Abstract
One “big question” of macroevolutionary theory is the degree to which evolutionary history is contingent. A second “big question” is whether particular large-scale evolutionary trends, such as size increase or complexity increase, are passive or driven. Showing that a trend is passive or driven is a way of explaining it. These two “big questions” are related in both a superficial and a deep way. Superficially, defending historical contingency and showing that major trends are passive are two complementary ways of downplaying the importance of natural selection in evolutionary history. A passive trend is one that’s not explained by selection. In order to appreciate the deeper connection between the two issues, it is necessary to distinguish different senses of contingency (especially sensitivity to initial conditions vs. unbiased sorting). It’s plausible that passive trends are generally due to unbiased sorting processes. Serendipitously, thinking of contingency as unbiased sorting also helps to clarify its relationship to species selection, which some think of as biased sorting. Macroevolutionary theory thus turns out to have considerable unity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alroy, J. (1998). Cope’s rule and the dynamics of body mass evolution in North American fossil mammals. Science, 280, 731–734.
Beatty, J. (1995). The evolutionary contingency thesis. In G. Wolters & J. Lennox (Eds.), Concepts, theories, and rationality in the biological sciences (pp. 45–81). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Beatty, J. (1997). Why do biologists argue like they do? Philosophy of Science, 64(4 supp), S432–S443.
Beatty, J. (2006). Replaying life’s tape. Journal of Philosophy, 103(7), 336–362.
Ben-Menahem, Y. (1997). Historical contingency. Ratio, 10, 99–107.
Calcott, B., & Sterelny, K. (Eds.). (2011). The major transitions in evolution revisited. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cleland, C. (2001). Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method. Geology, 29, 987–990.
Cleland, C. (2002). Methodological and epistemic differences between historical and experimental science. Philosophy of Science, 69, 474–496.
Cleland, C. (2011). Prediction and explanation in historical natural science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62(3), 551–582.
Conway Morris, S. (2003a). Life’s solution: Inevitable humans in a lonely universe. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Conway Morris, S. (Ed.). (2003b). The deep structure of biology: Is convergence sufficiently ubiquitous to give a directional signal. West Conshohocken: Templeton Foundation Press.
DesJardins, E. (2011). Historicity and experimental evolution. Biology and Philosophy, 26, 339–364.
Gallie, W. B. (1959). Explanations in history and the genetic sciences. In P. Gardiner (Ed.), Theories of history (pp. 386–402). Glencoe: The Free Press.
Gould, S. J. (1989). Wonderful life: The Burgess shale and the nature of history. New York: W.W. Norton.
Gould, S. J. (1993). Eight little piggies. New York: W.W. Norton.
Gould, S. J. (1996). Full house: The spread of excellence from Plato to Darwin. New York: W.W. Norton.
Gould, S. J. (1997). Cope’s rule as psychological artefact. Nature, 385(6613), 199–200.
Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 205, 581–598.
Grantham, T. (1999). Explanatory pluralism in paleobiology. Philosophy of Science, 66(supp), S223–S 236.
Harries, P. J., & Knorr, P. O. (2009). What does the “Lilliput effect” mean? Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology, 284, 4–10.
Hone, D. W. E., & Benton, M. J. (2005). The evolution of large size: How does Cope’s rule work? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20(1), 4–6.
Hull, D. L. (1975). Central subjects and historical narratives. History and Theory, 14(3), 253–274.
Inkpen, R., & Turner, D. (2012). The topography of historical contingency. Journal of the Philosophy of History, 6, 1–20.
Jablonski, D. (1997). Body size evolution in cretaceous mollusks and the status of Cope’s rule. Nature, 385, 250–252.
Jeffares, B. (2008). Testing times: Regularities in the historical sciences. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 39, 469–475.
Lenski, R. E., & Travisano, M. (1994). Dynamics of adaptation and diversification: A 10,000 generation experiment with bacterial populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 91, 6808–6814.
Matthen, M., & Ariew, A. (2002). Two ways of thinking about fitness and natural selection. The Journal of Philosophy, 99(2), 55–83.
Maynard Smith, J., & Szathmary, E. (1995). The major transitions in evolution. Oxford: W.H. Freeman.
McShea, D. W. (1994). Mechanisms of large-scale evolutionary trends. Evolution, 48, 1747–1763.
McShea, D. W. (1998). Possible largest-scale trends in organismal evolution: Eight ‘live hypotheses’. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29, 293–318.
McShea, D. W. (2005). The evolution of complexity without natural selection: A possible large-scale trend of the fourth kind. Paleobiology, 31(supp), 146–156.
McShea, D. W., & Brandon, R. N. (2010). Biology’s first law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Millstein, R. (2000). Chance and macroevolution. Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 603–624.
Radick, G. (2005). Other histories, other biologies. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 80(56), 21–47.
Raup, D. M., & Gould, S. J. (1974). Stochastic simulation and the evolution of morphology—towards a nomothetic paleontology. Systematic Zoology, 23, 305–322.
Raup, D. M., Gould, S. J., Schopf, T. J. M., & Simberloff, D. (1973). Stochastic models of phylogeny and the evolution of diversity. Journal of Geology, 81, 525–542.
Rosenberg, A., & McShea, D. W. (2007). Philosophy of biology: A contemporary introduction. New York: Routledge.
Sepkoski, D. (2012). Rereading the fossil record: The growth of paleontology as an evolutionary discipline. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sober, E. (1988). Reconstructing the past: Parsimony, evolution, and inference. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Stanley, S. (1975). A theory of evolution above the species level. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 72(2), 646–650.
Sterelny, K. (1996). Explanatory pluralism in evolutionary biology. Biology and Philosophy, 11, 193–214.
Sterelny, K. (2005). Another view of life. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 585–593.
Travisano, M., Mangold, J. A., Bennett, A. F., & Lenski, R. E. (1995). Experimental tests of the roles of adaptation, chance, and history in evolution. Science, 27(5194), 87–90.
Tucker, A. (2004). Our knowledge of the past: A philosophy of historiography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, D. (2007). Making prehistory: Historical science and the scientific realism debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, D. (2009). How much can we know about the causes of evolutionary trends? Biology and Philosophy, 24, 341–357.
Turner, D. (2010). Gould’s replay revisited. Biology and Philosophy, 26, 65–79.
Turner, D. (2011). Paleontology: A philosophical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walsh, D. M., Ariew, A., & Lewens, T. (2002). The trials of life: Natural selection and random drift. Philosophy of Science, 69(3), 452–473.
Wang, S. C. (2001). Quantifying passive and driven large-scale evolutionary trends. Evolution, 55(5), 849–858.
Acknowledgments
I shared earlier versions of this paper at the PSA meeting in San Diego in November, 2012, and at the AAAS meeting in Boston in February, 2013. Thanks to those audiences and especially to John Beatty, Eric DesJardins, Marc Ereshefsky, and David Sepkoski, for helpful feedback. I am grateful to the editors of this volume, Christophe Malaterre and Pierre-Alain Braillard, for their detailed comments on an earlier draft and their help improving the paper. The paper also benefitted from feedback from two anonymous reviewers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Turner, D. (2015). Historical Contingency and the Explanation of Evolutionary Trends. In: Explanation in Biology. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences, vol 11. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9822-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9822-8_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9821-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9822-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)