A comparative analysis of the Darwin-Wallace papers and the development of the concept of natural selection

The classical theory of descent with modification by means of natural selection had no mother, but did have two English fathers, Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913). In 1858,the Linnean Society of London published two contributions of these naturalists and acknowledged both authors as the proponents of a novel hypothesis on the driving force of organismic evolution. In the present report the most important sections of the Darwin-Wallace papers are summarized. This close reading of both publications reveals six striking differences in emphasis: Darwin and Wallace did not propose identical ideas. The species definitions of both authors are described and the further development of the concept of natural selection in wild populations is reviewed. It is shown that the contributions of A.R. Wallace, who died 90 years ago, are more significant than usually acknowledged. I conclude that natural selection's lesser known co-discoverer should be regarded as one of the most important pioneers of evolutionary biology, whose original contributions are underestimated by most contemporary scientists.     

From the "Modern Synthesis" to cybernetics: Ivan Ivanovich Schmalhausen (1884-1963) and his research program for a synthesis of evolutionary and developmental biology

Ivan I. Schmalhausen was one of the central figures in the Russian development of the "Modern Synthesis" in evolutionary biology. He is widely cited internationally even today. Schmalhausen developed the main principles of his theory facing the danger of death in the totalitarian Soviet Union. His great services to evolutionary and theoretical biology are indisputable. However, the received view of Schmalhausen's contributions to evolutionary biology makes an unbiased reading of his texts difficult. Here we show that taking all of his works into consideration (including those only available in Russian) paints a much more dynamic and exciting picture of what he tried to achieve. Schmalhausen pioneered the integration of a developmental perspective into evolutionary thinking. A main tool for achieving this was his approach to living objects as complex multi-level self-regulating systems. Schmalhausen put enormous effort into bringing this idea into fruition during the final stages of his career by combining evolutionary theory with cybernetics. His results and ideas remain thought-provoking, and his texts are of more than just historical interest.     

The development of the critical theory of evolution: The scientific career of Wolfgang F. Gutmann

Summary The critical theory of evolution was developed by a group of scientists working together with Wolfgang F. Gutmann at the Senckenberg-Research-Institute in Frankfurt am Main. Gutmann worked at Senckenberg for 37 years. In this time he presented 247 contributions which are distributed over 47 periodicals and books. The ideas that were developed by Gutmann and his colleagues were innovative and pathbreaking for morphology and evolutionary biology. The large number of his morphological publications is indicative of the wide field that was opened up by the concepts of constructional morphology. As some of his colleagues have suggested, constructional morphology as an engineering approach to the study of organisms (i. e., engineering morphology) may replace the traditional concepts of morphology and anatomy and provides the observational base for the historical reconstruction of evolutionary pathways. Constructional morphology as a quasi-engineering approach can be the morphological pendant to the contemporary molecular approaches to biology, as it can provide the necessary morphological basis for the interpretation of the results of molecular studies in the light of evolution.     

Darwin would have loved DNA: celebrating Darwin 200

Analysis of DNA sequences now plays a key role in evolutionary biology research. If Darwin were to come back today, I think he would be absolutely delighted with molecular evolutionary genetics, for three reasons. First, it solved one of the greatest problems for his theory of evolution by natural selection. Second, it gives us a tool that can be used to investigate many of the questions he found the most fascinating. And third, DNA data confirm Darwin''s grand view of evolution.     

'Molecules and monkeys': George Gaylord Simpson and the challenge of molecular evolution

In this paper, I analyze George Gaylord Simpson's response to the molecularization of evolutionary biology from his unique perspective as a paleontologist. I do so by exploring his views on early attempts to reconstruct phylogenetic relationships among primates using molecular data. Particular attention is paid to Simpson's role in the evolutionary synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s, as well as his concerns about the rise of molecular biology as a powerful discipline and world-view in the 1960s. I argue that Simpson's belief in the supremacy of natural selection as the primary driving force of evolution, as well as his view that biology was a historical science that seeks ultimate causes and highlights contingency, prevented him from acknowledging that the study of molecular evolution was an inherently valuable part of the life sciences.     

Sources for Imanishi Kinji’s views of sociality and evolutionary outcomes

Prior to the contribution of genetics or the modern evolutionary synthesis (MES) to natural selection theory, social ecologists searched for factors in addition to natural selection that could influence species change. The idea that sociality, not just biology, was important in determining evolutionary outcomes was prevalent in research in social ecology in the 1920s and 1930s. The influence of ‘tradition’ (or the transmission of learned behaviours between generations) and the view that animals are active in selecting their own environments, rather than passive organisms acted upon by chance, were given as much attention as natural selection theory in European ecology, while animal aggregation and cooperation studies were pursued in America. Imanishi Kinji’s personal library and his scientific notes and papers reveal that he was well aware of this literature and had been profoundly influenced by these earlier viewpoints prior to writing his view of nature in his first book, Seibutsu no Sekai (The World of Living Things, 1941). Evidence is presented to show that he developed his theories based partly on early western debates in social ecology while finding inspiration and a way to express his views in the writings of philosopher Nishida Kitarō and, perhaps, General J C Smuts. One of Imanishi’s lasting contributions is in the demonstrated results of over 40 years of subsequent ecological and ethological research by Imanishi and those trained by him that maintained the broader viewpoints on evolution that had been dropped from the western corpus of research by the 1950s. The current attempt to again get beyond natural selection theory is reflected in debates surrounding genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation, the biology of ‘traditions’ and the idea of ‘culture’ in animal societies. Imanishi Kinji is the Japanese name order, with family name first. Other Japanese names in the text are also written with family name first. A modified version of this paper appeared in Japanese in Seibutsu Kagaku, Vol. 57 No. 3, April 2006, pp 142–149.     

Population regulation and the life history studies of LaMont Cole

Transformative changes marked the growth of mid-twentieth century American ecology. This included redirection of the scholarly focus of the discipline, especially on the role evolutionary theory and "levels of selection", and increased visibility of ecologist as public figures in the environmental movement with special knowledge of how natural systems work. Cornell ecologist LaMont Cole is an important figure to examine both of these trends. Like many of his contemporaries, Cole was devoted to a perspective on natural selection operating at levels above the individual. However, because of his influential mathematical treatment of animal demography he has been historically subsumed into a group of scholars that views the events in the life course as adaptations to the maximization of individual fitness--life history theory. Cole's popular writings and lectures, which consumed his later career, extend his scholarly portrayal of natural populations as tending toward stable and homoeostatic equilibrium, with the goal of drawing contrasts with the deviance of rapid human population growth. In both regards, Cole serves as a topical and temporal extension of the well-documented and analyzed ecology of his mentors--Alfred Emerson, Thomas Park, and Warder Allee--in the University of Chicago Zoology Department.     

Towards a postmodern synthesis of evolutionary biology

In 2009, we are celebrating the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin and the 150th jubilee of his masterpiece, the Origin of Species. Darwin constructed the first coherent and compelling narrative of biological evolution and thus founded evolutionary biology—and modern biology in general, remembering the famous dictum of Dobzhansky. It is, however, counter-productive, and ultimately, a disservice to Darwin’s legacy, to define modern evolutionary biology as neo-Darwinism. The current picture of evolution, informed by results of comparative genomics and systems biology, is by far more complex than that presented in the Origin of Species, so that Darwinian principles, including natural selection, are incorporated into the evolving new synthesis as important but certainly not all-embracing tenets. This expansion of evolutionary biology does not denigrate Darwin in the least but rather emphasizes the fertility of his ideas.     

Hamilton's forces of natural selection after forty years

In 1966, William D. Hamilton published a landmark paper in evolutionary biology: "The Moulding of Senescence by Natural Selection." It is now apparent that this article is as important as his better-known 1964 articles on kin selection. Not only did the 1966 article explain aging, it also supplied the basic scaling forces for natural selection over the entire life history. Like the Lorentz transformations of relativistic physics, Hamilton's Forces of Natural Selection provide an overarching framework for understanding the power of natural selection at early ages, the existence of aging, the timing of aging, the cessation of aging, and the timing of the cessation of aging. His twin Forces show that natural selection shapes survival and fecundity in different ways, so their evolution can be somewhat distinct. Hamilton's Forces also define the context in which genetic variation is shaped. The Forces of Natural Selection are readily manipulable using experimental evolution, allowing the deceleration or acceleration of aging, and the shifting of the transition ages between development, aging, and late life. For these reasons, evolutionary research on the demographic features of life history should be referred to as "Hamiltonian."     

Molecular biology, darwinism and nomogenesis

The theory of nomogenesis put forward by L. S. Berg in 1922 is discussed. It is shown that side by side with some erroneous anti-darwinian ideas the theory contains a series of important suggestions which anticipate the further development of the synthetic theory of evolution. Berg has foreseen the development of molecular biology. Thus he was the fore-teller of our branch of science. The theory of nomogenesis emphasized the limitations of natural selection which determine the directionality of evolution. Berg treated the speciation as a kind of phase transition. Even the most conscientious critics of Berg have misrepresented the real sense of his works. It is totally groundless to treat nomogenesis as an idealistic of Lamarkian theory. Berg was superior to his critics. However the enthusiasm about nomogenesis in our time shows the inability to separate "the grains from weeds".     

Why don't zebras have machine guns? Adaptation, selection, and constraints in evolutionary theory

In an influential paper, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin (1979) contrasted selection-driven adaptation with phylogenetic, architectural, and developmental constraints as distinct causes of phenotypic evolution. In subsequent publications Gould (e.g., 1997a,b, 2002) has elaborated this distinction into one between a narrow "Darwinian Fundamentalist" emphasis on "external functionalist" processes, and a more inclusive "pluralist" emphasis on "internal structuralist" principles. Although theoretical integration of functionalist and structuralist explanations is the ultimate aim, natural selection and internal constraints are treated as distinct causes of evolutionary change. This distinction is now routinely taken for granted in the literature in evolutionary biology. I argue that this distinction is problematic because the effects attributed to non-selective constraints are more parsimoniously explained as the ordinary effects of selection itself. Although it may still be a useful shorthand to speak of phylogenetic, architectural, and developmental constraints on phenotypic evolution, it is important to understand that such "constraints" do not constitute an alternative set of causes of evolutionary change. The result of this analysis is a clearer understanding of the relationship between adaptation, selection and constraints as explanatory concepts in evolutionary theory.     

Intelligent design and the NFL theorems

Another look is taken at the model assumptions involved in William Dembski’s (2002a, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence. Roman & Littlefield, Lanham, MA) use of the NFL theorems from optimization theory to disprove the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection, and his argument is shown to be irrelevant to evolutionary biology.     

Functional morphology and evolutionary biology

In this study the relationship between functional morpholoy and evolutionary biology is analysed by confronting the main concepts in both disciplines.Rather than only discussing this connection theoretically, the analysis is carried out by introducing important practical and experimental studies, which use aspects from both disciplines. The mentioned investigations are methodologically analysed and the consequences for extensions of the relationship are worked out. It can be shown that both disciplines have a large domain of their own and also share a large common ground. Many disagreements among evolutionary biologists can be reduced to differences in general philosophy (idealism vs. realism), selection of phenomenona (structure vs. function), definition of concepts (natural selection) and the position of the concept theory as an explaining factor (neutralists vs. selectionists, random variation, determinate selection, etc.).The significance of functional morphology for evolutionary biology, and vice versa depends on these differences. For a neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, contributions from functional and ecological morphology are indispensable. Of ultimate importance are the notions of internal selection and constraints in the constructions determining further development. In this context the concepts of random variation and natural selection need more detailed definition.The study ends with a recommendation for future research founded in a system-theoretical or structuralistic conception.     

Hugo de Vries and the reception of the “mutation theory”

Conclusion De Vries' mutation theory has not stood the test of time. The supposed mutations of Oenothera were in reality complex recombination phenomena, ultimately explicable in Mendelian terms, while instances of large-scale mutations were found wanting in other species. By 1915 the mutation theory had begun to lose its grip on the biological community; by de Vries' death in 1935 it was almost completely abandoned. Yet, as we have seen, during the first decade of the present century it achieved an enormous popularity. As this paper has tried to suggest, one of the principal reasons for this was that de Vries' theory served as a banner around which a whole crowd of disaffected Darwinians or anti-Darwinians could rally. However, not all of those who favored de Vries did so for quite the same reasons. Underlying the multitude of views ran several common threads: a dissatisfaction with current Darwinian theory born out of misunderstanding natural selection, a general misunderstanding of the nature of species, and a prejudice against speculative, nontestable theories in biology.Supporters of de Vries were not the only opponents of Darwinism, nor was the mutation theory the only alternative to natural selection. In the early twentieth century a number of theories had been proposed to explain away the problems which Darwin had left unsolved. There was the idea of orthogenesis, championed by the American paleontologists Cope, Osborn and others; organic selection (or orthoplasy) was championed by M. M. Baldwin and C. Lloyd Morgan; there were the concepts of convergent evolution proposed by Hermann Friedmann, the theory of physiological selection by John George Romanes, and the concepts of reproductive divergence by H. M. Vernon. Virtually none of these men either accepted or were strong supporters of the de Vriesian theory, for each had his own particular ism to advocate as the major factor in evolution. The existence of a large number of such theories, each purporting to be the explanation, was characteristic of evolutionary theory at the turn of the century. It is to a large extent the emphasis on such fragmentary concepts that retarded development of the comprehensive theory of evolution which emerged in the 1920's and 1930's. For the historian, however, a study of these alternative theories is instructive in trying to understand the inherent difficulties which Dawwinian theory posed to biologists at the time. De Vries' mutation theory serves historically as a mirror to reflect the critical mood of a generation hostile to the theory of natural selection.It has often been claimed that it was impossible to understand the mechanism of natural selection until it could be placed in genetic and mathematical terms. It is certainly true that great strides have been made in population genetics and the treatment of evolutionary concepts with mathematical tools in the last forty years. But the very people who developed the genetical and mathematical approach to evolution were already convinced of the essential correctness of Darwinian theory before they started. Advances in an understanding of Mendelian heredity aided greatly in solving one important issue for evolutionists: the origin of variations. And the rigor with which selection acted could best be studied by observing changes in gene frequencies (calculated mathematically) over a number of generations. But as this paper has shown, two of the basic problems which biologists faced in evaluating Darwinian theory at the turn of the century-the nature of species, and the criteria of what constituted an acceptable explanation in biological science-could not be answered directly by mathematics. What mathematical and genetical theory did do was to help convince the skeptics of the validity of the Darwinian proposition.The change in explanatory criteria which many hailed as de Vries' most important contribution to evolutionary theory seems to have been part of a general emergence of twentieth-century biology from the domination of theorizers in the nineteenth. It also marked the emergence of America from the domination of biological, and particularly evolutionary, influence of Europeans. The change occurred in three areas: in the kinds of questions asked: testable versus non-testable; in the kind of data sought: quantitative versus qualitative; and in the kinds of theories proposed: analytical and reductive—the attempt to see complex processes in terms of simpler components-as opposed to synthetic and speculative. Although ultimately wrong in his idea, de Vries and his theories rode high on the wave of experimentalism which was the harbinger of a new era in evolutionary theory.Preparation of this paper has been aided by a grant from National Science Foundation (GS 1832).     

生物进化研究的回顾与展望

生物进化是自然科学的永恒之迷。随着历史的发展和科学的进步,生物进化思想从早期的萌芽,到自然选择学说、新达尔文主义,从现代综合理论,到分子进化的中性学说。再到新灾变论和点断平衡论等。当前,由于生物学各分支学科的飞速发展．它们就各自的研究对象在宏观和微观上不断地拓展和深入,并在不同的层次上形成了广泛的交叉、渗透和融合,现代的进化生物学研究从宏观的表型到微观的分子,从群体遗传改变的微进化到成种事件以及地史上生物类群谱系演化的宏进化,从直接的化石证据到基于形态性状、分子证据和环境变迁的综合推理,从基于遗传基础的比较基因组学到演化机理的进化发育生物学等。可以预见,在新的世纪里,在哲学和具体方法论(如系统论、控制论和信息论)的指导下,在生命科学、其他自然科学乃至社会科学工作者的通力合作下,综合遗传、发育和进化等研究领域的各种理论成果,生物进化理论即将出现也一定会出现的一个新的大综合和新的大统一。     

TRIBUTE: In Goethe's Wake: Marvalee Wake's conceptual contributions to the development and evolution of a science of morphology

Decrying the typological approach in much of the teaching of morphology, from the outset of her career Marvalee Wake advocated a synthetic, mechanistic and pluralistic developmental and evolutionary morphology. In this short essay, I do not evaluate Wake's contributions to our knowledge of the morphology of caecilians, nor her contributions to viviparity, both of which are seminal and substantive, nor do I examine her role as mentor, supervisor and collaborator, but assess her broader conceptual contributions to the development and evolution of morphology as a science. One of the earliest morphologists to take on board the concept of constraint, she viewed constraint explicitly in relation to adaptation and diversity. Her approach to morphology as a science was hierarchical – measure form and function in a phylogenetic context; seek explanations at developmental, functional, ecological, evolutionary levels of the biological hierarchy; integrate those explanations to the other levels. The explanatory power of morphology thus practised allows morphology to inform evolutionary biology and evolutionary theory, and paves the way for the integrative biology Wake has long championed.     

Modern evolutional developmental biology: Mechanical and molecular genetic or phenotypic approaches?

Heightened interest in the evolutionary problems of developmental biology in the 1980s was due to the success of molecular genetics and disappointment in the synthetic theory of evolution, where the chapters of embryology and developmental biology seem to have been left out. Modern evo-devo, which turned out to be antipodean to the methodology of the synthetic theory of evolution, propagandized in the development of evolutionary problems only the mechanical and molecular genetic approach to the evolution of ontogenesis, based on cellular and intercellular interactions. The phonotypical approach to the evaluation of evolutionary occurrences in ontogenesis, which aids in the joining of the genetic and epigenetic levels of research, the theory of natural selection, the nomogenetic conception, and the problem of the wholeness of the organism in onto- and phylogenesis may be against this. The phenotypic approach to ontogenesis is methodologically the most perspective for evolutionary developmental biology.     

The innovation triad: an EvoDevo agenda

This article introduces a special issue on evolutionary innovation and morphological novelty, two interrelated themes that have received a remarkable increase of attention over the past few years. We begin with a discussion of the question of whether innovation and novelty represent distinct evolutionary problems that require a distinct conceptualization. We argue that the mechanisms of innovation and their phenotypic results--novelty--can only be properly addressed if they are distinguished from the standard evolutionary themes of variation and adaptation, and we present arguments for making such a distinction. We propose that origination, the first formation of biological structures, is another distinct problem of morphological evolution, and that together with innovation and novelty it constitutes a conceptual complex we call the innovation triad. We define a problem agenda of the triad, which separates the analysis of the initiating conditions from the mechanistic realization of innovation, and we discuss the theoretical problems that arise from treating innovation as distinct from variation. Further, we categorize the empirical approaches that address themes of the innovation triad in recognizing four major strands of research: the morphology and systematics program, the gene regulation program, the epigenetic program, and the theoretical biology program. We provide examples of each program, giving priority to contributions in the present issue. In conclusion, we observe that the innovation triad is one of the defining topics of EvoDevo research and may represent its most pertinent contribution to evolutionary theory. We point out that an inclusion of developmental systems properties into evolutionary theory represents a shift of explanatory emphasis from the external factors of natural selection to the internal dynamics of developmental systems, complementing adaptation with emergence, and contingency with inherency.     

A festschrift for Jeremy B.C. Jackson and his integration of paleobiology, ecology, evolution, and conservation biology

This collection of papers is dedicated to the career and achievements of Dr. Jeremy B.C. Jackson, and is written by a sample of his students, post-docs, and colleagues over his career. Jackson is an influential leader in cross-disciplinary research integrating ecology and paleontology. His contributions are broad in scope, and range in topic from the ecological and evolutionary consequences of the formation of the Central American Isthmus to the long-term impacts of human activities on the oceans. Two areas of particular interest have been the evolutionary ecology of coral reef organisms and the tempo and mode of speciation in the sea. Papers in the collection examine: colonial marine animals (Buss and Rice, Lidgard et al.), marrying genes and fossils (Budd et al., Marko and Hart, Palumbi et al., Jagadeeshan and O’Dea), the geography, tempo, and mode of evolution (Bromfield and Pandolfi, Norris and Hull, Vermeij, Erwin and Tweedt), and marine ecosystem health (Sandin and Sala).