Ingo Brigandt
University of Alberta
The concept of developmental constraint was at the heart of developmental approaches to evolution of the 1980s. While this idea was widely used to criticize neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, critique does not yield an alternative framework that offers evolutionary explanations. In current Evo-devo the concept of constraint is of minor importance, whereas notions as evolvability are at the center of attention. The latter clearly defines an explanatory agenda for evolutionary research, so that one could view the historical shift from ‘developmental constraint’ towards ‘evolvability’ as the move from a concept that is a mere tool of criticism to a concept that establishes a positive explanatory project. However, by taking a look at how the concept of constraint was employed in the 1980s, I argue that developmental constraint was not just seen as restricting possibilities (‘constraining’), but also as facilitating morphological change in several ways. Accounting for macroevolutionary transformation and the origin of novel form was an aim of these developmental approaches to evolution. Thus, the concept of developmental constraint was part of a positive explanatory agenda long before the advent of Evo-devo as a genuine scientific discipline. In the 1980s, despite the lack of a clear disciplinary identity, this concept coordinated research among paleontologists, morphologists, and developmentally inclined evolutionary biologists. I discuss the different functions that scientific concepts can have, highlighting that instead of classifying or explaining natural phenomena, concepts such as ‘developmental constraint’ and ‘evolvability’ are more important in setting explanatory agendas so as to provide intellectual coherence to scientific approaches. The essay concludes with a puzzle about how to conceptually distinguish evolvability and selection.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy the book Find it on
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,163
External links

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

Ontogeny and Phylogeny.Stephen Jay Gould - 1978 - Philosophy of Science 45 (4):652-653.
Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism.Niles Eldredge & Stephen Jay Gould - 1972 - In Thomas J. M. Schopf (ed.), Models in Paleobiology. Freeman Cooper. pp. 82-115.

View all 28 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

What Evolvability Really Is.Rachael L. Brown - 2014 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65 (3):549-572.

View all 18 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

What Evolvability Really Is.Rachael L. Brown - 2013 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (3):axt014.
Progress in Evolutionary Economics.James Maclaurin & Tim Cochrane - 2012 - Journal of Bioeconomics 14 (2):101-14.
Molecular and Developmental Biology.Paul Edmund Griffiths - 2002 - In Peter Machamer & Michael Silberstein (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Science. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. pp. 252-271.
Homology and Heterochrony: The Evolutionary Embryologist Gavin Rylands de Beer (1899-1972).Ingo Brigandt - 2006 - Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular and Developmental Evolution) 306:317–328.
Is Evolvability Evolvable?Massimo Pigliucci - 2008 - Nature Reviews Genetics 9:75-82.


Added to PP index

Total views
112 ( #104,522 of 2,506,844 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #170,106 of 2,506,844 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes