Abstract
The target article by Denis Noble is an excellent overview of the illusions of the Modern Synthesis that still remains in textbooks despite of the recent criticism. Overcoming these illusions shows the active role of organisms in the evolutionary process and accounts for additional mechanisms such as plasticity of embryo development, epigenetic heredity, multilevel selection, Baldwin effect, and niche construction, which are components of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. Adding these mechanisms is certainly an important step forward, but I argue that it is not sufficient for building a new theory of evolution. What is missing is a clear understanding of such notions as agency, autonomy, semiosis, interpretation, and goal-directedness, which so far belong to the humanities and have not been applied seriously in science. Organisms are autonomous and goal-directed semiotic agents capable of interpreting hereditary signs and making meaningful models of their environment. Evolutionary biology needs a semiotic vocabulary to talk about higher level functions in organisms, where specific molecules and mechanisms are only means for integrating functions over the life cycle and adapting to the environment without compromising organism integrity and identity. Such a vocabulary is being developed in biosemiotics; thus, I expect the emergence of a biosemiotic theory of evolution.
References
Barbieri, M. (Ed.). (2008). Introduction to biosemiotics. The new biological synthesis. Springer.
Ginsburg, S., & Jablonka, E. (2019). The evolution of the sensitive soul. Learning and the origin of consciousness. MIT Press.
Hoffmeyer, J. (1996). Signs of meaning in the universe. The natural history of signification. Indiana University Press.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics : An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs. University of Scranton Press.
Hoffmeyer, J., & Emmeche, C. (1991). Code-duality and the semiotics of nature. In M. Anderson & F. Merrell (Eds.), On semiotic modeling (pp. 117–166). Mouton de Gruyter.
Kumar, S., & Subramanian, S. (2002). Mutation rates in mammalian genomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(2), 803–808.
Pigliucci, M., & Müller, G. B. (2010). Elements of an extended evolutionary synthesis. In M. Pigliucci & G. B. Müller (Eds.), Evolution – the extended synthesis (pp. 3–17). MIT Press.
Sharov, A. A. (2010). Functional information: Towards synthesis of biosemiotics and cybernetics. Entropy, 12(5), 1050–1070.
Sharov, A. A. (2014). Evolutionary constraints or opportunities? BioSystems, 123, 9–18.
Sharov, A. A. (2016). Coenzyme world model of the origin of life. BioSystems, 144, 8–17.
Sharov, A. A. (2018). Mind, agency, and biosemiotics. Journal of Cognitive Science, 19(2), 195–228.
Sharov, A. A., & Vehkavaara, T. (2015). Protosemiosis: Agency with reduced representation capacity. Biosemiotics, 8(1), 103–123.
Sharov, A. A., Maran, T., & Tønnessen, M. (2015). Towards synthesis of biology and semiotics. Biosemiotics, 8(1), 1–7.
Tønnessen, M. (2015). The biosemiotic glossary project: Agent, agency. Biosemiotics, 8(1), 125–143.
West-Eberhard, M. J. (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Commentary to the target article by Denis Noble “The Illusions of the Modern Synthesis”
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sharov, A.A. Towards a Biosemiotic Theory of Evolution. Biosemiotics 14, 101–105 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09414-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09414-2