scholarly journals Evolution of darwinism. A new evolutionary synthesis: combining evolutionary genetics and development genetics

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 70-75
Author(s):  
Yu. V. Vagyn

The results of the synthesis of evolutionary genetics and developmental genetics are presented, the causes of the crisis of evolutionary genetics and ways to overcome it are explained, and the mechanism of speciation of higher organisms is explained.Keywords: new evolutionary synthesis, evolutionary genetics, genetics of ontogenesis, morphogenetic program, developmental genes.

1998 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 369-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
K.M. Weiss ◽  
D.W. Stock ◽  
Z. Zhao

The mammalian dentition is a segmental, or periodically arranged, organ system whose components are arrayed in specific number and in regionally differentiated locations along the linear axes of the jaws. This arrangement evolved from simpler dentitions comprised of many single-cusp teeth of relatively indeterminate number. The different types of mammalian teeth have subsequently evolved as largely independent units. The experimentally documented developmental autonomy of dental primordia shows that the basic dental pattern is established early in embryogenesis. An understanding of how genetic patterning processes may work must be consistent with the different modes of development, and partially independent evolution, of the upper and lower dentition in mammals. The periodic nature of the location, number, and morphological structure of teeth suggests that processes involving the quantitative interaction of diffusible signaling factors may be involved. Several extracellular signaling molecules and their interactions have been identified that may be responsible for locating teeth along the jaws and for the formation of the incisor field. Similarly, the wavelike expression of signaling factors within developing teeth suggests that dynamic interactions among those factors may be responsible for crown patterns. These factors seem to be similar among different tooth types, but the extent to which crown differences can be explained strictly in terms of variation in the parameters of interactions among the same genes, as opposed to tooth-type-specific combinatorial codes of gene expression, is not yet known. There is evidence that combinatorial expression of intracellular transcription factors, including homeobox gene families, may establish domains within the jaws in which different tooth types are able to develop. An evolutionary perspective can be important for our understanding of dental patterning and the designing of appropriate experimental approaches, but dental patterns also raise basic unresolved questions about the nature of the evolutionary assumptions made in developmental genetics.


2001 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 385-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
JEAN R. DAVID

Developmental biology and evolutionary biology are both mature integrative disciplines which started in the 19th century and then followed parallel and independent scientific pathways. Recently, a genetical component has stepped into both disciplines (developmental genetics and evolutionary genetics) pointing out the need for future convergent maturation. Indeed, the Evo-Devo approach is becoming popular among developmental biologists, based on the facts that distant groups share a common ancestry, that precise phylogenies can be worked out and that homologous genes often play similar roles during the development of very different organisms. In this essay, I try to show that the real future of Evo-Devo thinking is still broader. The evolutionary theory is a set of diverse concepts which can and should be used in any biological field. Evolutionary thinking trains to ask « why » questions and to provide logical and plausible answers. It can shed some light on a diversity of general problems such as how to distinguish homologies from analogies, the costs and benefits of multicellularity, the origin of novel structures (e.g. the head), or the evolution of sexual reproduction. In the next decade, we may expect a progressive convergence between developmental genetics and quantitative genetics.


2001 ◽  
Vol 356 (1414) ◽  
pp. 1521-1531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bob Goldstein

The phylum Nematoda serves as an excellent model system for exploring how development evolves, using a comparative approach to developmental genetics. More than 100 laboratories are studying developmental mechanisms in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans , and many of the methods that have been developed for C. elegans can be applied to other nematodes. This review summarizes what is known so far about steps in early development that have evolved in the nematodes, and proposes potential experiments that could make use of these data to further our understanding of how development evolves. The promise of such a comparative approach to developmental genetics is to fill a wide gap in our understanding of evolution—a gap spanning from mutations in developmental genes through to their phenotypic results, on which natural selection may act.


Author(s):  
Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis

The “modern synthesis” generally refers to the early to mid-century formulation of evolutionary theory that reconciled classical Darwinian selection theory with a newer population-oriented view of Mendelian genetics that attempted to explain the origin of biological diversity. It draws on the title of zoologist Julian S. Huxley’s book of 1943 titled Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, a semi-popular account of evolution that ushered in this “modern” synthetic view of evolution. Covering an interval of time approximately between 1920–1950, it also refers to developments in understanding evolution that drew on a range of disciplines that were synthesized or brought to consensus that generally include systematics, paleontology, and botany with a populational view of evolutionary genetics. Whether or not it served to unify the study of evolution, or to unify the disparate biological sciences—and whether or not it led to the emergence of a science of evolutionary biology, as some of its proponents have claimed—remains a topic for discussion. Though they do not refer to precisely the same things or share identical meanings, the phrase “modern synthesis” has overlapped with terms such as the “evolutionary synthesis,” coined and used especially by Ernst Mayr and William B. Provine, to refer to the historical event, as well as terms such as Neo-Darwinian theory or Neo-Darwinism (though criticism has been made regarding the latter term’s applicability to the mid-century developments in evolutionary theory). As Ernst Mayr noted, the term “Neo-Darwinism” was first coined and used by George John Romanes in 1895 to refer to a revision of Charles Darwin’s theory first formulated in 1859, which included Lamarckian inheritance. The extent to which the modern synthesis, and the evolutionary synthesis map with what is also called the synthetic theory, is open for discussion as is specific understanding of the term. For the most part, there is little in the way of consensus or agreement by scientists, philosophers, and historians as to what “the synthesis” (the abbreviated reference) precisely means, and what (if anything) specifically occurred of a general nature in studies of evolution, broadly construed, in the interval of time between 1920–1950.


Skull Base ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 17 (S 2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Kelley ◽  
Josh Sommer ◽  
Sufeng Li ◽  
Enyu Ding ◽  
Fan Dong
Keyword(s):  

2003 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Kleinman

On at least four occasions, Edgar Anderson (1897–1969) began revising his book Plants, man and life (1952). Given both its place in Anderson's career and his place in the development of evolutionary theory in the mid-twentieth century, the emendations are noteworthy. Though a popular work, Plants, man and life served as the distillation of Anderson's ideas on hybridization as an evolutionary mechanism, the need for more scientific attention on domesticated and semi-domesticated plants, and the opportunities such plants provided for the study of evolution. Anderson was an active participant in several key events in what historians have come to call the Evolutionary Synthesis. For example, he and Ernst Mayr shared the 1941 Jesup Lectures on “Systematics and the origin of species”. Anderson's proposed revisions to his book reflect both an attempt to soften certain acerbic comments as well as an attempt to recast the book as a whole.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document