Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Generalization in Evo-Devo

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Book cover Evolutionary Developmental Biology

  • 129 Accesses

Abstract

How general are our findings concerning the evolution and development of life forms? I will discuss this question of generality and the related question concerning the existence of lawlike generalizations with specific reference to evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo). On the one hand, evo-devo suggests that the evolution and development of life forms is more contingent than we have previously presumed, thus showing that we have accidental and non-generalizable results concerning evolutionary and developmental phenomena. On the other hand, evo-devo reveals the existence of generality-maintaining mechanisms, thus showing that certain evolutionary and developmental generalizations have stability and necessity. These two findings suggest a picture of evolution as being both stable and contingent, repeatable and unique, and generalizable and non-generalizable. This picture of evolution was already present during the Modern Synthesis. At the same time, evo-devo has provided us with new insights into what are generality-destroying, generality-maintaining, and generality-creating mechanisms behind the evolution and development of life forms.

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

References

  • Abouheif E, Favé M-J, Ibarrán-Viniegra A, Lesoway M, Rafiqi A, Rajakuma R (2014) Eco-evo-devo: the time has come. In: Landry C, Aubin-Horth N (eds) Ecological genomics: ecology and the evolution of genes and genomes. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 107–125

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beatty J (1995) The evolutionary contingency thesis. In: Wolters G, Lennox J (eds) Concepts, theories, and rationality in the biological sciences. Universitätsverlag Konstanz, Konstanz, pp 45–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrier M (1995) Evolutionary change and lawlikeness. Beatty of biological generalizations. In: Wolters G, Lennox J (eds) Concepts, theories, and rationality in the biological sciences. Universitätsverlag Konstanz, Konstanz, pp 83–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow J (1979) Genes that violate Mendel’s rules. Sci Am 240:134–146

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin M (1974) A radical solution to the species problem. Syst Zool 23:536–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould S (1970) Dollo on Dollo’s law: irreversibility and the status of evolutionary laws. J Hist Biol 3:189–212

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gould S (1989) Wonderful life. Norton, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel C (1965) Aspects of scientific explanation. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange M (1995) Are there natural laws concerning particular biological species? J Philos 92:430–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewens T (2009) Evo-devo and “typological thinking”: an exculpation. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 312B:789–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love A (2009) Typology reconfigured: from the metaphysics of essentialism to the epistemology of representation. Acta Biotheor 57:51–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacFadden B (1986) Fossil horses from ‘eohippus’ (Hyracotherium) to Equus: scaling, Cope’s law, and the evolution of body size. Paleobiology 12:355–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1942) Systematics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1976) Is the species a class or an individual? Syst Zool 25:192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell S (1997) Pragmatic laws. Philos Sci 64:S468–S479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell S (2000) Dimensions of scientific law. Philos Sci 67:242–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuño de la Rosa L, Villegas C (2019) Chances and propensities in evo-devo. Brit J Phil Sci. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz048

  • Raerinne J (2013) Stability and lawlikeness. Biol Philos 28:838–851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rensch B (1960) The laws of evolution. In: Tax S (ed) Evolution after Darwin, vol 1. University of Chicago, Chicago, pp 95–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson M, Chipman A (2003) Developmental constraints in a comparative framework: a test case using variations in phalanx number during Amniote evolution. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 296B:8–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel O (2005a) Modules, kinds, and homology. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 304B:18–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel O (2005b) Type’ in morphology and phylogeny. J Morphol 267:525–535

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg A (1985) The structure of biological science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan T (2008) Why don’t zebras have machine guns? Adaptation, selection, and constraints in evolutionary theory. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 39:135–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sober E (1980) Evolution, population thinking, and essentialism. Phil Sci 34(47):350–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G (1996) Homologues, natural kinds and the evolution of modularity. Amer Zool 36:36–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters C (1998) Causal regularities in the biological world of contingent distributions. Biol Philos 13:5–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens J (2011) Re-evolution of lost mandibular teeth in frogs after more than 200 million years, and re-evaluating Dollo’s law. Evolution 65:1238–1296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt W (2001) Generative entrenchment and the developmental approach to evolutionary processes. In: Oyama S, Griffiths P, Gray R (eds) Cycles of contingency. MIT, Cambridge, pp 219–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward J (2001) Law and explanation in biology: invariance is the kind of stability that matters. Philos Sci 68:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Jani Raerinne

Authors
  1. Jani Raerinne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jani Raerinne .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The KLI Institute, Klosterneuburg, Austria

    Laura Nuno de la Rosa

  2. The KLI Institute, Klosterneuburg, Austria

    Gerd Müller

Section Editor information

  1. Department of Philosophy, Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

    Alan C. Love

  2. IAS-Research Group, IAS-Research Center for Life, Mind, and Society, UPV/EHU University of the Basque Country, San Sebastian, Spain

    Laura Nuño de la Rosa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Raerinne, J. (2020). Generalization in Evo-Devo. In: Nuno de la Rosa, L., Müller, G. (eds) Evolutionary Developmental Biology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33038-9_92-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33038-9_92-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33038-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33038-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Biomedicine and Life SciencesReference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation