Is convergence more than an analogy? Homoplasy and its implications for macroevolutionary predictability
Biology and Philosophy 22 (4):565-578 (2007)
| Abstract | A number of authors have pointed to “convergent evolution” as evidence for the central role of natural selection in shaping predictable trajectories of macroevolution. However, there are numerous conceptual and empirical difficulties that arise in broadly appealing to the frequency of homoplasy as evidence for a non-contingently constrained adaptational design space. Most important is the need to distinguish between convergent (externally constrained) and parallel (internally constrained) evolution, and to consider how the respective frequencies of these significantly different sources of homoplasy affect a strong adaptationist view of life. In this paper, I critically evaluate Simon Conway Morris’s use of the homoplasy literature to support his argument for a non-contingent, counterfactually stable account of macroevolutionary pattern. In so doing, I offer a conception of parallelism which avoids the charge that it differs from convergence merely in degree and not in kind. I argue that although organisms sharing a homoplastic trait will also share varying degrees of homology, it is the underlying developmental homology with respect to the generators directly causally responsible for the homoplastic event that defines parallel evolution and non-arbitrarily distinguishes it from convergence. The notion of “screening-off” is used to distinguish the proximal generators of a homoplastic trait from its more distal genetic causes (such as a master control gene). | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesBernd Rosslenbroich (2006). The Notion of Progress in Evolutionary Biology – the Unresolved Problem and an Empirical Suggestion. Biology and Philosophy 21 (1):41-70.
Lev Yampolsky & Arlin Stoltzfus (2001). Bias in the Introduction of Variation as an Orienting Factor in Evolution. Evolution and Development 3 (2):73-83.
Michael F. Whiting & Lawrence M. Kelly (1995). Synamorphy, Monophyly, and Cladistic Analysis: A Reply to Wilkinson. Acta Biotheoretica 43 (3).
Malcolm Parker (2007). Two Into One Won't Go: Conceptual, Clinical, Ethical and Legal Impedimenta to the Convergence of Cam and Orthodox Medicine. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 4 (1).
Marc Ereshefsky (1988). Individuality and Macroevolutionary Theory. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:216 - 222.
Maryanne Martin & Gregory V. Jones (2005). Constraints From Handedness on the Evolution of Brain Lateralization. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (4):603-604.
Mark B. Couch (2005). Functional Properties and Convergence in Biology. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1041-1051.
Mark Wilkinson (1998). Higher-Order Homoplasy Tests. Acta Biotheoretica 46 (2).
Trevor Pearce (2012). Convergence and Parallelism in Evolution: A Neo-Gouldian Account. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (2):429-448.
L. Hammen (1986). On Some Aspects of Parallel Evolution in Chelicerata. Acta Biotheoretica 35 (1-2).
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads14 ( #83,078 of 549,041 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,041 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
