How many processes are responsible for phenotypic evolution?
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Evolution & Development 3 (4):279-286 (2001)
In addressing phenotypic evolution, this article reconsiders natural selection, random drift, developmental constraints, and internal selection in the new extended context of evolutionary developmental biology. The change of perspective from the "evolution of phenotypes" toward an "evolution of ontogenies" (evo-devo perspective) affects the reciprocal relationships among these different processes. Random drift and natural selection are sibling processes: two forms of post-productional sorting among alternative developmental trajectories, the former random, the latter nonrandom. Developmental constraint is a compound concept; it contains even some forms of natural ("external" and "internal") selection. A narrower definition ("reproductive constraints") is proposed. Internal selection is not a selection caused by an internal agent. It is a form of environment-independent selection depending on the level of the organism's internal developmental or functional coordination. Selection and constraints are the main deterministic processes in phenotypic evolution but they are not opposing forces. Indeed, they are continuously interacting processes of evolutionary change, but with different roles that should not be confused.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Kenneth Reisman & Patrick Forber (2005). Manipulation and the Causes of Evolution. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1113-1123.
Jerry Fodor (2008). Against Darwinism. Mind and Language 23 (1):1–24.
Massimo Pigliucci (2009). Down with Natural Selection? [REVIEW] Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 52 (1):134-140.
Mohan Matthen & André Ariew (2002). Two Ways of Thinking About Fitness and Natural Selection. Journal of Philosophy 99 (2):55-83.
Ingo Brigandt (2007). Typology Now: Homology and Developmental Constraints Explain Evolvability. Biology and Philosophy 22 (5):709-725.
Timothy Shanahan (1990). Evolution, Phenotypic Selection, and the Units of Selection. Philosophy of Science 57 (2):210-225.
John Beatty (1984). Chance and Natural Selection. Philosophy of Science 51 (2):183-211.
Paul E. Griffiths & Russell D. Gray (2004). The Developmental Systems Perspective: Organism-Environment Systems as Units of Development and Evolution. In Massimo Pigliucci & Katherine Preston (eds.), Phenotypic Integration: Studying the Ecology and Evolution of Complex Phenotypes. Oxford University Press 409--431.
Masatoshi Nei (2007). The New Mutation Theory of Phenotypic Evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104 (30):12335-12242.
Giuseppe Fusco (2001). How Many Processes Are Responsible for Phenotypic Evolution? Evolution & Development 3 (4):279-286.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-12-22
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?