Extending the evolutionary thgeory - Philippe Huneman

Extending the evolutionary thgeory - Philippe Huneman

Explaining diversity through evolution: branching and clustering Philippe Huneman IHPST (CNRS/Universit Paris I Sorbonne) Challenges to evolutionary theory ? ->

EXTENDED evolutionary theory. Dawkins 1982; Turner 2001; Sterelny et al. 1996; Odling-Smee et al. 2003; Pigliucci 2007; Gould 2002 ( expansion ) I. THE EXPLANANDA OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

Evolutionary theory explains (Lewontin) : Adaptation Diversity Evolution

Modern Synthesis evolutionary theory explains (Lewontin) : Adaptation -> explained (defined ?) by natural selection Diversity Adaptive radiation, principle of divergence

Evolution -> several causes, the major one being natural selection The two explanada are related: Adaptation -> competitive exclusion -> diversity (Darwins finches beaks)

Diversity There are different ways of being different The diversity issue = why is difference occurring in the way it occurs ?? Variety, but not much novelty (Darwin) -> unity through diversity Alike, though difference : The concepts of homology (and analogy)

The wing of bats and the fins of fish as the same thing, though different or different instances of the same thing Finally, then, although in many cases it is most difficult even to conjecture by what transitions organs could have arrived at their present state; yet, considering how small the proportion of living and known forms is to the extinct and unknown, I have been astonished how rarely an organ can be named, towards which no transitional grade is known to lead. It is certainly true,

that new organs appearing as if created for some special purpose rarely or never appear in any being; as indeed is shown by that old, but somewhat exaggerated, canon in natural history of "Natura non facit saltum." We meet with this admission in the writings of almost every experienced naturalist; or, as Milne Edwards has well expressed it, "Nature is prodigal in variety, but niggard in innovation." Why, on the theory of Creation, should there be so much variety and so little real novelty? Why should all the parts and organs of many independent beings, each supposed to have been separately created for its own proper place

in nature, be so commonly linked together by graduated steps? Why should not Nature take a sudden leap from structure to structure? On the theory of natural selection, we can clearly understand why she should not; for natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by the short and sure, though slow steps. Origin of species (6th ed.) ch. 6.

Diversity, 1 Idea of a morphospace Generalised morphospace Issue : The clustering within the morphospace Why is there such fact ? Diversity, 2

The pattern of branching A, B, C, D, E Possible comparisons : (Ab) (CDE)), (abc (de)), (a (bcde)) (ab ((cd)e)) etc. (A (BC)D)

(A (D (CB))) (A(CB)D) (A (D (BC)))

(A (D (BC)) (A (CB) D) (A (BC) D) (A (D (BC)) = (A (DBC)) + (A D (BC)) Suppose you have (A (DB) C) also : then no possible branching pattern

The fact is that we have something like a tree ! Why ?? -> Darwins answer : Common descent. Notice : Kants problem (Critique of judgment) was the same His answer = transcendantal presuppositions of

the reflective power of judgment*** Evolution = answers two questions about rare facts in spaces of possible spaces Are there equal ? No equivalence : you can have branching with no clustering

And clustering with no branching Xxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx X xxxxx xxxxxxxx

xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Or is an answer to the Clustering question not enough to answer the Branching question ?

And does an answer to the Branching question entails a clustering ? Not necessarily, but it may be teh case. - > What process can be likely to answer the two questions ? II. DARWINIAN EVOLUTIONARY

THEORY EXPLAINING DIVERSITY Darwins view Unity through diversity ? The Conditions of existence and the Unity of type (E.S. Russell Form and function, 1916; Cuvier vs.

Geoffroy St Hilaire 1830) Forme Geoffroy St Hilaire Unity of type (Function)

Cuvier Conditions of existence Common descent Natural selection

It is generally acknowledged that all organic beings have been formed on two great laws Unity of Type, and the Conditions of Existence. By unity of type is meant that fundamental agreement in structure, which we see in organic beings of the same class, and which is quite independent of their habits of life. On my theory, unity of type is explained by unity of descent. The expression of conditions of existence, so often insisted on by the illustrious Cuvier, is fully embraced by the principle of natural

selection. For natural selection acts by either now adapting the varying parts of each being to its organic and inorganic conditions of life; or by having adapted them during long-past periods of time: the adaptations being aided in some cases by use and disuse, being slightly affected by the direct action of the external conditions of life, and being in all cases subjected to the several laws of growth. Hence, in fact, the law of the Conditions of Existence is the higher law; as it includes, through the

inheritance of former adaptations, that of Unity of Type. Chapter VI. Origin of species Darwins thesis : unity of type is subsumed under natural selection What is common descent for two traits at a same phylogenetic level

.resorts to natural selection when considering the first stages (plesiomorphic states) of the trait Thus, we can hardly believe that the webbed feet of the upland goose or of the frigate-bird are of special use to these birds; we cannot believe that the same bones in the arm of the monkey, in the fore leg of the horse, in

the wing of the bat, and in the flipper of the seal, are of special use to these animals. We may safely attribute these structures to inheritance. But to the progenitor of the upland goose and of the frigate-bird, webbed feet no doubt were as useful as they now are to the most aquatic of existing birds. So we may believe that the progenitor of the seal had not a flipper, but a foot with five toes fitted for walking or grasping; and we may further venture to believe that the several bones in the limbs of the

monkey, horse, and bat, which have been inherited from a common progenitor, were formerly of more special use to that progenitor, or its progenitors, than they now are to these animals having such widely diversified habits. Therefore we may infer that these several bones might have been acquired through natural selection, subjected formerly, as now, to the several laws of inheritance, reversion, correlation of growth, &c.

Consequences : micro and macroevolution Darwins gradualism The scale-free diagram zoom in (processes) and zoom out (branching pattern, homologies) The Modern Synthesis view

Change in allelic frequencies as the core of evolution Population thinking (Mayr) and population genetics: genes and (alleles) populations are the two main explanatory levels. Natural selection is the main cause of the departures from gene frequencies equilibria

About processes: macroevolution as extrapolation from microevolution (Mayr, Simpson) About patterns : Gradualism

III. WHAT WOULD BE AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW ? Population thinking and typology Amundsons classification ( Homology and homoplasy : a philosophical perspective 2004): typology = homology more important than natural selection

Typologists were united not by metaphysical or anti-evolutionary commitments, but by a belief in the importance of homology over adaptation - > Micro vs macro evolution = is adaptation different than novelty ? (Muller and Newman 2003) Should novelty need another explanans ?

Form Geoffroy St Hilaire Unity of type Function Cuvier

Conditions of existence Common descent Natural selection Homology

Unity Typological thinking Adaptive radiation Diversity Population thinking

The alternative in explaining unity-indiversity MS : explains diversity through adaptation (radiations) & explains unity by common descent (and in fine natural selection) Typologist : explains unity (in diversity) by

commonalities of structure; explains diversity by novelties + homology MS explanation of diversity issues Branching: d (A,B) < d (A,C) = there is a common ancestor A of A and B, and A of A, A, B and C

Clustering : a restricted number of (coarse grained) selective pressures + common descent -> attractors in design space (as good tricks ) Typologists answer Clustering: some forms are attractors in design

space ie whatever the genetic structure, the environmental structure, etc., the same form will appear (at all levels **) The clustered forms are not living in the same environment at all, hence natural selection can not be the explanation (fins/wings)

Typologists answer, 2 Branching = explained by common descent & Common descent can not be traced back to natural selection & Natural selection is just noise on pure branching (homoplasies); it does not explain branching

Clustering: not all combinations of parts/traits/ molecules/cells are equiprobable DArcy Thompson : morphologies effects of changing scale; conservation laws etc. -> a few forms will be realized Stuart combining toolkit molecules

A nice example: Modularity in cell metabolism networks Intuitive idea : you have many nodes non modular (non clustered) graphs are the most probable networks; selection will pick up the most modular ones (because of advantages of modularity)

BUT: Modularity is known to be one of the most relevant characteristics of biological systems and appears to be present at multiple scales. Given its adaptive potential, it is often assumed to be the target of selective pressures. Under such interpretation, selection would be actively favouring the formation of modular structures, which would specialize in

different functions. Here we show that, within the context of cellular networks, no such selection pressure is needed to obtain modularity. Instead, the intrinsic dynamics of network growth by duplication and diversification is able to generate it for free and explain the statistical features exhibited by small subgraphs. (Sole and Valverde 2010)

Dissymetry in the alternative MS view : natural selection explains the branching (through common descent) and (through both homologies and analogies) the clustering Typologist view : clustering explained by common dynamics/topological properties etc. *** ; branching explained by common descent not tied to natural

selection -> less unified than MS : reasons for homology; reasons for attractors in design space Pb. The unity of typologist program is less straightforwardly visible !!!

Role of development Network dynamics : development is what explains the clustering -> (Developmental) typologist view : Common developmental processes underpin homologies (hence the branching) and clustering

TYPOLOGIZING THE ALTERNATIVES TO MS Several cleavages Genes / epigenetics (Gilbert; Kirschner & Gerhardt 2005) Genes / developmental systems (DST)

Genes / Genomics (Fox Keller 2000, Stolz, etc.): what if genes dont exist any more in molecular genetics ? Genes / organisms (West Eberhardt 2003; Walsh 2008; Odling Smee et al. (2003)) (Gould & Lewontin 1979 Bauplan) Forms / Genes (Pigliucci 2007)

Structure/ Function (adaptation) (Amundson 2005) Externalism vs. Internalism (Godfrey Smith 1996) What may be the targets of criticism ? The 2 controversial gene-related theses in the Modern Synthesis : Darwinism (natural selection as causing evolution, adaptation and diversity)

Mendelism (Particular inheritance) -> genes are the substrate of inheritance (p) Weissmanism (germen soma distinction) -> development does not impinge on evolution (q) Genes are: THE Units of inheritance

Causes of development Genes are: Units of inheritance Some other channels are found : methylation patterns; parental imprinting (narrow epigenetic level) ;

cultural units (bird songs, nests, language, etc.) Causes of development Genes are: Units of inheritance Some other units are found : methylation patterns; parental imprinting (narrow epigenetic level) ; cultural units (bird songs, nests, language, etc.)

Causes of development Phenotype as non additive outcome of genotype and (intra & extra cell) environment (see Norms of reaction, from Woltereck to Lewontin) Causal parity thesis Stochastic gene expression

-> critique of the notion of genetic programme Suppose that methylation patterns are inherited: Does it change anything for the relationship between development and evolution ? (thesis q)

Not if they are not reliably affected by development Those two trends of critiques are not logically related They will challenge (p) But not necessarily (q)

Challenging q Possibly : very sophisticated developmental phenomena (involving genes, epigenetics etc.) without making development relevant for evolution -> see genotype phenotype maps

Gspace, Dspace a. Gspace, Pspace, with Dspace Dspace is evolutionary irrelevant Genotype space

Phenotype space Developmental space b. Gspace, Pspace, with Dspace

Dspace is evolutionary relevant Is the actual (set of) GP maps of type a or b ? Its an empirical issue But (some conceptual points): This explains the macro-microevolution controversy : small

and large scale view of the graphs The smaller the zone in Gspace, the higher the chances that the map will be well behaved (type a) If you consider macroevolution If its a type b case (which is likely)

Then you must consider developmental processes (against q) as relevant for evolution

If you ask the diversity questions Then you consider macroevolution If its a type b case (which is likely) Then you must consider developmental processes (against q) as relevant for evolution

Then you may have to consider the developmental - typologist view

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • CDC Presentation

    CDC Presentation

    In areas with high mosquito densities: use mosquito repellents. wear clothing that minimizes skin exposure. Do not allow standing water to accumulate around your home. Be aware of warnings issued by state and local health departments. * Citations, references, and...
  • The Trolley Problem - Ram Pages

    The Trolley Problem - Ram Pages

    The Trolley Problem ... Ask whether that right conflicts with other rights or with the rights of others The Fairness Approach The morally right course of action is one that gives whomever what they deserve. Equals should be treated equally...
  • Puritans - foxenglish3.weebly.com

    Puritans - foxenglish3.weebly.com

    In his famous sermon "A Model of Christian Charity," John Winthrop described their society as a "city upon a hill" that would be watched by the whole world. ... Puritans provided free education to children—this ensured their Christian upbringing. 1630-1660:...
  • Reicher &amp; Haslam Rethinking The Psychology of Tyranny

    Reicher & Haslam Rethinking The Psychology of Tyranny

    Reicher & Haslam Rethinking The Psychology of Tyranny ... SIT Zimbardo's SPE Issues from SPE Conclusions focussed on the power of social roles & group membership in shaping behaviour. People have little choice in what they do, they behave according...
  • Week 7-8 - WordPress.com

    Week 7-8 - WordPress.com

    To save himself, Bud breaks through the window and kills the last few hornets that are on him. After he calms down, Bud gets mad. Really mad. He gets so mad that he wants revenge. Chapter 3. Characters we meet....
  • Reciprocal Reading - Australian Curriculum Lessons

    Reciprocal Reading - Australian Curriculum Lessons

    Reciprocal Reading means you will conduct a reading group on your own without a teacher! You will learn the 4 roles of reading and how to become a very good reader!
  • Upgrading of Statistics Estonias Live Chat Service with

    Upgrading of Statistics Estonias Live Chat Service with

    Requests for information2017-2019. Online chat. Amount of requests E-post 42795 42826 42856 42887 42917 42948 42979 43009 43040 43070 43101 43132 43160 43191 43221 43252
  • Recounts - Primary Resources

    Recounts - Primary Resources

    Recounts How to write a successful one! Introduction Who? Who did the activity? What? What did they do? Where? Where did this take place? When? When did this happen? Why? What was the purpose of the activity? Main Body Write...