P. W. eds. Analytical paleobiology. Short Courses in Paleontology 4: 136–156. Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tenn.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1953. The major features of evolution. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Sober, E. 1984. The nature of selection. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. 1995. Biometry, 3d ed. W. H. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M., Signor, P. W., Lidgard, S., and Karr, A. F. 1981. Natural clades differ from “random clades”: simulations and analyses. Paleobiology 7: 115–127.Google Scholar
Underwood, A. J. 1986. What is a community?. Pp. 351–367. in Raup, D. M., Jablonski, D. eds. Patterns and processes in the history of life. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1973. A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory 1: 1–30.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1976. Domains, deduction, the predictive method, and Darwin. Evolutionary Theory. 1: 231–245.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1985. Null hypotheses and prediction. Nature 314: 230.Google Scholar
Vrba, E. S. 1983. Macroevolutionary trends: new perspectives on the roles of adaptation and incidental effect. Science 221: 387–389.Google Scholar
Vrba, E. S. 1989. Levels of selection and sorting with special reference to the species level. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 6: 111–168.Google Scholar
Vrba, E. S. and Gould, S. J. 1986. The hierarchical expansion of sorting and selection: sorting and selection cannot be equated. Paleobiology 12: 217–228.Google Scholar
Wicken, J. S. 1984. On the increase in complexity in evolution. Pp. 89–112. in Ho Saunders 1984b.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. 1992. Natural selection: domains, levels, and challenges. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. S. 1988. Holism and reductionism in evolutionary ecology. Oikos. 53: 269–273.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. 1980. Randomness and perceived-randomness in evolutionary biology. Synthese. 43: 287–329.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. 1987. False models as means to truer theories. Pp. 23–55. in Nitecki, M. H., Hoffman, A. eds. Neutral models in biology Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Wright, S. 1949. Adaptation and selection. Pp. 365–389. in Jepson, G. L., Simpson, G. G., Mayr, E. eds. Genetics, paleontology, and evolution Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Wright, S. 1967. Comments on the preliminary working papers of Eden and Waddington. Pp. 117–120. in Moorehead, P. S., Kaplan, M. M. eds. Mathematical challenges to the neo-Darwinian interpretation of evolution Wistar Institutional Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar