Abstract
Biologists and philosophers of science have recently called for an extension of evolutionary theory. This so-called ‘extended evolutionary synthesis’ (EES) seeks to integrate developmental processes, extra-genetic forms of inheritance, and niche construction into evolutionary theory in a central way. While there is often agreement in evolutionary biology over the existence of these phenomena, their explanatory relevance is questioned. Advocates of EES posit that their perspective offers better explanations than those provided by ‘standard evolutionary theory’ (SET). Still, why this would be the case is unclear. Usually, such claims assume that EES’s superior explanatory status arises from the pluralist structure of EES, its different problem agenda, and a growing body of evidence for the evolutionary relevance of developmental phenomena (including developmental bias, inclusive inheritance, and niche construction). However, what is usually neglected in this debate is a discussion of what the explanatory standards of EES actually are, and how they differ from prevailing standards in SET. In other words, what is considered to be a good explanation in EES versus SET? To answer this question, we present a theoretical framework that evaluates the explanatory power of different evolutionary explanations of the same phenomena. This account is able to identify criteria for why and when evolutionary explanations of EES are better than those of SET. Such evaluations will enable evolutionary biology to find potential grounds for theoretical integration.
Highlights
In the last decade a growing number of biologists and philosophers of science have argued that evolutionary theory needs to be ‘extended’ in order to explain evolutionary change better
They claim that the standard framework of evolutionary biology—especially the population genetics central to the modern synthesis—is insufficient to account for the diversity of evolutionary processes
We present a theoretical framework of explanatory power
Summary
In the last decade a growing number of biologists and philosophers of science have argued that evolutionary theory needs to be ‘extended’ in order to explain evolutionary change better. They claim that the standard framework of evolutionary biology—especially the population genetics central to the modern synthesis—is insufficient to account for the diversity of evolutionary processes According to this view, standard evolutionary theory (SET) should integrate more thoroughly new knowledge about how “developmental processes, operating through developmental bias, inclusive inheritance and niche construction share responsibility for the direction and rate of evolution, the origin of character variation and organism–environment complementarity” (Laland et al 2015: 8; see Pigliucci 2007; Mesoudi et al 2013; Jablonka and Lamb 2014; Sultan 2017; Uller and Laland 2019). We conclude that our conceptual framework allows the identification of differences in explanatory standards between EES and SET, and suggest such evaluation will enable future theoretical integration in evolutionary biology
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
