Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T03:51:28.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development, Evolution, and Adaptation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Kim Sterelny
Kim Sterelny*
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington
*
†Send requests for reprints to the author, Philosophy, Victoria University of Wellington, P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper I develop three conceptions of the relationship between evolutionary and developmental biology. I further argue that: (a) the choice between them largely turns on as yet unresolved empirical considerations; (b) none of these conceptions demand a fundamental conceptual reevaluation of evolutionary biology; and (c) while developmental systems theorists have constructed an important and innovative alternative to the standard view of the genotype/phenotype relations, in considering the general issue of the relationship between evolutionary and developmental biology, we can remain neutral on this debate.

Type
Philosophy of Biology, Psychology, and Neuroscience
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 67 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers Sep., 2000 , 2000 , pp. S369 - S387
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

‡

Thanks to Peter Godfrey-Smith for organizing the symposium that was the occasion of this paper and to the other participants and the audience for their helpful responses to it. Thanks also to Russell Gray and Paul Griffiths for their comments on an earlier version.

References

Amundson, R. (1994), “Two Conceptions of Constraint: Adaptationism and the Challenge from Developmental Biology”, Philosophy of Science 61: 556–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amundson, R. (forthcoming), “Development and Evolution”, in Singh, R., Krimbas, C., Paul, D., and Beatty, J. (eds.), Thinking About Evolution: Historical, Philosophical and Political Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bateson, P. (1983), “Genes, Environment and the Development of Behaviour”, in Slater, P. and Halliday, T. (eds.), Animal Behaviour: Genes, Development and Learning. Oxford: Blackwell, 52–81.Google Scholar
Bateson, P. (1991), “Are There Principles of Behavioural Development?”, in P. Bateson, The Development and Integration of Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19–31.Google Scholar
Bowler, P. (1988), The Non-Darwinian Revolution. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Conway Morris, S. (1998), The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1996), Climbing Mount Improbable. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
De Beer, G. (1958), Embyros and Ancestors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S. F., Opitz, J. M., and Raff, R. (1996), “Resynthesising Evolutionary and Developmental Biology”, Developmental Biology 173: 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. (1996), Complexity and the Function of Mind in Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. (forthcoming), “Three Kinds of Adaptationism”, in E. Sober and S. Orzack (eds.), Adaptation.Google Scholar
Goodwin, B. C. (1994), How The Leopard Changed Its Spots. New York: Charles Scribner and Sons.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1989), Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York: W.W Norton.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1991). “The Disparity of the Burgess Shale Arthropod Fauna and the Limits of Cladistic Analysis: Why Must We Strive to Quantify Morphospace?”, Paleobiology 17: 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1996), Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin. New York: Harmony Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, R. (1992), “Death of the Gene: Developmental Systems Strike Back”, in Griffiths, P. (ed.), Trees of Life: Essays of the Philosophy of Biology. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 165–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, P. E. and Gray, R. (1994), “Developmental Systems and Evolutionary Explanation”, Journal of Philosophy XCI(6): 277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jablonka, E. and Lamb, M. J. (1995), Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: The Lamarkian Dimension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, T. (1987), “The Persistence of Dichotomies in the Study of Behavioural Development”, Developmental Review 7: 149–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, S. A. (1993), The Origins of Order: Self-Organisation and Selection in Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. A. (1995), At Home in the Universe. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehrman, D. S. (1970), “Semantic and Conceptual Issues in the Nature-Nurture Problem”, in D. S. Lehrman, Development and Evolution of Behaviour. San Fransisco: W. H. Freeman, 17–52.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1982), “Organism and Environment”, in Plotkin, H. C. (ed.), Learning, Development and Culture. New York: Wiley, 151–170.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1985), “Adaptation”, in R. Levins and R. Lewontin, The Dialectical Biologist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 65–84.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. (1997), Shapes of Time: The Evolution and Growth of Development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
McShea, D. W. (1993), “Arguments, Tests, and the Burgess Shale—A Commentary on the Debate”, Paleobiology 19: 399–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McShea, D. W. (1996), “Metazoan Complexity and Evolution: Is There a Trend?”, Evolution 50: 477–492.Google ScholarPubMed
Mueller, G. B. and Wagner, G. P. (1996), “Homology, Hox Genes and Developmental Integration”, American Zoologist 36: 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oyama, S. (1985), The Ontogeny of Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palumbi, S. R. (1997), “A Star Is Born”, Nature 390: 556–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raff, R. (1996), The Shape of Life: Genes, Development and the Evolution of Animal Form. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridley, M. (1990), “Dreadful Beasts: A Review of S. J. Gould's ‘Wonderful Life‘”, London Review of Books (28 June): 11–12.Google Scholar
Ridley, M. (1993), “Analysis of the Burgess Shale”, Paleobiology 19: 519–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schank, J. C. and Wimsatt, W. (forthcoming), “Evolvability: Adaptation, Construction, and Modularity”, in Singh, R., Krimbas, C., Paul, D., and Beatty, J. (eds.), Thinking About Evolution: Historical, Philosophical and Political Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sterelny, K. and Griffiths, P. (1999), Sex and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterelny, K., Smith, K., and Dickison, M. (1996), “The Extended Replicator”, Biology and Philosophy 11: 377–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, G. P. (1995), “The Biological Role of Homologues: A Building Bloack Hypothesis”, Neues Jahrbuch Geologie und Palaeontologie 195: 279–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, G. P. and Altenberg, L. (1996), “Complex Adaptations and the Evolution of Evolvability”, Evolution 50: 967–976.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wimsatt, W. C. and Schank, J. C. (1988), “Two Constraints on the Evolution of Complex Adaptations and the Means of Their Avoidance”, in Nitecki, M. H. (ed.), Evolutionary Progress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 231–275.Google Scholar