Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Paleobiology’s Uneasy Relationship with the Darwinian Tradition: Stasis as Data

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Darwinian Tradition in Context

Abstract

During the late twentieth century and up to the present, paleobiologists’ thinking about evolution has had an uneasy relationship with the Darwinian tradition. In this chapter, I use the concept of stasis as a guiding thread for exploring these tensions. Beginning in the 1970s, paleobiologists put stasis on the agenda of evolutionary biology, and in doing so, they challenged Darwinian tradition in at least three ways: (1) famously, the theory of punctuated equilibria implied that stasis, rather than gradual, selection-driven change, is the hallmark of evolutionary history; (2) subsequent attempts to explain evolutionary stasis have shown the limits of neo-Darwinian explanations that emphasize the power of stabilizing selection, pointing to the need for a more hierarchical approach; and (3) the issue whether stasis vs. change should be the default expectation for evolutionary systems remains unsettled.

[S]tasis is one of the most neglected theoretical problems in evolutionary biology.

T.F. Hansen and D. Houle (2004: 130)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For an overview of the species selection debate, see Turner (2011, Chapters 3 and 4). Jablonski (2008) surveys the scientific work on species selection over the last couple of decades. See Stanley (1975) for an especially clear articulation of the idea of species selection.

  2. 2.

    Lidgard and Hopkins (2015) provide an invaluable annotated bibliography on the topic of evolutionary stasis.

  3. 3.

    Gould (2002: 746–8) credits Falconer with first noticing that stasis is a problem.

  4. 4.

    And the puzzle remains today. Prothero et al. (2012), who quote Falconer, see a pattern of stasis in mammals and birds from the La Brea tar pits during the same time interval.

  5. 5.

    Gould (1977, 1980) at times flirted with saltationism. As Peter Bowler (this volume) observes, saltationism was one of several non-Darwinian ideas that found some support during the early twentieth century. Depew (this volume) also discusses Darwinism’s relationship with saltationism. Gould’s embrace of saltationism helps explain why the punctuational part of PE was so controversial.

  6. 6.

    Thus, recent work in paleontology suggests the need for a “rethink” of the modern synthesis, along the lines suggested by Laland, Sterelny, Müller, and others in the recent debate in Nature (Laland et al. 2014).

  7. 7.

    Other contributions to this volume discuss orthogenesis and Lamarckism in greater detail. See, for example, Loison and Herring on the influence of Lamarckism in French biology.

  8. 8.

    On the MBL model, see Huss (2009) as well as Sepkoski (2012, Chap. 7).

  9. 9.

    Hierarchical thinking is very much alive and well in paleontology. For further exploration of what a hierarchical approach to evolutionary theory might entail, see the papers collected in Eldredge et al. (2016).

  10. 10.

    For a more detailed discussion of scientific disagreements about the reality of patterns, see Turner (2011, Chap. 6).

  11. 11.

    Throughout the chapter, I will continue to focus on morphological stasis, since that is also what draws the attention of most paleobiologists. However, there are also some fascinating cases of genomic stasis (Tamas et al. 2002; Bomfleur et al. 2014).

  12. 12.

    Development, in particular, is relevant to explaining stasis, but I will not focus on development here. Wake et al. (1983) observe that developmental plasticity could give rise to stasis. Hansen and Houle (2004) argue that stasis raises questions having to do with evolvability.

  13. 13.

    See Grantham (2007) for helpful discussion of paleontology’s challenge to reductionism about macroevolution.

  14. 14.

    Hansen (2012) develops this line of reasoning even further. In a wide-ranging discussion, he argues that what we really need in order to connect microevolution with macroevolution is an account of the dynamics of adaptive landscapes. It’s not enough, he argues, to study evolution on adaptive landscapes; we have to consider the evolution of those very landscapes.

  15. 15.

    Conservation biologists also take this idea seriously. See, for example, Gallagher et al. (2014).

  16. 16.

    For further discussion of Kuhn’s influence on Gould, see Turner (2011, Chap. 1).

References

  • Barrett M, Clatterbuck H, Goldsby M, Hegelson C, McLoone B, Pearce T, Sober E, Stern R, Weinberger N (2012) Puzzles for ZFEL: McShea and Brandon’s zero force evolutionary law. Biol Philos 27:725–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beatty J (1997) Why do biologists argue like they do? Philos Sci S64:231–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Bomfleur B, McLoughlin S, Vajda V (2014) Fossilized nuclei and chromosomes reveal 180 million years of genomic stasis in royal ferns. Science 343:1376–1377

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brandon RN (2006) The principle of drift: biology’s first law. J Philos 103(7):319–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandon RN (2010) A Neo-Newtonian model of evolution: the ZFEL view. Philos Sci 77:702–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandon RN, McShea DW (2012) Four solutions for four puzzles. Biol Philos 27:737–744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brett CE, Baird GC (1995) Coordinated stasis and evolutionary ecology of Silurian to Middle Devonian faunas in the Appalachian Basin. In: Erwin DH, Antsey RL (eds) New approaches to speciation in the fossil record. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 285–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Brett CE, Ivany LC, Schopf KM (1996) Coordinated stasis: an overview. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 127:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth B, Lande R, Slatkin M (1982) A neo-Darwinian commentary on macroevolution. Evolution 36(3):474–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delisle RG (2017) From Charles Darwin to the evolutionary synthesis: weak and diffused connections only. In: Delisle RG (ed) The Darwinian tradition in context: research programs in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 133–168

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • DiMichele AK, Behrensmeyer AK, Olszewski TD et al (2004) Long-term stasis in ecological assemblages: evidence from the fossil record. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 35:285–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge N (1971) The allopatric model and phylogeny in Paleozoic invertebrates. Evolution 25(1):156–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge N, Gould SJ (1972) Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: TJM S (ed) Models in paleobiology. Cooper, Freeman, San Francisco, CA, pp 85–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge N, Thompson JN, Brakefield PM, Gavrilets S, Jablonski D, Jackson JBC, Lenski RE, Lieberman BS, McPeek MA, Miller W (2005) The dynamics of evolutionary stasis. Paleobiology 31(2):133–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge N, Pievani T, Serrelli E, Temkin I (eds) (2016) Evolutionary theory: a hierarchical perspective. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Estes S, Arnold SJ (2007) Resolving the paradox of stasis: models with stabilizing selection explain evolutionary divergence on all timescales. Am Nat 169(2):227–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falconer H (1863) On the American fossil elephant. Nat Hist Rev 3:43–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher AJ, Hammerschlag N, Cooke SJ, Costa DP, Irschick DJ (2014) Evolutionary theory as a tool for predicting extinction risk. Trends Ecol Evol 30(2):61–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gingerich PE (1984) Punctuated equilibria: where is the evidence? Syst Zool 33(3):335–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gingerich PE (2001) Rates of evolution on the time scale of the evolutionary process. Genetica 222:159–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1977) The return of the hopeful monster. Nat Hist 86:22–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1980) Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6(1):119–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ, Eldredge N (1977) Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology 3(2):115–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ, Lewontin R (1979) The Spandrels of San Marco: a Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. Proc R Soc Lond B 205(1161):581–598

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gouvêa D (2015) Explanation and the evolutionary first law. Philos Sci 82(3):363–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grantham T (1999) Explanatory pluralism in paleobiology. Philos Sci 66(3):236

    Google Scholar 

  • Grantham T (2007) Is macroevolution more than successive rounds of microevolution? Paleontology 50(1):75–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haller BC, Hendry A (2013) Solving the paradox of stasis: squashed stabilizing selection and the limits of detection. Evolution 68(2):483–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen TF (2012) Adaptive landscapes and macroevolutionary dynamics. In: Svensson EI, Calsbeek R (eds) The adaptive landscape in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 205–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen TF, Houle D (2004) Evolvability, stabilizing selection, and the problem of stasis. In: Pigliucci M, Preston K (eds) Phenotypic integration: studying the ecology and evolution of complex phenotypes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 130–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendry A (2007) The Elvis paradox. Nature 446(8):147–150

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt G (2007) The relative importance of directional change, random walks, and stasis in the evolution of fossil lineages. PNAS 104(47):18404–18408

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huss J (2009) The shape of evolution: the MBL model and clade shape. In: Sepkoski D, Ruse M (eds) The paleobiological revolution: essays on the growth of modern paleontology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp 326–345

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jablonski D (2008) Species selection: theory and data. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:501–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson JBC, Cheetham AH (1999) Tempo and mode of speciation in the sea. Trends Ecol Evol 14(2):72–77

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan J (2009) The paradox of stasis and the nature of explanation in evolutionary biology. Philos Sci 76:797–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laland K, Uller T, Feldman M, Sterelny K, Müller G et al (2014) Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Nature 514(7521):161–164

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lidgard S, Hopkins M (2015) Stasis. Oxf Bibliogr. https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780199941728-0067

  • Lieberman BS, Dudgeon S (1996) An evaluation of stabilizing selection as a mechanism for stasis. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 127:229–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McShea DW (2005) The evolution of complexity without natural selection: a possible large-scale trend of the fourth kind. Paleobiology 31(2 Supp):146–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McShea DW, Brandon RN (2010) Biology’s first law. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morris PJ, Ivany LC, Schopf KM, Brett CE (1995) The challenge of paleoecological stasis: reassessing sources of evolutionary stability. PNAS 92:11269–11273

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M (2017) Darwinism after the modern synthesis. In: Delisle RG (ed) The Darwinian tradition in context: research programs in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 89–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Prothero DR, Syverson VJ, Raymond KR, Madan M, Molina S et al (2012) Size and shape stasis in late Pleistocene mammals and birds from Rancho La Brea during the Last Glacial-Interglacial cycle. Q Sci Rev 56:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruse M (2009) Has paleobiology been through a paradigm shift? In: Sepkoski D, Ruse M (eds) The paleobiological revolution: essays on the growth of modern paleontology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp 518–528

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sepkoski D (2012) Rereading the fossil record: the growth of paleobiology as an evolutionary discipline. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan T (2017) Selfish genes and lucky breaks: Richard Dawkins’ and Stephen Jay Gould’s: divergent Darwinian agendas. In: Delisle RG (ed) The Darwinian tradition in context: research programs in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 11–36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon PR (1996) Plus ça change: a model for stasis and evolution in different environments. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 127:209–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson GG (1944) Tempo and mode in evolution. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober E (1984) The nature of selection: evolutionary theory in philosophical focus. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley S (1975) A theory of evolution above the species level. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 72(2):6467–6650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterelny K (2001) The reality of ecological assemblages: a palaeo-ecological puzzle. Biol Philos 16:437–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamas I et al (2002) 50 million years of genomic stasis in endosymbiotic bacteria. Science 296:2376–2379

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Turner DD (2010) Punctuated equilibrium and species selection: what does it mean for one theory to suggest another? Theory Biosci 129:113–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner DD (2011) Paleontology: a philosophical introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wake DN, Roth G, Wake MH (1983) On the problem of stasis in organismal evolution. J Theor Biol 101:211–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

My work on this paper was supported by a sabbatical fellowship from the KLI, in Klosterneuburg, Austria. I’m deeply grateful to Lee Altenberg, Argyris Arnellos, Dan Brooks, James DiFrisco, Chiara Ferrario, Barbara Fischer, Yogi Jaeger, and Gerd Müller for helping me to get a bit clearer in my thinking about stasis and for providing a wonderful, collegial environment in which to work. I am also grateful to Fulbright Canada for the opportunity to spend time at the University of Calgary, where I also did some work on this paper. Thanks especially to Richard Delisle for his very helpful advice and editorial suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Connecticut College, New London, CT, USA

    Derek D. Turner

Authors
  1. Derek D. Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Derek D. Turner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Liberal Education and Philosophy, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

    Richard G. Delisle

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Turner, D.D. (2017). Paleobiology’s Uneasy Relationship with the Darwinian Tradition: Stasis as Data. In: Delisle, R. (eds) The Darwinian Tradition in Context. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69123-7_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation