Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T08:08:28.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evo-devo: A New Evolutionary Paradigm?1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2017

Michael Ruse
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The homologies of process within morphogenetic fields provide some of the best evidence for evolution—just as skeletal and organ homologies did earlier. Thus, the evidence for evolution is better than ever. The role of natural selection in evolution, however, is seen to play less an important role. It is merely a filter for unsuccessful morphologies generated by development. Population genetics is destined to change if it is not to become as irrelevant to evolution as Newtonian mechanics is to contemporary physics. (Gilbert, Opitz, and Raff 1996, 368)

Type
Papers
Information
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements , Volume 56 , December 2005 , pp. 105 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 2005

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

Agassiz, E. C, Editor. 1885. Louis Agassiz: His Life and Correspondence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Appel, T. 1987. The Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate: French Biology in the Decades Before Darwin. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Balfour, F. M. 1880–1881. A Treatise on Comparative Embryology. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, J editor. 1984. The Complete Works of Aristotle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. B. 1995. Homeotic genes and the evolution of arthropods. Nature 376: 479–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, S. B., Grenier, J. K., and Weatherbee, S. D.. 2001. From DMA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design. Oxford:" Blackwell.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1862. On the Various Contrivances by which British and Foreign Orchids are Fertilized by Insects, and On the Good Effects of Intercrossing. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1985-. The Correspondence of Charles Darwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. 1983. Universal Darwinism. Molecules to Men. editor Bendall, D. S.. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. New York, N.Y: Norton.Google Scholar
Gegenbaur, C. 1878. Elements of Comparative Anatomy. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S. E, Opitz, J. M., and Raff, R. A.. 1996. Resynthesizing evolutionary and developmental biology. Developmental Biology 173: 357–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gould, S. J. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J., and Lewontin, R. C.. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist program. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 205: 581–98.Google Scholar
Haeckel, E. 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Berlin: Georg Reimer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, T. H., and Martin, H. N.. 1875. A Course of Practical Instruction in Elementary Biology. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1993. Metaphor in science. In Metaphor and Thought. 2nd ed., Editor Andrew Ortony, , pp. 533–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. 1968. Mathematical Ideas in Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard SmithJ., R. J., R.Burian, P.Alberch, J.Campbell, B.Goodwin, R.Lande, D. R aup, and Wolpert, L. 1985. Developmental constraints and evolution. Quarterly Review of Biology 60: 265–87.Google Scholar
Owen, R ev. R. 1894. The Life of Richard Owen. London: Murray.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1974. Darwinism as a metaphysical research programme. In The Philosophy of Karl Popper. Editor Schilpp, P. A., 133–43. Vol. 1. LaSalle, 111.: Open Court.Google Scholar
Raff, R. 1996. The Shape of Life: Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, J. 1709. The Wisdom of God, Manifested in the Words of Creation. Fifth ed. London: Samuel Smith.Google Scholar
Reeve, H. K., and Sherman, P. W.. 1993. Adaptation and the goals of evolutionary research. Quarterly Review of Biology 68: 1—32.Google Scholar
Richards, R. J. 1992. The Meaning of Evolution: The Morphological Construction and Ideological Reconstruction of Darwin's Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, R. J. 2003. The Romantic Conception of Life: Science and Philosophy in the Age of Goethe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Roth, G., Blanke, J., and Wake, D. B.. 1994. Cell size predicts morphological complexity in the brains of frogs and salamanders. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences, USA 91: 4796–800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruse, M. 1989. Is the theory of punctuated equilibria a new paradigm? Journal of Social and Biological Structures 12: 195—212.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. 1996. Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. 1999. Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction? Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. 2003. Darwin and Design: Does Evolution have a Purpose? Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, E. S. 1916. Form and Function: A Contribution to the History of Animal Morphology. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. W. 1948. On Growth and Form, Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vogel, S. 1988. Life's Devices: The Physical World of Animals and Plants. Princeton, N J: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, G. P. 1988. The influence of variation and of developmental constraints on the rate of multivariate phenotypic evolution. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 1: 45–66.Google Scholar