Extended Evolutionary Synthesis Research Articles

Religion, morality, science – And the (?) story of Homo sapiens

From the most recent and directive dimensions of the (?) story of Homo sapiens (Hs), presented as a very limited overview and in broad outlines from an anthropological perspective, the focus will ultimately fall on three key concepts: ecosystems, niche construction and wisdom. These concepts in my academic opinion represent for our pursuit and further exploration on morality and religion from evolutionary perspectives the most important anthropological clues and directives. Against the background of two remarks: firstly, on the contextual state of the present science-religion discourses in South Africa and secondly, on the fluid and messy nature of the relationship between science-religion in contemporary discourses, the (no, a) messy story of Homo sapiens is told, incorporating the most recent post-Darwinian developments within evolutionary theories, highlighting the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) and the all-important four dimensions of inheritance that are embodied in these very three concepts.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: Reflection on the stories of Homo sapiens within cultural anthropological, theological and philosophical contexts in order to highlight directives and implications for the relationship between morality and religion within contemporary science-religion discourses.

What Taking Development Seriously Means for Evolutionary Theory

Proponents of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) emphasize the critical role that organisms and their development play in the process of evolution. This framework explicitly rejects the genocentric focus that once dominated interpretations of the Modern Synthesis in evolutionary theory. In place of genocentrism, EES highlights processes like niche construction, developmental constraint, and extragenetic inheritance as central to any understanding of the evolutionary process. However, much more is at stake in adopting the EES than simply moving beyond the gene-dominant viewpoint of the Modern Synthesis. The EES, in fact, represents a fundamental challenge to the core of classic Darwinism itself by actively repudiating Darwin’s key idea that natural selection acts as a creative force in the construction of phenotypes and phenotypic change. In this paper, we more fully explore the assumptive base of Darwinism’s population-oriented, selectional focus. We demonstrate how taking development seriously in evolutionary theory mandates a systematic overhaul of Darwinism’s assumptive base in favor of grounding all understanding of phenotypic construction in the developmental processes of self-organization endemic to organisms’ active engagement with their worlds.

A History of Biology

A HISTORY OF BIOLOGY by Michel Morange. Translated by Teresa Lavender Fagan and Joseph Muise. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2021. 418 pages. Hardcover; $29.95. ISBN: 9780691175409. *A book that introduces the history of biology will be of interest to many readers of this journal. The Preface states that the author, Michel Morange, will present a broad historical overview of the history of biology that, unlike some other histories of biology, will include developments in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. In this regard, he mentions Lois N. Magner, A History of the Life Sciences, 3rd ed. (New York: Marcel Dekker, 2002). Magner's book does cover many scientists and developments in the twentieth century, although, significantly, she does not discuss the modern evolutionary synthesis. *Morange states that he will present a "history which leans on the present to look at the past." That is, he will use "the past to shed light on the present, not to justify it" (p. xvii). To do this, the author uses a novel approach. Each chapter is subdivided into three sections: The Facts; Historical Overview; and Contemporary Relevance. "The Facts" is the first main section of each chapter; in the subsequent two, he reflects on some of the investigators and their discoveries. As he does so, he is not reticent to give his own evaluations and ideas; this is a strength of the book. Thus, he states that the book will not be a simple listing of facts and persons. For example, in the first chapter Morange suggests that the "hunt for pioneers" (for example, ancient thinkers who used the word "atom") is futile because the ancient idea had little to do with the development of the modern concept. Excursions such as these can be topics for fruitful classroom discussions. *Five succinct chapters take the reader from ancient Greece and Rome, through the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the seventeenth century, and the Enlightenment. Chapter 1, in which Aristotle is designated as "the father of biology" (p. 2), offers some welcome thoughts on experimentation and the atomists. The discussion of the Middle Ages includes the suggestion that in the history of a science there may be long periods in which there is little growth in scientific knowledge. The chapter on the Age of Enlightenment, the eighteenth century, examines the history of the classification of organisms and the reproduction of animals. An introduction to the subjects related to reproduction, such as the importance of eggs versus sperm, preformation versus epigenesis, parthenogenesis, and spontaneous generation, would have made this topic more accessible. *Two chapters cover the history of biology in the nineteenth century. The author agrees with the idea that Theodor Schwann and Matthias Schleiden deserve much credit for the emergence of cell theory, but he mentions that some others, notably J. E. Purkinje, also deserve credit for this discovery. Under the heading The Rise of Germ Theory, the author describes many investigations that led to the understanding of infectious agents. Pride of place--and the (French) author may surely be forgiven for this--goes to Louis Pasteur and the diverse aspects of his work. This chapter offers a comprehensive description of the three important French post-revolutionary biologists: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Georges Cuvier, and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. A good account of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection is followed by a description of the reception of this work in Great Britain, America, Germany, and France; in many cases, the theory was altered by the influence of other concepts (e.g., Lamarckism). Once the work by Gregor Mendel on the inheritance of characteristics in peas was rediscovered in 1900, "genetics" was rapidly established in Britain and the United States; it was established more slowly in Germany and France. *The prominence of Naturphilosophie in Germany and surrounding countries is described. Morange makes an excellent connection between his discussion of reproduction and the topic of Naturphilosophie by referring to the work of Caspar Friedrich Wolff, a biologist who was an early adherent of this way of thinking. Morange describes the origins of Naturphilosophie, and the influence of ideas in biology. Many German scientists were influenced by this philosophical school; it was a stimulus in the formulation of cell theory. Erik Nordenskiöld shows that Johannes Peter Müller progressed from speculative ideas about biology to making important contributions in many areas of biology. He supervised many graduate students who became important biologists. *The last three chapters, which address developments in the twentieth and the twenty-first centuries, are not only valuable for the historical descriptions, but also as a survey of biology as it is practiced today. The first chapter describes the emergence of biochemistry, immunology, microbiology, and our understanding of the nature and treatment of cancer. The "rediscovery of Mendel's laws and the rise of genetics" (p. 256) and the "rise of molecular biology" (p. 264) receive the extensive attention one would expect. Morange is clearly in his element here; biologists of all stripes will benefit from reading this chapter. *The chapter that follows describes the development of population genetics. This leads, aptly, into the topic of the modern evolutionary synthesis--the extended evolutionary synthesis is not mentioned. This is followed by an excellent summary of the various topics within ecology. Morange then describes the origins and methods of ethology; he includes the contributions of the three 1973 Nobel Prize winners: Karl von Frisch, Konrad Lorenz, and Nikolaas Tinbergen. The burgeoning field of behavioral ecology, related to the last two topics, is not addressed. In the reflective part of the chapter, the author comments, among other topics, on holism and emergentism, global warming, and the responsibility of biologists. *In the final chapter, Morange takes us on a tour of the developments that start with the science described in the previous two chapters and end in the present century. "Structural biology" (p. 331) is advancing our knowledge of nucleic acids and proteins. The relationship between the modern evolutionary synthesis and molecular biology leads to topics such as evolutionary developmental biology ("evo-devo"), epigenetics, and human genome sequencing. The contributions to human genome sequencing of Craig Venter are acknowledged, but the work of Francis Collins at the National Human Genome Research Institute is not. In the last pages of this chapter, and in the Conclusion section of the book, Morange gives numerous opinions on the topics he has covered. *Biologists will enjoy reading this book for the many insights and opinions it presents. They will appreciate reading about the history of their discipline from a French point of view. The English translation of this French book reads well; however, the footnotes and references need to be more suitable for the English-language readership. The footnotes, especially those intended to provide links to further reading, often refer to French-language books or journal articles; it would not be difficult to find many English -language equivalents. Some of the French books listed as references are available in English translations. In the Preface, the author states that readers "should consider this book a first version, which their critical input will help improve" (p. xx). One would hope that the author and Princeton University Press will address this last critical comment about the book, for the book has the potential of being a valuable textbook for students. *Reviewed by Harry Cook, Professor of Biology, Emeritus, The King's University, Edmonton, AB T6B 2H3.

Thomas S. Kuhn: key to a better understanding of the extended evolutionary synthesis.

In recent years, some scholars have explicitly questioned the desirability or utility of applying the classical and "old-fashioned" theories of scientific change by the likes of Karl Popper and Thomas S. Kuhn to the question of the precise nature and significance of the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES). Supposedly, these twentieth-century philosophers are completely irrelevant for a better understanding of this new theoretical framework for the study of evolution. Here, it will be argued that the EES can be fruitfully interpreted in terms of, as yet, insufficiently considered or even overlooked elements from Kuhn's theory. First, in his original, historical philosophy of science, Kuhn not only distinguished between small and big scientific revolutions, he also pointed out that paradigms can be extended and reformulated. In contrast with what its name suggests, the mainstream EES can be interpreted as a Kuhnian reformulation of modern evolutionary theory. Second, it has, as yet, also been overlooked that the EES can be interpreted in terms of Kuhn's later, tentative evolutionary philosophy of science. With the EES, an old dichotomy in evolutionary biology is maybe being formalized and institutionalized.

Ornamental plant domestication by aesthetics-driven human cultural niche construction.

Unlike plants that were domesticated to secure food, the domestication and breeding of ornamental plants are driven by aesthetic values. Here, we examine the major elements of the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) theory that bridges the gap between the biology of ornamental plant domestication and the sociocultural motivations behind it. We propose that it involves specific elements of cumulative cultural evolution (CCE), plant gene-human culture coevolution (PGHCC), and niche construction (NC). Moreover, ornamental plant domestication represents an aesthetics-driven dimension of human niche construction that coevolved with socioeconomic changes and the adoption of new scientific technologies. Initially functioning as symbolic and aesthetic assets, ornamental plants became globally marketed material commodities as a result of the co-dependence of human CCE and prestige-competition motivations.

The information continuum model of evolution

Most biologists agree that evolution is contingent on inherited information shaped by natural selection. This apparent consensus could be taken to indicate agreement on the forces shaping evolution, but vivid discussions reveal divergences on how evolution is perceived. The predominant Modern Synthesis (MS) paradigm holds the position that evolution occurs through random changes acting on genomic inheritance. However, studies from recent decades have revealed that evolutionary inheritance also includes DNA-methylation, RNA, symbionts, and culture, among other factors. This has fueled a demand of a broader evolutionary perspective, for example from the proponents of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES). Despite fundamental disagreements the different views agree that natural selection happens through dissimilar perpetuation of inheritable information. Yet, neither the MS, nor the ESS dwell extensively on the nature of hereditary information. We do - and conclude that information in and of itself is immaterial. We then argue that the quality upon which natural selection acts henceforth is also immaterial. Based on these notions, we arrive at the information-centric Information Continuum Model (ICM) of evolution. The ICM asserts that hereditary information is embedded in diverse physical forms (DNA, RNA, symbionts etc.) representing a continuum of evolutionary qualities, and that information may migrate between these physical forms. The ICM leaves theoretical exploration of evolution unrestricted by the limitations imposed by the individual physical forms wherein the hereditary information is embedded (e.g. genomes). ICM bestows us with a simple heuristic model that adds explanatory dimensions to be considered in the evolution of biological systems.

Homology thinking reconciles the conceptual conflict between typological and population thinking

This paper attempts to reconcile the conceptual conflict between typological and population thinking to provide a philosophical foundation for extended evolutionary synthesis (EES). Typological thinking has been considered a pre-Darwinian, essentialist dogma incompatible with population thinking, which is the core notion of Darwinism. More recent philosophical and historical studies suggest that a non-essentialist form of typology (i.e., representational typology) has some advantages in the study of evolutionary biology. However, even if we adopt such an epistemological interpretation of typological thinking, there still remains an epistemological and methodological conflict between these two styles of thinking. How can we relate typological thinking with population thinking in pursuit of more integrated or interconnected research into evolutionary biology? I propose that homology thinking, which is another style of thinking that recognizes homologous characters, provides a common basis for typological representations of character states and for character dynamics in an evolving population. Good examples of this bridging role are found in teratology and breeding, where variation and novelty are recognized in developmental and morphological traits, gene expression patterns, and so on. Essentialism-free, dynamic views of homology have great potential to reconcile typological and population thinking and to set the stage for the EES.

On plants and principles

A critical oversight in the authors’ (Birch et al.) UAL framework arises in its stated basis in an “unlimited heredity” (UH) argument. Specifically, the foundational UH claim is that there is a possibility space constrained by the known properties of DNA, and that, within that space, a subset of specific “real” lineages arise. These lineages are actualisations of possibilities, under the assumption that no amount of time would be sufficient to actualise all possibilities. The oversight – already present in UH, but ‘inherited’ by UAL – regards what pressures produce the actual subset of lineages from the in principle possible lineages. Significantly, the subset is neither due solely to the “constraints” granted by Birch et al., nor is it arbitrary. Rather, the subset of actual lineages is the result of a reciprocal process with the environment that has been highlighted in research on the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) (e.g. Laland et al. 2017). In this commentary, we will underscore how this critical oversight concerning reciprocal pressures poses a core problem for the target article’s characterisation of UAL.

Interpreting the History of Evolutionary Biology through a Kuhnian Prism: Sense or Nonsense?

Traditionally, Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) is largely identified with his analysis of the structure of scientific revolutions. Here, we contribute to a minority tradition in the Kuhn literature by interpreting the history of evolutionary biology through the prism of the entire historical developmental model of sciences that he elaborates in The Structure. This research not only reveals a certain match between this model and the history of evolutionary biology but, more importantly, also sheds new light on several episodes in that history, and particularly on the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859), the construction of the modern evolutionary synthesis, the chronic discontent with it, and the latest expression of that discontent, called the extended evolutionary synthesis. Lastly, we also explain why this kind of analysis hasn’t been done before.

The ripples of modernity: How we can extend paleoanthropology with the extended evolutionary synthesis.

Contemporary understandings of paleoanthropological data illustrate that the search for a line defining, or a specific point designating, "modern human" is problematic. Here we lend support to the argument for the need to look for patterns in the paleoanthropological record that indicate how multiple evolutionary processes intersected to form the human niche, a concept critical to assessing the development and processes involved in the emergence of a contemporary human phenotype. We suggest that incorporating key elements of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) into our endeavors offers a better and more integrative toolkit for modeling and assessing the evolution of the genus Homo. To illustrate our points, we highlight how aspects of the genetic exchanges, morphology, and material culture of the later Pleistocene complicate the concept of "modern" human behavior and suggest that multiple evolutionary patterns, processes, and pathways intersected to form the human niche.

EvoDevo: An Ongoing Revolution?

Since its appearance, Evolutionary Developmental Biology (EvoDevo) has been called an emerging research program, a new paradigm, a new interdisciplinary field, or even a revolution. Behind these formulas, there is the awareness that something is changing in biology. EvoDevo is characterized by a variety of accounts and by an expanding theoretical framework. From an epistemological point of view, what is the relationship between EvoDevo and previous biological tradition? Is EvoDevo the carrier of a new message about how to conceive evolution and development? Furthermore, is it necessary to rethink the way we look at both of these processes? EvoDevo represents the attempt to synthesize two logics, that of evolution and that of development, and the way we conceive one affects the other. This synthesis is far from being fulfilled, but an adequate theory of development may represent a further step towards this achievement. In this article, an epistemological analysis of EvoDevo is presented, with particular attention paid to the relations to the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) and the Standard Evolutionary Synthesis (SET).

Biological Individuality and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: A Philosophical Conundrum in a (New) Biological Focus

There has been much debate in evolutionary biology concerning the extension of some of the central tenets of the modern synthesis (MS). Due to recent developments in evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo), epigenetics, phenotypic and developmental plasticity, niche construction and ecological inheritance, and animal traditions, an increasing array of leading evolutionary biologists, theoretical biologists, and philosophers of biology agree that the structure of the MS needs to be reconsidered. This paper reflects on the connection between this scientific debate and the notion of biological individuality. The paper proposes a discussion of two levels at which the concept of individuality intersects with the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES), as well as the tension between two roles for individuals in such an extended theoretical framework. First, taken at face value, many developments in evolutionary thinking point to an organismcentered view of evolutionary processes. Second, the concept of individuality appears to have been hugely modified in the history of evolutionary thought. Indeed, both multilevel selection theory and the framing of Darwinian individuality transitioning among levels in evolution entail an expansion of the notion of individuality. Such an extended notion leaves room for aggregations of (classical) organisms counting as evolutionary individuals while (allegedly proper) organisms may coherently be viewed as populations. It follows that while individuality has become increasingly relevant for the renewed view of evolution that the EES presents, the boundaries of the notion seem blurrier and more fluid than ever. The paper concludes with a call for pluralism with regard to individuals (and many other evolutionary concepts).

Creating a ‘gestalt shift’ in evolutionary science: roles for metaphor in the conceptual landscape of the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES)

ABSTRACT The role of novel metaphors, analogies and figurative devices in generating new frameworks for thought and guiding new scientific discoveries has been one of Evelyn Fox Keller’s important contributions to our understanding of the development of genetics in the twentieth century. Here we explore metaphors that are used in the construction of the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES), a theoretical framework that is still very much in the making. The EES challenges mainstream gene-based, ‘Modern Synthesis’ versions of evolutionary theory and calls for a development- and organism-oriented view of heredity and evolution. We show that at the current unstable and dynamic stage of its construction, the metaphors and analogies that are put forward by advocates of the EES play an important role in defining its boundaries, scope and ambitions, while the aesthetic and ambiguous aspects of these same metaphors are used by opponents to undermine the scientific value of the EES.

Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Neither Synthesis Nor Extension

The extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) intends to offer a new framework for understanding evolution based mainly on empirical and theoretical findings of current studies, including heredity and evolutionary developmental biology. In this essay, we present and develop the following objections about the terminology associated with the EES literature: (1) despite using the term "extension," EES protagonists claim new evolutionary processes, reformulate conceptual networks, and modify central assumptions of the evolutionary synthesis (ES). Therefore, the difference between ES and EES should not be described in terms of a set-subset relationship (that is, as an extension); (2) despite using the term "synthesis," the EES leads, at least in the short term, to a pluralism of approaches in evolutionary biology. Thus, we argue that the EES should not be described as a synthesis, but as a broad and plural interpretative framework encompassing different approaches. These objections are not directed to the proposed changes, but to the interpretation of these changes as a mere expansion of the previous evolutionary framework, as well as to the interpretation of the EES as a synthesis. Based on these objections, we seek to present some explanations for the use of the term "extended synthesis" among its protagonists.

Does the extended evolutionary synthesis entail extended explanatory power?

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.

Conflation and refutation: Book Review of Uller, T. and K. N. Laland. eds. 2019. Evolutionary Causation: Biological and Philosophical Reflections. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 352: pp. ISBN: 978‐0‐262‐03992‐5. $60.00/£50.00.

Evolutionary Causation, the new edited book from Tobias Uller and Kevin Laland (Uller and Laland, 2019) should be seen as a positive contribution to those seeking an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES). The ambition for an EES has emerged most vociferously over the past 15 years, but its antecedents stretch back to the key work in the 1970s of Gould, Lewontin and their colleagues. At root arguments for an EES are arguments about how the Modern Synthesis (MS) in evolutionary biology has been found wanting. Much of this discontent has been to do with theoreticians rethinking concepts of adaptation, inheritance and development (Jablonka and Lamb, 2006; Huneman and Walsh, 2017) as well as variation and macroevolution (Pigliucci and Muller, 2010). This book continues this work, but focuses on analysis of the central concept of causation within evolution.

El ideal de unificación en biología: el caso de la síntesis evolutiva extendida

In this article I will analyze whether the so-called Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) represents a synthesis and an extension with respect to its predecessor, Modern Synthesis (MS). It will be argued that the MS proposes an externalist approach to evolution while the EES considers it necessary to overcome the internalism/externalism dichotomy by proposing more integrative approaches. It will be concluded that the EES cannot be considered an extension of MS and that the appeal to that extension is related to sociological aspects and the epistemic value of theoretical unification that was always present in biological evolutionary thinking.

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: what is the debate about, and what might success for the extenders look like?

Abstract Debate over the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) ranges over three quite different domains of enquiry. Protagonists are committed to substantive positions regarding (1) empirical questions concerning (for example) the properties and prevalence of systems of epigenetic inheritance; (2) historical characterizations of the modern synthesis; and (3) conceptual/philosophical matters concerning (among other things) the nature of evolutionary processes, and the relationship between selection and adaptation. With these different aspects of the debate in view, it is possible to demonstrate the range of cross-cutting positions on offer when well-informed evolutionists consider their stance on the EES. This overview of the multiple dimensions of debate also enables clarification of two philosophical elements of the EES debate, regarding the status of niche-construction and the role of selection in explaining adaptation. Finally, it points the way to a possible resolution of the EES debate, via a pragmatic approach to evolutionary enquiry.

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis Facilitates Evolutionary Models of Culture Change

Author(s): Smith, Cameron M.; Gabora, Liane; Gardner-O’Kearny, William | Abstract: The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) is beginning to fulfill the whole promise of Darwinian insight through its extension of evolutionary understanding from the biological domain to include cultural information evolution. This constitutes the origins of an evolutionary study of culture change free of the social-darwinism and ecologically-deterministic baggage that characterized earlier such approaches.

Why evolutionary biology needs anthropology: Evaluating core assumptions of the extended evolutionary synthesis.

Anthropologists have a long history of applying concepts from evolutionary biology to cultural evolution. Evolutionary biologists, however, have been slow to turn to anthropology for insights about evolution. Recently, evolutionary biology has been engaged in a debate over the need to revise evolutionary theory to account for developments made in 60 years since the Modern Synthesis, the standard evolutionary paradigm, was framed. Revision proponents maintain these developments challenge central tenets of standard theory that can only be accounted for in an extended evolutionary synthesis (EES). Anthropology has much to offer to this debate. One important transition in human cultural evolution, the domestication of plants and animals, provides an ideal model system assessing core EES assumptions about directionality, causality, targets of selection, modes of inheritance, and pace of evolution. In so doing, anthropologists contribute to an overarching framework that brings together cultural and biological evolution.