The nature of constraints

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511576188.009

9 - The nature of constraints

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 June 2009

Roger Sansom

Edited by

Manfred D. Laubichler and

Jane Maienschein

Show author details

Manfred D. Laubichler: Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Jane Maienschein: Affiliation:
Arizona State University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

One of the most striking features of organisms is how well they are suited to live and reproduce in their environments. In general, we are impressed by the level of engineering necessary for an eye to see, or a bird to fly, or the potency of a snake's venom. And the closer one looks, the more marvels one finds, from the manifold adaptive capacities of the liver to the mechanisms of DNA proofreading. With his theory of evolution by natural selection, Charles Darwin provided the naturalistic explanation for such design that is now fundamental to the science of biology.

Although the theory of natural selection is considered Darwin's greatest contribution, his stated primary goal in publishing the Origin of Species was to argue that different species were of common descent.

Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained – namely, that each species has been independently created – is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.

(Darwin 1859: 6)

Type: Chapter
Information: Form and Function in Developmental Evolution , pp. 201 - 212

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511576188.009 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2009

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alberch, P. (1980). Ontogenesis and morphological diversification. American Zoologist 20, 653–67.CrossRef Google Scholar

Alberch, P. (1982). The generative and regulatory roles of development in evolution. In Mossakowski, D. and Roth, G. (eds.), Environmental Adaptation and Evolution. Stuttgart: Fischer, pp. 19–36.Google Scholar

Alberch, Pere (1989). The logic of monsters: evidence for internal constraint in development and evolution. Geobios. Mémoire spécial 12, 21–57.CrossRef Google Scholar

Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray.Google Scholar

Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dullemeijer, P. (1980). Functional morphology and evolutionary biology. Acta Biotheoretica 29, 151–250.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Emlen, D. J. (1997). Alternative mating tactics and male dimorphism in the horned beetle Onthophagus acuminatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 41, 335–41.CrossRef

Frankino, W. A., Zwaan, B. J., Stern, D. L., and Brakefield, P. M. (2005). Natural selection and developmental constraints in the evolution of allometries. Science 4(307), 718–20.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gould, S. (1989). A developmental constraint in cerion, with comments on the definition and interpretation of constraint in evolution. Evolution 43(3), 516–39.Google Scholar

Gould, S. (2001). The evolutionary definition of selective agency, validation of the theory of hierarchical selection, and fallacy of selfish gene. In Singh, R., Krimbas, C., Paul, D., and Beatty, J. (eds.), Thinking About Evolution. Cambridge University Press, pp. 208–34.Google Scholar

Gould, S. and Lewontin, R. (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, 581–9.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hull, D. (1980). Individuality and selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 11, 311–32.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jacob, F. (1992). The Possible and the Actual. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Joron, M. and Brakefield, P. (2003). Captivity masks inbreeding effects on male mating success in butterflies. Nature 424, 191–4.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kawano, K. (1995). Horn and wing allometry and male dimorphism in giant rhinoceros beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) of tropical Asia and America. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 88, 92–9.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lewis, D. (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Maynard Smith, J., Burian, R., Kauffman, S., Alberch, P., Campbell, J., Goodwin, B., Lands, R., Raup, D., and Wolpert, L. (1985). Developmental constraints and evolution. The Quarterly Review of Biology 60, 265–87.CrossRef Google Scholar

Moczek, A. P. and Emlen, D. J. (2000). Male horn dimorphism in the scarab beetle Onthophagus Taurus: do alternative reproductive tactics favour alternative phenotypes?Animal Behaviour 59, 459–66.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Nijhout, H. F. and Emlen, D. J. (1998). Competition among body parts in the development and evolution of insect morphology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95, 3685–9.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Resnik, D. (1995). Developmental constraints and patterns: some pertinent distinctions. Journal of Theoretical Biology 173, 231–40.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sansom, R. (2003). Constraining the adaptationism debate. Biology and Philosophy 18(4), 493–512(20).CrossRef Google Scholar

Sansom, R. (2007). Legacies of adaptive development. In Sansom, R. and Brandon, R. (eds.), Integrating Evolution and Development: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 173–94.Google Scholar

Schlosser, G. (2007). Functional and developmental constraints on life cycle evolution: an attempt on the architecture of constraints. In Sansom, R. and Brandon, R. (eds.), Integrating Evolution and Development: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 113–72.Google Scholar

Schwenk, K. (1994). A utilitarian approach to evolutionary constraint. Zoology 98, 251–62.Google Scholar

Schwenk, K. (2001). Functional units and their evolution. In Wagner, G. (ed.), The Character Concept in Evolutionary Biology. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 165–98.Google Scholar

Sober, E. and Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vogel, S. (2003). Comparative Biomechanics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Wagner, G. and Altenberg, L. (1996). Complex adaptations and the evolution of evolvability. Evolution 50(3), 967–76.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Wagner, G. and Schwenk, K. (2000). Evolutionarily stable configurations: functional integration and the evolution of phenotype stability. Evolutionary Biology 31, 155–217.Google Scholar

Wake, M. H. (1982). Diversity within a framework of constraints. Amphibian reproductive modes. In Mossakowski, D. and Roth, G. (eds.), Environmental Adaptation and Evolution. Stuttgart and New York: Gustav Fischer, pp. 87–106.Google Scholar

Webster, G. and Goodwin, B. (1996). Form and Transformation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Whyte, L. (1965). Internal Factors in Evolution. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar