Hierarchy Theory of Evolution and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Some Epistemic Bridges, Some Conceptual Rifts

Contemporary evolutionary biology comprises a plural landscape of multiple co-existent conceptual frameworks and strenuous voices that disagree on the nature and scope of evolutionary theory. Since the mid-eighties, some of these conceptual frameworks have denounced the ontologies of the Modern Synthesis and of the updated Standard Theory of Evolution as unfinished or even flawed. In this paper, we analyze and compare two of those conceptual frameworks, namely Niles Eldredge’s Hierarchy Theory of Evolution (with its extended ontology of evolutionary entities) and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (with its proposal of an extended ontology of evolutionary processes), in an attempt to map some epistemic bridges (e.g. compatible views of causation; niche construction) and some conceptual rifts (e.g. extra-genetic inheritance; different perspectives on macroevolution; contrasting standpoints held in the “externalism–internalism” debate) that exist between them. This paper seeks to encourage theoretical, philosophical and historiographical discussions about pluralism or the possible unification of contemporary evolutionary biology

The emerging structure of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: where does Evo-Devo fit in?

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) debate is gaining ground in contemporary evolutionary biology. In parallel, a number of philosophical standpoints have emerged in an attempt to clarify what exactly is represented by the EES. For Massimo Pigliucci, we are in the wake of the newest instantiation of a persisting Kuhnian paradigm; in contrast, Telmo Pievani has contended that the transition to an EES could be best represented as a progressive reformation of a prior Lakatosian scientific research program, with the extension of its Neo-Darwinian core and the addition of a brand-new protective belt of assumptions and auxiliary hypotheses. Here, we argue that those philosophical vantage points are not the only ways to interpret what current proposals to ‘extend’ the Modern Synthesis-derived ‘standard evolutionary theory’ (SET) entail in terms of theoretical change in evolutionary biology. We specifically propose the image of the emergent EES as a vast network of models and interweaved representations that, instantiated in diverse practices, are connected and related in multiple ways. Under that assumption, the EES could be articulated around a paraconsistent network of evolutionary theories (including some elements of the SET), as well as models, practices and representation systems of contemporary evolutionary biology, with edges and nodes that change their position and centrality as a consequence of the co-construction and stabilization of facts and historical discussions revolving around the epistemic goals of this area of the life sciences. We then critically examine the purported structure of the EES—published by Laland and collaborators in 2015—in light of our own network-based proposal. Finally, we consider which epistemic units of Evo-Devo are present or still missing from the EES, in preparation for further analyses of the topic of explanatory integration in this conceptual framework

Phylomemetics—Evolutionary Analysis beyond the Gene

Genes are propagated by error-prone copying, and the resulting variation provides the basis for phylogenetic reconstruction of evolutionary relationships. Horizontal gene transfer may be superimposed on a tree-like evolutionary pattern, with some relationships better depicted as networks. The copying of manuscripts by scribes is very similar to the replication of genes, and phylogenetic inference programs can be used directly for reconstructing the copying history of different versions of a manuscript text. Phylogenetic methods have also been used for some time to analyse the evolution of languages and the development of physical cultural artefacts. These studies can help to answer a range of anthropological questions. We propose the adoption of the term “phylomemetics” for phylogenetic analysis of reproducing non-genetic elements

Cultural Evolution as Distributed Computation

The speed and transformative power of human cultural evolution is evident from the change it has wrought on our planet. This chapter proposes a human computation program aimed at (1) distinguishing algorithmic from non-algorithmic components of cultural evolution, (2) computationally modeling the algorithmic components, and amassing human solutions to the non-algorithmic (generally, creative) components, and (3) combining them to develop human-machine hybrids with previously unforeseen computational power that can be used to solve real problems. Drawing on recent insights into the origins of evolutionary processes from biology and complexity theory, human minds are modeled as self-organizing, interacting, autopoietic networks that evolve through a Lamarckian (non-Darwinian) process of communal exchange. Existing computational models as well as directions for future research are discussed.Comment: 13 pages Gabora, L. (2013). Cultural evolution as distributed human computation. In P. Michelucci (Ed.) Handbook of Human Computation. Berlin: Springe

General principles of biological hierarchical systems

This contribution sets the stage for the following selection of articles addressing general aspects of the hierarchy theory of evolution. It does so by reviewing basic principles of hierarchical systems in general and biological nested hierarchies in particular. More specifically, the article provides formal definitions of a hierarchy, levels of organization, and considers the nature of emergence that arises as a consequence of a hierarchical architecture. The overall dynamics of the hierarchical systems is best described by the synergy between intra-level interactions (best approached using the network theory) and the inter-level relationships (interpreted as emergent constraints). These basic properties of hierarchical systems are then used to represent the overarching model of the structure of the organic world, consisting of two interacting systems: the economic (ecological) hierarchy of interactors and the genealogical hierarchy of replicators. This model is at the heart of the hierarchy theory of evolution, providing a novel ontological framework for inferring causality of a great diversity of evolutionary phenomena

Tales of Tools and Trees: Phylogenetic analysis and explanation in evolutionary archaeology

In this paper, I study the application of phylogenetic analysis in evolutionary archaeology. I show how transfer of this apparently general analytic tool is affected by salient differences in disciplinary context. One is that archaeologists, unlike many biologists, do not regard cladistics as a tool for classification, but are primarily interested in explanation. The other is that explanation is traditionally sought in terms of individual-level rather than population-level mechanisms. The latter disciplinary difference creates an ambiguity in the application and interpretation of phylogenetic analyses. Moreover, I argue that, while archaeologists have claimed that “cladistics is useful for reconstructing artefact phylogenies” (O’Brien et al. 2001), these reconstructions only contribute minimally to the explanatory research agenda of evolutionary archaeology

Tales of tools and trees : phylogenetic analysis and explanation in evolutionary archaeology

Evolutionary theory has outgrown its natural habitat. Increasingly, researchers outside biology frame their questions and results in evolutionary terms, and propose counterparts to mechanisms and entities that are central to our understanding of the organic world. This second Darwinian revolution has not escaped philosophical scrutiny. Critical reflections (e.g., Sober 1991) have focused mostly on general theories of cultural evolution, such as dual-inheritance theory (Boyd and Richerson 1985), or on general issues such as the lack of clarity and unanimity concerning the unit and level of selection. However, research in evolutionary economics, engineering and archaeology rarely mentions general frameworks such as dual-inheritance theory and only occasionally discuss the possibilities of defining suitably general evolutionary concepts. Instead, the results reported are gained by applying specific tools and techniques to problems within a particular discipline. This paper focuses on one example of these local efforts at Darwinizing culture, namely phylogenetic reconstructions of tool traditions, as recently given by evolutionary archaeologists