Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:59:33.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mechanistic Constraints on Evolutionary Outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Tudor M. Baetu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding the role mechanistic constraints play in shaping evolution can relieve the tension between the generally accepted intuition that there are no strict laws in biology and empirical findings showing that evolutionary processes are biased toward preferred outcomes. Mechanistic constraints explain why some evolutionary outcomes are more probable than others and allow for predictions in specific lineages. At the same time, mechanistic constraints are neither necessary nor universal in the way laws are traditionally characterized: they remain contingent on the past evolution of the biological mechanisms underpinning them and only constrain the future evolution of the organisms possessing them.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 79 , Issue 2 , April 2012 , pp. 276 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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

‡

I would like to thank Lindley Darden, Erika Milam, Eric Saidel, Lane DesAutels, Elizabeth Schechter, the DC History and Philosophy of Biology group, the Maryland Mechanisms group, members of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology 2011 and International Society for History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology 2011 conferences, as well as two anonymous reviewers for helpful discussion and comments on earlier drafts. This work was supported by Fonds de la recherche sur la société et la culture, Québec, Canada (grant 127231).

References

Averof, M., and Patel, N. 1997. “Crustacean Appendage Evolution Associated with Changes in Hox Gene Expression.” Nature 388:682–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barros, B. 2008. “Natural Selection as a Mechanism.” Philosophy of Science 75:306–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, J. 1995. “The Evolutionary Contingency Thesis.” In Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences: The Second Pittsburgh-Konstanz Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, ed. Wolters, G. and Lennox, J. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W., and Abrahamsen, A. 2005. “Explanation: A Mechanist Alternative.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36:421–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, G. 2008. Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bogen, J. 2005. “Regularities and Causality: Generalizations and Causal Explanations.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36:397–420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brigandt, I. Forthcoming. “From Developmental Constraint to Evolvability: How Concepts Figure in Explanation and Disciplinary Identity.” In Conceptual Change in Biology: Scientific and Philosophical Perspectives on Evolution and Development, ed. Love, A. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. 1999. The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohn, M., and Tickle, C. 1999. “Developmental Basis of Limblessness and Axial Patterning in Snakes.” Nature 399:474–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craver, C. 2007. Explaining the Brain: Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crick, F. 1968. “The Origin of the Genetic Code.” Journal of Molecular Biology 38:367–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cummins, R. 2000. “‘How Does It Work’ versus ‘What Are the Laws?’: Two Conceptions of Psychological Explanation.” In Explanation and Cognition, ed. Keil, F. and Wilson, R., 117–45. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
De Robertis, E. 2008. “Evo-Devo: Variations on Ancestral Themes.” Cell 132:185–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elgin, M. 2006. “There May Be Strict Empirical Laws in Biology, after All.” Biology and Philosophy 21:119–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ereshefsky, M. 1991. “The Semantic Approach to Evolutionary Theory.” Biology and Philosophy 5:7–28.Google Scholar
Glennan, S. 1996. “Mechanisms and the Nature of Causation.” Erkenntnis 44:49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glennan, S. 2002. “Rethinking Mechanistic Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 69 (Proceedings): S342–S353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1989. Wonderful Life. New York: Norton.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 205:581–98.Google Scholar
Hubbs, C. 1940. “Speciation of Fishes.” American Naturalist 74:198–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. 1974. Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. 1993. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kimura, M. 1983. The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machamer, P., Darden, L., and Craver, C. 2000. “Thinking about Mechanisms.” Philosophy of Science 67:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, P., and Williamson, J. 2010. “Function and Organization: Comparing the Mechanisms of Protein Synthesis and Natural Selection.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 41 (3): 279–91.Google Scholar
Minelli, A. 2009. Perspectives in Animal Phylogeny and Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, S. 1997. “Pragmatic Laws.” Philosophy of Science 64 (Proceedings): S468–S479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osawa, S., Jukes, T., Watanabe, K., and Muto, A. 1992. “Recent Evidence for Evolution of the Genetic Code.” Microbiological Reviews 56 (1): 229–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Page-McCaw, P. S., Chung, S. C., Muto, A., Roeser, T., Staub, W., Finger-Baier, K. C., Korenbrot, J. I., and Baier, H. 2004. “Retinal Network Adaptation to Bright Light Requires Tyrosinase.” Nature Neuroscience 7 (12): 1329–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powell, R. 2007. “Is Convergence More than an Analogy? Homoplasy and Its Implications for Macroevolutionary Predictability.” Biology and Philosophy 22:565–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Protas, M., Hersey, C., Kochanek, D., Zhou, Y., Wilkens, H., Jeffery, W., Zon, L., Borowsky, R., and Tabin, C. 2006. “Genetic Analysis of Cavefish Reveals Molecular Convergence in the Evolution of Albinism.” Nature Genetics 38 (1): 107–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reich, P., Tjoelker, M., Machado, J.-L., and Oleksyn, J. 2006. “Universal Scaling of Respiratory Metabolism, Size and Nitrogen in Plants.” Nature 439:457–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roth, G., and Dicke, U. 2005. “Evolution of the Brain and Intelligence.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (5): 250–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaffner, K. F. 1993. Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schluter, D. 2009. “Evidence for Ecological Speciation and Its Alternative.” Science 323:737–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schultz, D., and Yarust, M. 1994. “Transfer RNA Mutation and the Malleability of the Genetic Code.” Journal of Molecular Biology 235:1377–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, M., Marks, M., Peichel, C., Blackman, B., Nereng, K., Jónsson, B., Schluter, D., and Kingsley, D. 2004. “Genetic and Developmental Basis of Evolutionary Pelvic Reduction in Threespine Sticklebacks.” Nature 428:717–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skipper, R., and Millstein, R. 2005. “Thinking about Evolutionary Mechanisms: Natural Selection.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36:327–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sober, E. 1989. “Is the Theory of Natural Selection Unprincipled?” Biology and Philosophy 4:275–79.Google Scholar
Sober, E. 1997. “Two Outbreaks of Lawlessness in Recent Philosophy of Biology.” Philosophy of Science 64 (Proceedings): S458–S467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wakeley, J. 1996. “The Excess of Transitions among Nucleotide Substitutions: New Methods of Estimating Transition Bias Underscore Its Significance.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11 (1): 58–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waters, C. K. 1998. “Causal Regularities in the Biological World of Contingent Distributions.” Biology and Philosophy 13:5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, G., Brown, J., and Enquist, B. 1997. “A General Model for the Origin of Allometric Scaling Laws in Biology.” Science 276:122–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willmer, P. 2003. “Convergence and Homoplasy in the Evolution of Organismal Form.” In Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology, ed. Muller, G. and Newman, S. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. 2002. “There Is No Such Thing as a Ceteris Paribus Law.” Erkenntnis 57:303–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar