Developmental systems theory

1. Joint Determination by Multiple Causes: Development is a product of multiple interacting sources.
2. Context Sensitivity and Contingency: Development depends on the current state of the organism.
3. Extended Inheritance: An organism inherits resources from the environment in addition to genes.
4. Development as a process of construction: The organism helps shape its own environment, such as the way a beaver builds a dam to raise the water level to build a lodge.
5. Distributed Control: Idea that no single source of influence has central control over an organism's development.
6. Evolution As Construction: The evolution of an entire developmental system, including whole ecosystems of which given organisms are parts, not just the changes of a particular being or population.

[1]

To adopt a computing metaphor, the reductionists (whom developmental systems theory opposes) assume that causal factors can be divided into ‘processes’ and ‘data’, as in the Harvard computer architecture. Data (inputs, resources, content, and so on) is required by all processes, and must often fall within certain limits if the process in question is to have its ‘normal’ outcome. However, the data alone is helpless to create this outcome, while the process may be ‘satisfied’ with a considerable range of alternative data.

Developmental systems theory, by contrast, assumes that the process/data distinction is at best misleading and at worst completely false, and that while it may be helpful for very specific pragmatic or theoretical reasons to treat a structure now as a process and now as a datum, there is always a risk (to which reductionists routinely succumb) that this methodological convenience will be promoted into an ontological conclusion.[4] In fact, for the proponents of DST, either all structures are both process and data, depending on context, or even more radically, no structure is either.

For reductionists there is a fundamental asymmetry between different causal factors, whereas for DST such asymmetries can only be justified by specific purposes, and argue that many of the (generally unspoken) purposes to which such (generally exaggerated) asymmetries have been put are scientifically illegitimate. Thus, for developmental systems theory, many of the most widely applied, asymmetric and entirely legitimate distinctions biologists draw (between, say, genetic factors that create potential and environmental factors that select outcomes or genetic factors of determination and environmental factors of realisation) obtain their legitimacy from the conceptual clarity and specificity with which they are applied, not from their having tapped a profound and irreducible ontological truth about biological causation.[5] One problem might be solved by reversing the direction of causation correctly identified in another. This parity of treatment is especially important when comparing the evolutionary and developmental explanations for one and the same character of an organism.

One upshot of this approach is that developmental systems theory also argues that what is inherited from generation to generation is a good deal more than simply genes (or even the other items, such as the fertilised zygote, that are also sometimes conceded). As a result, much of the conceptual framework that justifies ‘selfish gene’ models is regarded by developmental systems theory as not merely weak but actually false. Not only are major elements of the environment built and inherited as materially as any gene but active modifications to the environment by the organism (for example, a termite mound or a beaver’s dam) demonstrably become major environmental factors to which future adaptation is addressed. Thus, once termites have begun to build their monumental nests, it is the demands of living in those very nests to which future generations of termite must adapt.

This inheritance may take many forms and operate on many scales, with a multiplicity of systems of inheritance complementing the genes. From position and maternal effects on gene expression to epigenetic inheritance [6] to the active construction and intergenerational transmission of enduring niches,[3] development systems theory argues that not only inheritance but evolution as a whole can be understood only by taking into account a far wider range of ‘reproducers’ or ‘inheritance systems’ – genetic, epigenetic, behavioural and symbolic [7] – than neo-Darwinism’s ‘atomic’ genes and gene-like ‘replicators’.[8] DST regards every level of biological structure as susceptible to influence from all the structures by which they are surrounded, be it from above, below, or any other direction – a proposition that throws into question some of (popular and professional) biology’s most central and celebrated claims, not least the ‘central dogma’ of Mendelian genetics, any direct determination of phenotype by genotype, and the very notion that any aspect of biological (or psychological, or any other higher form) activity or experience is capable of direct or exhaustive genetic or evolutionary ‘explanation’.[9]

Developmental systems theory is plainly radically incompatible with both neo-Darwinism and information processing theory. Whereas neo-Darwinism defines evolution in terms of changes in gene distribution, the possibility that an evolutionarily significant change may arise and be sustained without any directly corresponding change in gene frequencies is an elementary assumption of developmental systems theory, just as neo-Darwinism’s ‘explanation’ of phenomena in terms of reproductive fitness is regarded as fundamentally shallow. Even the widespread mechanistic equation of ‘gene’ with a specific DNA sequence has been thrown into question,[10] as have the analogous interpretations of evolution and adaptation.[11]

Likewise, the wholly generic, functional and anti-developmental models offered by information processing theory are comprehensively challenged by DST’s evidence that nothing is explained without an explicit structural and developmental analysis on the appropriate levels. As a result, what qualifies as ‘information’ depends wholly on the content and context out of which that information arises, within which it is translated and to which it is applied.[12]

• Baldwin, J. Mark (23 August 1895). "Consciousness and Evolution". Science. 2 (34): 219–223. Bibcode:1895Sci.....2..219B. doi:10.1126/science.2.34.219. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 17835006.

Reprinted as: Baldwin, J. Mark (1896). "Psychology". The American Naturalist. 30 (351): 249–255. doi:10.1086/276362. ISSN 0003-0147. JSTOR 2452622.

Baldwin, J. Mark (1896). "A New Factor in Evolution". The American Naturalist. 30 (354): 441–451. doi:10.1086/276408. ISSN 0003-0147. JSTOR 2453130. S2CID 7059820.

Baldwin, J. Mark (1896). "A New Factor in Evolution (Continued)". The American Naturalist. 30 (355): 536–553. doi:10.1086/276428. ISSN 0003-0147. JSTOR 2453231.

Baldwin, J. Mark (1902). Development and Evolution. New York : Macmillan. Retrieved 1 January 2020.

• Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Dawkins, R. (1982). The Extended Phenotype. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Oyama, S. (1985). The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
• Edelman, G.M. (1987). Neural Darwinism: Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. New York: Basic Books.
• Edelman, G.M. and Tononi, G. (2001). Consciousness. How Mind Becomes Imagination. London: Penguin.
• Goodwin, B.C. (1995). How the Leopard Changed its Spots. London: Orion.
• Goodwin, B.C. and Saunders, P. (1992). Theoretical Biology. Epigenetic and Evolutionary Order from Complex Systems. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Jablonka, E., and Lamb, M.J. (1995). Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution. The Lamarckian Dimension. London: Oxford University Press.
• Kauffman, S.A. (1993). The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Levins, R. and Lewontin, R. (1985). The Dialectical Biologist. London: Harvard University Press.
• Lewontin, Richard C. (2000). The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-00159-1.
• Neumann-Held, E.M. (1999). The gene is dead- long live the gene. Conceptualizing genes the constructionist way. In P. Koslowski (ed.). Sociobiology and Bioeconomics: The Theory of Evolution in Economic and Biological Thinking, pp. 105–137. Berlin: Springer.
• Oyama, Susan; Griffiths, Paul E.; Gray, Russell D., eds. (2001). Cycles of contingency : developmental systems and evolution. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262150538.
• Gottfredson, Linda (2009). "Logical Fallacies Used to Dismiss the Evidence on Intelligence Testing". In Phelps, Richard P. (ed.). Correcting Fallacies About Educational and Psychological Testing (1st ed.). American Psychological Association. ISBN 978-1-4338-0392-5.
• Waddington, C.H. (1957). The Strategy of the Genes. London: Allen and Unwin.