Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T13:25:08.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Concepts of Constraint: Adaptationism and the Challenge from Developmental Biology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Ron Amundson
Ron Amundson*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Hawaii at Hilo
*
‡Send reprint requests to the author, Department of Philosophy, University of Hawaii at Hilo, Hilo, HI 96720-4091, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The so-called “adaptationism” of mainstream evolutionary biology has been criticized from a variety of sources. One, which has received relatively little philosophical attention, is developmental biology. Developmental constraints are said to be neglected by adaptationists. This paper explores the divergent methodological and explanatory interests that separate mainstream evolutionary biology from its embryological and developmental critics. It will focus on the concept of constraint itself; even this central concept is understood differently by the two sides of the dispute.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 61 , Issue 4 , December 1994 , pp. 556 - 578
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

The ideas expressed in this paper were stimulated by discussions with Stephen Jay Gould and Pere Alberch. Versions have received valuable commentary from many people, including Daniel Dennett, Kim Sterelny, Scott Gilbert, Kelly Smith, and especially Elliott Sober. The work was supported by NSF grant SBE-9122646.

References

Alberch, P. (1982), “Developmental Constraints in Evolutionary Processes”, in Bonner, J. T., (ed.), Evolution and Development. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 313–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amundson, R. (1989), “The Trials and Tribulations of Selectionist Explanations”, Hahlweg, K. and Hooker, C. A., (eds.), Issues in Evolutionary Epistemology. New York: State University of New York Press, pp. 413–432.Google Scholar
Amundson, R. (1990), “Doctor Dennett and Doctor Pangloss: Perfection and Selection in Psychology and Biology”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 313–332.Google Scholar
Amundson, R. (1989), “The Trials and Tribulations of Selectionist Explanations”, Hahlweg, K. and Hooker, C. A., (eds.), Issues in Evolutionary Epistemology. New York: State University of New York Press, pp. 413–432.Google Scholar
Amundson, R. (1990), “Doctor Dennett and Doctor Pangloss: Perfection and Selection in Psychology and Biology”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 577–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amundson, R. and Smith, L. D. (1984), “Clark Hull, Robert Cummins, and Functional Analysis”, Philosophy of Science 51: 657–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonovics, J. and van Tienderen, P. H. (1991), “Ontoecogenophyloconstraints? The Chaos of Constraint Terminology”, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 6: 166–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beatty, J. (1986), “The Synthesis and the Synthetic Theory”, in Bechtel, W., (ed.), Integrating Scientific Disciplines. Dordrecht: M. Nijhoff, pp. 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonner, J. T., (ed.) (1982), Evolution and Development. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burian, R. M. (1986), “On Integrating the Study of Evolution and of Development”, in Bechtel, W., (ed.), Integrating Scientific Disciplines. Dordrecht: M. Nijhoff, pp. 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1982), The Extended Phenotype. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1986), The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S. F. (1991), Developmental Biology. 3d ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Goodwin, B. C. (1984), “Changing from an Evolutionary to a Generative Paradigm in Biology”, in Pollard, J. W., (ed.), Evolutionary Theory. New York: Wiley & Sons, pp. 99–120.Google Scholar
Goodwin, B. C.; Holder, N.; and Wylie, C. C. (1983), Development and Evolution. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1980), “The Evolutionary Biology of Constraint”, Daedalus, Dordrecht: M. Nijhoff, pp. 125–135.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1983), “The Hardening of the Modern Synthesis”, in Grene, M., (ed.), Dimensions of Darwinism: Themes and Counterthemes in Twentieth-Century Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 287–314.Google Scholar
Caws, P. (1963), “Science, Computers, and the Complexity of Nature”, Philosophy of Science, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–93.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. and Lewontin, R. C. (1979), “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: 581–598.Google Scholar
Hamburger, V. (1980), “Embryology and the Modern Synthesis in Evolutionary Theory”, in Mayr, E. and Provine, W., (eds.), Philosophy of Science, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 97–112.Google Scholar
Holder, N. (1983), “Developmental Constraints and the Evolution of Vertebrate Digit Patterns”, Journal of Theoretical Biology 104: 451–471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horder, T. J. (1989), “Syllabus for an Embryological Synthesis”, in Wake, D. B. and Roth, G., (eds.), Philosophy of Science, Chichester: Wiley & Sons, pp. 315–348.Google Scholar
Horn, H. S.; Bonner, J. T.; Dohle, W.; Katz, J. J.; Koehl, M. A. R.; Meinhardt, H.; Raff, R. A.; Reif, E. E.; Stearns, S. C.; Strathmann, R. (1982), “Adaptive Aspects of Development”, in Bonner, J. T., (ed.), J. T. Bonner, New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 215–235.Google Scholar
L⊘vtrup, S. (1987), Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J.; Burian, R.; Kauffman, S.; Alberch, P.; Campbell, J.; Goodwin, B.; Lande, R.; Raup, D.; and Wolpert, L. (1985), “Developmental Constraints and Evolution”, The Quarterly Review of Biology 60: 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1980), “Prologue: Some Thoughts on the History of the Evolutionary Synthesis”, in Mayr, E. and Provine, W., (eds.), E. Mayr and W. Provine, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–48.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1991), “An Overview of Current Evolutionary Biology”, in Warren, L. and Koprowski, H., (eds.), L. Warren and H. Koprowski, New York: Wiley & Sons, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Mitchison, G. J. (1977), “Phyllotaxis and the Fibonacci Series”, Science 196: 270–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, J. D. (1981), “A Pre-pattern Formation Mechanism for Animal Coat Markings”, Journal of Theoretical Biology 88: 161–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niklas, K. J. (1988), “The Role of Phyllotactic Pattern as a ‘Developmental Constraint’ on the Interception of Light by Leaf Surfaces”, Evolution 42: 1–16.Google Scholar
Rachootin, S. P. and Thomson, K. S. (1981), “Epigenetics, Paleontology, and Evolution”, in Scudder, G. and Reveal, J., (eds.), G. Scudder and J. Reveal, Pittsburgh, PA: Hunt Institute, pp. 181–193.Google Scholar
Schindel, D. E. (1990), “Unoccupied Morphospace and the Coiled Geometry of Gastropods: Architectural Constraint or Geometric Covariation?”, in Ross, R. M. and Allmon, W. D., (eds.), R. M. Ross and W. D. Allmon, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 270–304.Google Scholar
Smith, K. C. (1992), “Neo-rationalism versus Neo-Darwinism: Integrating Development and Evolution”, Biology and Philosophy 7: 431–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. D. (1986), Behaviorism and Logical Positivism. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Stephens, D. W. and Krebs, J. R. (1986), Foraging Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. W. (1942), On Growth and Form. 2d ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, K. S. (1988), Morphogenesis and Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, B. (1986), “Can Embryologists Contribute to an Understanding of Evolutionary Mechanisms?”, in Bechtel, W., (ed.), W. Bechtel, Dordrecht: M. Nijhoff, pp. 149–163.Google Scholar