![]() Was Darwin Wrong? | Home | Intro | About | Feedback | Prev | Next | Search |
Evolutionary Developmental Biology:Finishing Darwin's Unfinished Symphony?A review by Gert Korthof. 13 Jan 2002 (updated 3 Mar 2002/10 Mar 2010/3 FEB 2011)
"The time is ripe for a major drive to increase our understanding of the creative side
of evolution, and to correct the lopsidedness in existing evolutionary theory". According to Wallace Arthur neo-Darwinism is incomplete. Neo-Darwinism has predominantly studied how natural selection acts upon variants (population genetics), but treated the production of mutants as a black box. Furthermore neo-Darwinism almost exclusively focuses on the destructive side of natural selection: the elimination of unfavourable mutants. The creative side of evolution, the production of relevant genetic and morphological variations, is completely neglected. Palaeontologists are preoccupied by destructive processes too: extinction. The only approach to evolution that has attempted to focus on creative forces has been that of Evolutionary Developmental Biology. 'THE ORIGIN OF ANIMAL BODY PLANS' of Wallace Arthur is the manifesto of this new discipline.
|
|||||||
What has developmental biology to do with evolution? |
|||||||
|
All multicellar organisms start with 1 cell.
That cell grows into an adult.
Because each multicellular organism has to be build from 1 cell an opportunity arises
for modification of the body plan.
Developmental biology is the discipline that traditionally focusses on how multicellular
organisms are build from an fertilised egg.
A discipline that traditionally described spectacular transformations: from tadpole to frog,
from caterpillar to butterfly, and in general from embryo to adult.
If these amazing transformations are possible, why not from dino to bird or fish to human?
In other words: developmental biology is relevant for evolution.
But Developmental biology is also a discipline that traditionally compared the development
of different organisms (comparative embryology) long before it was integrated with the
disciplines of genetics or evolution.
That again makes developmental biology relevant for Evolution theory. We now know that the making of multicellular organisms is controlled by genes. And that mutations in those genes cause differences in morphology and body plan. And that the above mentioned spectacular transformations from tadpole to frog are controlled by genes too. But this insight is not yet included in evolution theory. Evolution theory after Darwin was based upon Mendelian genetics (after 1900), Population Genetics (after 1930), and Molecular Genetics (after 1953). To apply the knowledge that development is controlled by genes to evolutionary puzzles, the discipline Developmental Genetics needed to be part of the Evolutionary Synthesis. Exactly this is the goal of Wallace Arthur(2000). I suspect this synthesis will be elaborated the next 25 years. |
Internal and external selection |
|||||||
|
In the vast majority of mainstream evolutionary writings there is an
all-pervasive emphasis on external selective agents: competition for food,
predation, parasitism, disease, competition for mates, climate and geographical barriers.
Darwinism centres around adaptation to external selective agents. Internal selection is neglected. What is internal selection? A big animal with a small hart or a small animal with a big hart is internally not well adapted. Fitter organisms are 'machines' whose parts integrate better with each other. This is independent of the environment. Because internal organisation needs to be in place before an organism can do anything in any environment. In other words: the genes, cells and the organism are the internal environment of every new mutation. All genes in an organism need to cooperate to built the adult organism first before adaptation to external conditions can start having effects. The path from fertilised egg to adult has to be walked through in whatever environment. This path is studied by developmental biology. Obviously internal selection cannot be neglected by evolutionary theory. The sequence of genes and proteins must be explained by internal selection too. The idea of internal selection promises to explain why there are constancies in the morphology and physiology of organisms despite external adaptations. |
|||||||
Creation and Destruction |
|||||||
|
Wallace Arthur devoted a whole chapter to the topic 'Creation versus Destruction'.
Natural Selection is a destructive force. It does not create new forms.
Selection is 'merely' modifying gene frequencies: eliminating disadvantageous mutations
(a majority) and promoting advantageous mutations (a tiny minority of the mutations).
Remarkably the critics of evolution knew this limitation of natural selection all the time.
Creationists interpret this failure as a proof that evolution is unable to create
new species and were quick to 'propose' an answer:
a creator created all species and thereafter only some minor fine-tuning happened,
which could safely be attributed to natural selection.
Indeed mainstream Darwinism does not tell us much about evolutionary innovation.
At most the creation of new genes is mentioned, not creation of new morphologies.
Evolutionist, neo-Darwinist and textbook writer Mark Ridley
made it increasingly clear to me in his Mendel's Demon (1)
that the creative side of mutation was not only missing in the neo-Darwinian Synthesis,
but was not even seen as an urgent problem.
Ridley even claimed that mutations are a net disadvantage, leaving hardly
any room for positive mutations.
Besides: the neo-Darwinian Synthesis was completed more than 50 years ago,
so nothing substantial could be added. However according to Wallace Arthur
"The time is ripe for a major drive to increase our understanding of the creative side
of evolution, and to correct the lopsidedness in existing theory" (p243).
Evolutionary Developmental Biology is by its very nature able to show the creative side of
evolution.
|
|||||||
Micro and Macro mutation |
|||||||
|
The standard neo-Darwinist view is that micro- as well as macro-evolution
can be explained by micro-mutations. There is no need for macro-mutations.
Macro-mutations can only produce 'monsters'.
There are no beneficial macro-mutations.
Mainstream evolutionary theory always considered macro-mutations as heretic.
For example the famous Goldschmidt 'hopeful monsters' were rejected and ridiculed.
As a good Darwinist Richard Dawkins always defended the sufficiency of micro-mutations
and many small steps (gradualism).
So neo-Darwinism is characterised as gradualist/externalist (see above paragraph internal - external selection).
According to Arthur the dichotomy micro-macro is wrong, because there is a continuous scale
from micro to macro with respect to effects on the phenotype. Secondly usually only the
effect on the adult organism is considered. But a big difference in the adult usually
starts in development as a small change: a few molecules, a few cells.
|
|||||||
Other sources |
|||||||
|
Wallace Arthur is an open-minded neo-Darwinist, an innovator, a Synthesis builder.
His wide interest includes books and authors that have been at the periphery
of mainstream evolution biology, struggling for recognition.
He is clearly interested in the limitations and open questions of evolutionary biology.
He systematically discusses how development could answer long-standing evolutionary questions.
Furthermore I am convinced that Arthur's ideas are the most satisfactory and elaborated addition
to Evolution Theory after the so-called 'Evolutionary Synthesis'.
We could justifiably call his work the agenda for 'The Second Evolutionary Synthesis'.
Because so many of his themes are central to evolutionary thinking we find many links with other authors.
It is clear from the literature that Arthur is not the first author proposing the 'evo-devo' approach.
John Maynard Smith (2) proposed the same idea in a small booklet: "Evolutionary theory is largely concerned with changes in the frequencies of genes in populations, brought about by mutation, natural selection and other processes. What we observe in evolution are changes in the forms of animals and plants. To link theory and observation, we need to know how changes in genes cause changes in morphology, and that requires an understanding of development." This shows that even an ultra-orthodox evolutionist perceives the need for integration of Developmental biology into evolution. Furthermore the need was felt some 50 years ago according to JMS! Brian Goodwin (3) already criticised evolutionists ("something is missing in biology") and pointed out that we need a "science of form", but he denied a genetic control of the developmental process and ended up in a dead mathematical alley. Stuart Kauffman (4) too thinks that something is missing in biology, but sought the solution in auto-catalysis and complexity theory, which did not (yet) result in a breakthrough in our understanding of evolution either. Gabriel Dover (5) is certainly interested in the connection between evolution, genetics and development, but he didn't discuss it in a systematic way. In other works such as Enrico Coen (6) and Walter Gehring (7) developmental genetics is primary, and evolution is present but secondary. A good example of what developmental genetics can contribute to evolution theory is Sean Carroll (8), especially the chapter 'The Evolution of Morphological Novelties'. Finally in Wallace Arthur's book evolutionary theory is primary and development is seen as an extremely important building block of the theory of evolution. He clearly aimed at establishing a new discipline: 'Evolutionary Developmental Biology'. For the relation with other biological disciplines see the figure 'The 8 disciplines of Evolutionary Biology'. What the 'First Evolutionary Synthesis' was, is described by Betty Smocovitis (9). A special case is embryologist and Darwin critic Soren Lovtrup (10) who anticipated a number of ideas expressed in Arthur's book. For example the importance of development for evolution: "If we confine ourselves to the evolution of form, then we may observe that evolution ... has consisted in the origination of new morphogenetic mechanisms, capable of creating new kinds of body plan". |
|||||||
Unfinished Forever? |
|||||||
Is this the Final Synthesis?
Is neo-Darwinism complete after the inclusion of Developmental Biology?
Or will the Darwinian Symphony forever be unfinished?
I prefer to reserve a part of the evolutionary circle for unknown future disciplines.
And there are a number of disciplines missing right now in Arthur's synthesis (they are outside the scope of his book).
For example botany. Plants have body plans which include a vertical axis, and axes for leaves and flowers.
Recently a comparative study of the development of animals and plants has been initiated (11).
And disciplines such as genomics, sociobiology
(now more than 25 years old!), behavioural genetics, and evolutionary psychology are missing too.
|
|||||||
|
Notes
Further Reading
|
| guestbook TTES | home: The Third Evolutionary Synthesis | http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof55.htm |
| Copyright ©G.Korthof 2002. | First published: 13 Jan 2002 | Updated: 3 Feb 2011 F.R.: 10 Mar 2010 |