Links between Anatomy, Systems biology, Epigenetics, etho‐eco‐morphological mismatches, evolutionary trends, and organism behavior: a unifying view of anatomical evolution

Abstract

It is a puzzling paradox that eco‐morphological mismatches occur so frequently in an evolutionary process that often leads to macroevolutionary trends and in which organisms are said to be ‘designed’ for the habitats they inhabit. Here I present a new framework ‐ Organic Nonoptimal Constrained Evolution (ONCE) ‐ to address this paradox, and to explain why organisms look as they look: organisms themselves, and in particular their behavior, are the major active players of evolution. That is, within this framework, internal factors can both decrease and increase plasticity/hidden variation and therefore, together with epigenetic factors influenced by the external environment, can allows organisms to shift their behavior, for instance as a response to environmental changes. Importantly, due to behavioral persistence related to behavioral/ecological inheritance, organisms as diverse as bacteria, plants and animals help to construct their own niches, thus being crucial to direct evolution. Darwinian natural (external) selection then comes into play as a secondary ‐ but still crucial ‐ player. That is, due to organismal behavioral persistence, the random mutations/epigenetic factors that happen to be advantageous within the niches constructed by the organisms will be selected, further directing evolution and increasing the match between behavior, phenotype, and environment. This process can extend for long periods of time, leading to macroevolutionary morphological trends and further increasing this match, potentially resulting in successful phenotypic overspecialization. However, behavioral persistence, loss of plasticity due to natural selection, genetic drift, overspecialization, and internal constraints can often make it difficult for the organisms to respond behaviorally and/or anatomically to new environmental changes, resulting in potential mismatches between behavior, ecology and form, and eventually in extinction. This new framework about anatomical evolution therefore bridges the gap between ideas that have been long considered to be opposing views of biology since Aristotle, including internalism and externalism, Cuvier's vs. Geoffroy's take on form and function, Darwinism and Lamarkism, the ideas of Baldwin, Waddington and Goldschmidt, and current Evo‐Devo ideas such as a physicalist framework, niche construction and epigenetic plasticity. This talk therefore covers ‐ and aims to link ‐ areas as diverse as evolutionary developmental biology, paleontology, evolutionary biology, comparative anatomy, ecomorphology, functional anatomy, ecology, ethology, biological anthropology, evolutionary medicine and history and philosophy of biology.Support or Funding InformationNAThis abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.