Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T16:29:09.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Generative Entrenchment and Evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Jeffrey C. Schank  and
William C. Wimsatt
Jeffrey C. Schank
Affiliation:
The University of Chicago
William C. Wimsatt
Affiliation:
The University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Interest in and detailed studies of development go back to Aristotle, and antedated serious work on evolution. In the 19th century, theories of and information about development played a significant role in evolutionary thought. This wave reached a crest with Emst Haeckel's late 19th century attempted fusion of evolutionary and developmental ideas through the study of comparative embryology via his ‘Biogenetic law’ that ‘Ontogeny recapitulates phytogeny.’ With the rise of experimental methods for studying development, and the separation of the study of heredity from that of development leading to the birth of genetics as a separate discipline, Haeckel's views fell out of favor by the first decade of the 20th century as evolutionary thought took on new directions. (See, e.g., Allen 1979, Gould 1977, and the essays by Hamburger and Churchill in Mayr and Provine (1980)).

Type
Part II. Biology and Medicine
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1986 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1986 , 1986 , pp. 33 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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

1

The order of the authors was determined alphabetically. Although Wimsatt is primarily responsible for sections 1-5, and Schank for sections 7-12, both contributed substantially to the writing and content of most parts of the paper. The first part of this paper is the latest espression of a research project which began 14 years ago, and has benefitted from countless criticisms and suggestions. Those whose names should be added to the list found in Wimsatt, 1986, include Wallace Arthur, Dick Burian, Brian Charlesworth, James Crow, Elihu Gerson, James Griesemer, Dick Lewontin, Craig Loehle, Jane Mainschein, Will Provine, Rudolph Raff, Nick Rasmussen, Sahotra Sarkar, and Leigh Star. Figure 2 is used by courtesy of Nicholas Rasmussen. The simulations described in the second part were done in ExperLisp™ and ExperCommonLisp™ on an Apple Macintosh™ computer. This hardware and software has allowed us to construct and to simulate models of substantial complexity in reasonable time at very low cost which would have otherwise required hundreds of hours on a mainframe or minicomputer. (Truly the microcomputer revolution has arrived!) For the second part, we would both like to acknowledge the crucial inspiration and insight, now extending over 18 years, and the more recent consultations, help, and counsel of Stuart Kauffman, who has shared freely, not only of his informed opinions and conjectures, but also of his current research problems and ideas. It is too little to say that without him this part of the paper could not have been written, for without him, the subject matter and the methods for approaching it would not exist.

References

Allen, G. (1979) Thomas Hunt Morgan: the Man and his Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, A. J. and Fristrup., K. (1982) “The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection: a hierarchial expansion.” Paleobiology. 8: 113-129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, W. (1982) “A Developmental Approach to the Problem of Variation in Evolutionary Rates.” Biological Bournal of the Linnean Society. 18: 243-261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, W. (1984) Mechanisms of Morphological Evolution: A Combined Genetic, Developmental and Ecological Approach. New York and London: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Bicchieri, C. (1987) “Should Scientists Abstain from Metaphor?.” In The Consequences of Economic Rhetoric. Edited by Klamer, R. A. McCloskey, D. and Solow, R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In press.Google Scholar
Bonner, J. T. ed. (1982) Evolution and Development. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britten, R. and Davidson., E. (1969) “Gene Regulation for Higher Cells: A Theory.” Science. 165: 349-357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burian, R. (1986) “On Integrating the Study of Evolution and of Development.” Integrating Scientific Disciplines. Edited by Bechtel, W. Dordrecht: Martinus-Nijhoff. pp. 209-228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchill, F. (1980) “The Modem Evolutionary Synthesis and the Biogenetic Law.” Edited by Mayr and Provine, eds. pp. 112-122.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Beer, G.R. (1930) Embryology and Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gelfand, A. E. and Walker, C. C. (1984) Ensemble Modeling: Inference from Small-Scale Properties to Large-Scale Systems. Marcel Dekker Inc.: New York and Basel.Google Scholar
Glass, L. and Kauffman, S. (1972) “Co-operative components, spatial localization, and oscillatory cellular dynamics,” Journal of Theoretical Biology. 34: 219-237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glassmann, R. B. and Wimsatt, W. C. (1984) ‘Evolutionary Advantages and Limitations of Early Plasticity.’ Early Brain Damage, volume I. Edited by Almli, R. and Finger, S. New York: Academic Press, pp. 35-58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glymour, C. (1980) Theory and Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1977) Ontogeny and Phytogeny. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hamburger, V. (1980) “Embryology and the Modem Synthesis in Evolutionary Theory.” inThe Evolutionary Synthesis. Edited by Mayr and Provine. pp. 97-112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, S. A. (1969) “Metabolic stability and epigenesis in randomly constructed genetic nets.” Journal for Theoretical Biology. 22: 437-467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, S. A. (1971) “Gene Regulation Networks: A Theory for their Global Structure and Behaviors.” In Current Topics in Development Biology, Vol. 6. Academic Press: New York and London, pp. 145-182.Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. A. (1974) “The Large Scale Structure and Dynamics of Gene Control Circuits: An Ensemble Approach.” Journal for Theoretical Biology. 44: 167-190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, S. A. (1985) “Self-Organization, Selective Adaptation and Its Limits: A New Pattern of Inference in Evolution and Development.” In Evolution at a Crossroads: The New Biology and The New Philosophy of Science, edited by Depew, David J. and Weber, Bruce H. Cambridge: MIT press, pp. 169-207.Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. (1986) “A Framework to think about Evolving Genetic Regulatory Systems.” Integrating Scientific Disciplines. Edited by Bechtel, W.. Dordrecht: Martinus-Nijhoff. pp. 165-184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levins, R. (1968) Evolution in Changing Environments. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1970) “The Units of Selection.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 1: 1-18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1978) “Adaptation.” Scientific American. 239 (#3): 212-230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayr, E. and W. Provine, eds. (1980) The Evolutionary Synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ospovat, D. (1976). “The Influence of Karl Ernst von Baer's Embryology, 1828-1859: A Reappraisal in Light of Richard Owen's and William B. Carpenter's Paleontological Application of 'Von Baer's Law'.” Journal of the History of Biology 9: 1-28.Google Scholar
Raff, R. and Kaufmann, T. (1983) Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, N. (1987) “A New Model of Developmental Constraints as applied to the Drosophila System.” Forthcoming in Journal for Theoretical Biology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1962) “The Architecture of Complexity.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. Reprinted as chapter 7 of Simon, (1981), pp. 193-229.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1981) The Sciences of the Artificial. 2nd. ed. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M. (1986) “Analogy and Categorization,” chapter 2 of a forthcoming book on Analogy and Metaphor to be published by the University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Von, Baer, E., K. (1828) Über Entwicklungsgeschichte der Thiere: Volume I, pp. 221-224. (from English translation given by Ospovat, (1976)).Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1966) Adaptation and Natural Selection: A critique of some current evolutionary thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1980a) “Randomness and Perceived-Randomness in Evolutionary Biology.” Synthese. 43: 287-329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1980b) “Reductionistic Research Strategies and their Biases in the Units ofSeTection Controversy.” In Scientific Discovery. Volume II: Case Studies. Edited by Nickles, T. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pages 213-259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1981a) “Robustness, Reliability and Overdetermination.” In Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences. Edited by M. Brewer and B. Collins. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp.124-163.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1981b) “Units of Selection and the Structure of the Multi-level Genome.” In PSA 1980, Volume 2. Edited by Asquith, P>D> and Giere, R.N.. Lansing, Michigan: The Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 122-183.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1986) “Developmental Constraints, Generative Entrenchment, and the Innate-Acquired Distinction,” In Integrating Scientific Disciplines. Edited by Bechtel, W. Dordrecht: Martinus-Nijhoff. Pages 185-208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1987) “Generative Entrenchment, Scientific Change, and the Analytic-Synthetic Distinction: A Developmental Model of Scientific Evolution.” Under revision for submission to Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. and Schank., J. (1987) “Two Constraints on the Evolution of Complex Adaptations.” Paper in preparation for Ideas of Progress in Evolution, the 10th annual Spring Systematics Symposium of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, May, 1987.Google Scholar