Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-09T05:46:47.636Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - The role of generative entrenchment and robustness in the evolution of complexity

from Part IV - Philosophical perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2013

By
W. C. Wimsatt
Edited by
Charles H. Lineweaver ,
Paul C. W. Davies  and
Michael Ruse
Charles H. Lineweaver
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Canberra
Paul C. W. Davies
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Michael Ruse
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Get access

Summary

Evolutionary developmental biology is one of the most complex and articulated of the new sciences emerging out of the intersection of multiple recently separate domains. (Other new hybridizing complexes here include the new embrasure of the very large and the very small – particle physics and the big bang, characteristic of the new cosmology, and the emerging human sciences spanning from cultural anthropology and history through physical anthropology and genetics to economics and sociology.) Evolutionary developmental biology has emerged as one of the most active fields in the Darwinian sciences but the success of evolutionary developmental biology makes central the question of how to integrate an account of development into models of evolution in a general way. Evolution is, after all, the evolution of developmental life-cycles, and this must be central to any account of the evolution of complexity in the biological realm. It is also important to consider the role of developmental perspectives in the intersection of cultural, scientific, and technological evolution, but this will be done below and separately.

In this chapter, I will make some general remarks on the evolution of complexity, and then focus on one of several relevant factors or mechanisms, which I have called “generative entrenchment”, and its interactions with another, robustness. Generative entrenchment has the virtue that it should apply to any evolutionary process in which there are recurrent iterative cycles of processes, and most obviously in development and life cycles. Thus it should apply to cultural, ideational, and technological evolution as well as biological evolution. And it naturally tends to accumulate complexity. Robustness can act as an amplifier of this by reducing genetic load (or processes leading to degradational breakdowns, Kauffman, 1985, 1993; Lynch et al., 1993).

Type
Chapter
Information
Complexity and the Arrow of Time , pp. 308 - 331
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

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.)

References

Arthur, B. (1994). Increasing Returns and Path-Dependence in the Economy. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, B. (2009). The Nature of Technology. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Arthur, W. (1997). The Origin of Animal Body Plans: a Study in Evolutionary Developmental Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azevedo, R., Lohaus, R., Srinavasan, S., Dang, K., & Burch, C. (2006). Sexual reproduction selects for robustness and negative epistasis in artificial gene networks. Nature, 440/2, 87–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonner, J. T. (1965). Size and Cycle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. (1985). Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Britten, R. J. (1986). Rates of DNA sequence evolution differ between taxonomic groups. Science, 231, 1393–1398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, D. T. (1974). Evolutionary epistemology. In Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Karl Popper, II. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 413–463.Google Scholar
Caporael, L. (1995). Sociality: coordinating bodies, minds and groups. Psycoloquy, 6(01), Group Selection (1)..
Caporael, L. (1997). The evolution of truly social cognition: the core configuration model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 276–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caporael, L., Griesemer, J., & Wimsatt, W. (eds.) (2013). Developing Scaffolding in Evolution, Cognition and Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glassman, R. B. & Wimsatt, W. C. (1984). Evolutionary advantages and limitations of early plasticity. In Almli, R. and Finger, S. (eds.). Early Brain Damage, volume I, Academic Press, 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesemer, J. R. (2000). Development, culture and the units of inheritance. Philosophy of Science, 67, (Proceed) S348–S368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hounshell, D. A. (1984). From the American System to Mass Production, 1800–1932: The Development of Manufacturing Technology in the United States. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.
Kauffman, S. A. (1985). Self-organization, selective adaptation and its limits: a new pattern of inference in evolution and development. In Depew, D. J. & Weber, Bruce H. (eds.). Evolution at a Crossroads: the New Biology and the New Philosophy of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. (1993). The Origins of Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kirchner, M. & Gerhart, J. (2005). The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma. New York: W. J. Norton.
Lewontin, R. C. (1970). The units of selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livnat, A., Papadimution, C., Dashhoft, J., & Feldman, M. V. (2008). A mixability theory for the role of sex in evolution. PNAS, 105, 19803–19808.CrossRef
Lynch, M., Burger, R., & Gabriel, W. (1993). The mutational meltdown in asexual populations. Journal of Heredity, 84: 339–344.Google Scholar
Mackie, G. (1996). Ending footbinding and fibulation: a convention account. American Sociological Review, 61, 999–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. & Szathmary, E. (1995). The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morange, M. (2000). Molecular Biology, a Short History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Morowitz, H. (1992). The Origins of Cellular Life. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Newman, S. & Bhat, R. (2009). Dynamical patterning modules: a “pattern language” for development and evolution of multicellular form. Int. J. Dev. Biol., 53, 693–705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raff, R. (1996). The Shape of Life: Genes, Development and the Evolution of Animal Form. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, N. (1987). A new model of developmental constraints as applied to the Drosophila system. J. Theoretical Biology, 127, 3, 271–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riedl, R. (1978). Order in Living Organisms: a Systems Analysis of Evolution. New York: J. H. Wiley (translation of German original, 1975).Google Scholar
Sander, K. (1983). The evolution of patterning mechanisms: cleanings from insect embryogenesis and spermatogenesis. In Goodwin, B. C., Holder, N., & Wylie, C. C. (eds.). Development and Evolution, pp. 137–159. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schank, J. C., Wimsatt, W. C. (1988). Generative entrenchment and evolution. In Fine, A. and Machamer, P. K. (eds.). PSA-1986, volume II. East Lansing: The Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 33–60.Google Scholar
Schank, J. C. & Wimsatt, W. C. (2001). Evolvability: adaptation, and modularity. In Singh, R., Krimbas, K., Paul, D. and Beatty, J.. (eds.). Thinking about Evolution: Historical, Philosophical and Political Perspectives: Festschrift for Richard Lewontin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral theory of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1962). The Architecture of Complexity. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, reprinted in The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd. edn. (1996). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sterelny, K. (2012). The Evolved Apprentice. 2008 Jean Nicod lectures (expanded). Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szathmary, E. & Maynard Smith, J. (1997). From replicators to reproducers: the first major transitions leading to life. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 187, 555–571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, A. (2005). Robustness and Evolvability in Living Systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. & Clark, A. (2009). How to situate cognition: letting nature take its course. In Aydede, M. and Robbins, P. (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition. London: Blackwell, pp. 55–77.
Wimsatt, B. (2013). Scaffolding a career. In Caporael, L., Griesemer, J., and Wimsatt, W. (eds.). Developing Scaffolds in Evolution, Culture and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wimsatt, W. C. (1980). Randomness and perceived-randomness in evolutionary biology. Synthese, 43, 287–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1981a). Robustness, reliability, and multiple-determination. In Brewer, M. & Collins, B. (eds.). Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 124–163. Reprinted as chapter 4 in Wimsatt (2007a).Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1981b). Units of selection and the structure of the multi-level genome. In Asquith, P. D. and Giere, R. N. (eds.). PSA-1980, vol. 2. Lansing, MI: The Philosophy of Science Association, 122–183.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1986). Developmental constraints, generative entrenchment, and the innate-acquired distinction. In Bechtel, P. W. (ed.) Integrating Scientific Disciplines. Dordrecht: Martinus-Nijhoff, pp. 185–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. (1991). Taming the dimensions – visualizations in science. In Forbes, M., Wessels, L., & Fine, A. (eds.). PSA-1990, vol. 2. East Lancing, The Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 111–135.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1999). Genes, memes, and cultural inheritance. Biology and Philosophy, special issue on influence of R. C. Lewontin, 14, 279–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (2001). The generative entrenchment approach to evolving systems. In Oyama, S., Gray, R., & Griffiths, P. (eds.). Cycles of Contingency: Developmental Systems and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 219–238.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (2006a). Inconsistencies, optimization and satisficing – steps towards a philosophy for limited beings: commentary on Russell Hardin. In Engel, C. & Daston, L. (eds.). Is There Value in Inconsistency?Common Goods: Law, Politics, Economics, vol. 15,Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, pp. 201–220.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (2006b). Optimization, consistency, and kluged adaptations: can maximization survive? Comment on Kachalnik et al., In Engel, C. & Daston, L. (eds.). Is There Value in Inconsistency? Common Goods: Law, Politics, Economics, vol. 15, Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, pp. 399–420.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (2007a). Re-Engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings: Piecewise Approximations to Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (2007b). On building reliable pictures with unreliable data: an evolutionary and developmental coda for the new systems biology. In Boogerd, F. C., Bruggeman, F. J., Hofmeyer, J.-H. S., & Westerhoff, H. V., (eds.). Systems Biology: Philosophical Foundations. Amsterdam: Reed-Elsevier, pp. 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (2007c). Echoes of Haeckel? Re-entrenching development in evolution. In Maienschein, J. and Laubichler, M. (eds.). Evolution and Development, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 309–355.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (2010). Memetics does not provide a useful way of understanding cultural evolution: a developmental perspective (paired with Susan Blackmore arguing for memetics). In Ayala, F. & Arp, R. (eds.). Current Controversies in Philosophy of Biology. London: Blackwell, 273–291.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (2013a). Entrenchment as a theoretical tool in evolutionary developmental biology. In Love, A. C. (ed.). Conceptual Change in Biology: Scientific and Philosophical Perspectives on Evolution and Development. Berlin: Springer (Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science).
Wimsatt, W. C. (2013b). Evolution and the stability of functional architectures Huneman, Philipe (ed.), CNRS Conference on Function and Teleology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wimsatt, W. C. & Griesemer, J. R. (2007). Reproducing entrenchments to scaffold culture: the central role of development in cultural evolution. In Sansom, R. & Brandon, R. (eds.). Integrating Evolution and Development: from Theory to Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 228–323.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. & Schank, J. C. (1988). Two constraints on the evolution of complex adaptations and the means for their avoidance. In Nitecki, M.. (ed.), Evolutionary Progress. East Lansing, MI: University of Chicago Press, 231–273.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. & Schank, J. C. (2004). Generative entrenchment, modularity and evolvability: when genic selection meets the whole organism. In Schlosser, G. and Wagner, G. (eds.). Modularity in Evolution and Development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 359–394.Google Scholar
Woese, C. (2002). On the evolution of cells. PNAS, 99(13), 8742–8747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×