What Salamander Biologists Have Taught Us About Evo-devo

The problem of the repeated parts of organisms was at the center of the biological sciences as early as the first decades of the 19th century. Some concepts and theories (e.g., serial homology, unity of plan, or colonial theory) introduced in order to explain the similarity as well as the differences between the repeated structures of an organism were reused throughout the 19th and the 20th century, in spite of the fundamental changes during this long period that saw the diffusion of the evolutionary theory, the rise of experimental approaches, and the emergence of new fields and disciplines. Interestingly, this conceptual heritage was at the core of any attempt to unify the problems of inheritance, development, and evolution, in particular in the last decades, with the rise of “evo-devo.” This chapter examines the conditions of this theoretical continuity and the challenges it brings out for the current evolutionary sciences.

Download Full-text

Evo-Devo and the Structure(s) of Evolutionary Theory

10.1093/oso/9780199377176.003.0005 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Alan C. Love

Keyword(s):

Developmental Biology ◽

Evolutionary Theory ◽

Mechanistic Explanation ◽

Evolutionary Developmental Biology ◽

Primary Concern ◽

Adaptive Function ◽

Specific Content ◽

Central Location ◽

Developmental Form ◽

Evo Devo

Many researchers have argued that evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) constitutes a challenge to standard evolutionary theory, requiring the explicit inclusion of developmental processes that generate variation and attention to organismal form (rather than adaptive function). An analysis of these developmental-form challenges indicates that the primary concern is not the inclusion of specific content but the epistemic organization or structure of evolutionary theory. Proponents of developmental-form challenges favor moving their considerations to a more central location in evolutionary theorizing, in part because of a commitment to the value of mechanistic explanation. This chapter argues there are multiple legitimate structures for evolutionary theory, instead of a single, overarching or canonical organization, and different theory presentations can be understood as idealizations that serve different investigative and explanatory goals in evolutionary inquiry.

Download Full-text

Comment on “Evo‐Devo and the lungfish: the last gasp of intelligent design”

The FASEB Journal ◽

10.1096/fj.07-0903ltr ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 21 (11) ◽

pp. 2640-2641 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

J. S. Torday ◽

Virender K. Rehan

Keyword(s):

Intelligent Design ◽

Evo Devo

Download Full-text

Deconstructing and reconstructing joint hypermobility on an evo-devo perspective

Rheumatology ◽

10.1093/rheumatology/keab196 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Marco Castori

Keyword(s):

Evolutionary Biology ◽

Phenotypic Variability ◽

Morphological Variability ◽

Complex Trait ◽

Joint Hypermobility ◽

Integration Model ◽

Ehlers Danlos Syndrome ◽

Evo Devo ◽

Derivatives Of ◽

Continuous Traits

Abstract Joint hypermobility is a common characteristic in humans. Its non-casual association with various musculoskeletal complaints is known and currently defined “the spectrum”. It includes hypermobile Ehlers–Danlos syndrome (hEDS) and hypermobility spectrum disorders (HSD). hEDS is recognized by a set of descriptive criteria, while HSD is the background diagnosis for individuals not fulfilling these criteria. Little is known about the aetiopathogenesis of the spectrum. It may be interpreted as a complex trait according to the integration model. Particularly, the spectrum is common in the general population, affects morphology, presents extreme clinical variability and is characterized by marked sex bias without a clear Mendelian or hormonal explanation. Joint hypermobility and the other hEDS systemic criteria are intended as qualitative derivatives of continuous traits of normal morphological variability. The need for a minimum set of criteria for hEDS diagnosis implies a tendency to co-vary of these underlying continuous traits. In evolutionary biology, such a co-variation (i.e. integration) is driven by multiple forces, including genetic, developmental, functional and environmental/acquired interactors. The aetiopathogenesis of the spectrum may be resolved by a deeper understanding of phenotypic variability, which superimposes on normal morphological variability.

Download Full-text