Emergence of Growth and Structural Tendencies During Adaptive Evolution of System

Gecow, Andrzej

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02199-2_10

Cited by 8 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When non-similar structures form separately and then integrate while still undergoing patterning, high levels of plasticity or new dimensions of ecologically-significant variation are seen.". Such observations are just Naef's (1917) regularity of 'terminal modification and conservation of early stages' in (too) simply way explained by de Beer (1940), and now, using simulation of complex networks, in (Gecow 2005(Gecow , 2009a. In my simulations I have observed more such classic regularities of ontogeny evolution as simple result of selection and complexity.…”

Section: Five Problemssupporting

confidence: 52%

“…Such factors are e.g. 'structural tendencies' (Gecow 2005(Gecow , 2009a) defined as general heterogeneities in P(a|X), explaining and predicting the known classical regularities of ontogenesis evolution, such as Naef's (1917) 'terminal modification and conservation of early stages' or 'terminal additions and compression of early states of ontogeny' (Weismann 1904). From the point of view of the main intuition of the devbias concept, they are somewhat of sister phenomena to the devbias, and it may be difficult to distinguish their effects from those of devbias.…”

Section: Deeper Into Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Then in long perspective real devbias3 may be a negative 27 change, but the return is all the more difficult the more of subsequent changes were based on the presence of this current change. I have simulated (Gecow 2005(Gecow , 2009a this regularity by describing ontogenesis as a randomly growing network. This theme, including status of such regularities, is discussed in the range of problem5 in ch.3.2.…”

Section: Mean Fitness Aspectmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Why is the term 'developmental bias' misleading? (full version)

Gecow¹

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term 'developmental bias' promoted in the Special Issue of ‘Evolution & Development’ was initially defined as the effect in evolution direction creating by correlation of changed developmental parameters. The understanding of the term is in the Special Issue much broader and very poorly defined. Promoting such a broad term related to observation makes difficult to explain specific mechanisms. It is now time for the task of explaining to become more important in biology than just collecting facts. The term requires quick organization and division into many different concepts. I suggest replacing this term with a shorter one (devbias) with an additional tip indicating a specific variant according to the proposed ordering system. Mainly the mechanisms giving variability clearly focused on greater fitness (devbiases4) have been added. Devbias4 was treated in Special Issue as an independent source of adaptation supporting natural selection. Focusing on the time interval of current evolution, where collected devbiases4 indeed supports natural selection, it is usually forgotten to stress that they are also the result of previous natural selection and only mediate the transmission of its effects. This leads to a dangerous message beyond biology that scientific observations have shown that the Darwinian mechanism is not the only source of adaptation. By the way of ordering ‘devbias’ the understanding of ‘randomness’ is discussed to show differences between ‘flat distribution’, ‘variation blind on needs’ and ‘real random variability’ which in Special Issue are typically mixed.

show abstract

Section: Five Problemssupporting

confidence: 52%

Section: Deeper Into Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mean Fitness Aspectmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why is the term 'developmental bias' misleading? (full version)

Gecow¹

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently, the relationship between Boolean dynamics and network topology has been investigated by many authors from the view points of stability and evolvability of network structures (Oosawa and Savageau, 2002;Aldana, 2003;Aldana et al, 2007;Fox and Hill, 2001;Serra et al, 2003;Aldana and Cluzel, 2003;Handrey et al, 2007;Gecow, 2007). In this section, we investigate robustness of an attractor to an external perturbation caused by an inversion of binary state on a node (Kinoshita et al, 2008a, b;Fretter and Drossel, 2008).…”

Section: Robustness Of Attractorsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Intrinsic properties of Boolean dynamics in complex networks

Kinoshita

Iguchi²,

Yamada³

2009

Journal of Theoretical Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…More, this path is also evolved under natural selection. Description of it as a network of condition (Gecow 2005(Gecow , 2009 or as a chain of phenotypes also described "in terms of a network of interacting components with dynamical properties" 42 is a good idea, but such description remains a large simplification. We may limit ourselves to describe it by gene regulatory network (Kauffman 1971, Banzhaf 2003, however, this is also large simplification.…”

Section: What It Means That Variation Is Not Random?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lamarckian mechanisms as developmental bias and their Darwinian base – descriptive versus explanatory biology (full version)

Gecow¹

2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article points out the main obstacles in the discussion of Lamarckian mechanisms, resulting from overly persisted beliefs, habits and understatement. 'Lamarckian mechanisms' are those that create 'non-random' changes (in the aspect of adaptation), and even 'resulting from instruction', and these changes become evolutionary. To avoid widespread prejudices a permanent stress is needed that Lamarckian mechanisms are an effect of Darwinian mechanisms but this stress is not enough visible. The term 'Lamarckism' has two meanings: proper - that adaptive and inherited changes can be induced by environment, but typically it is understood as irrational believing that evolutionary changes are adaptive without necessity of help of Darwinian mechanisms, in this case it is not coherent with the term 'Lamarckian mechanisms' and has small base in Lamarck's view, it arisen from too shallow interpretation of Lamarck. In the theme 'inheritance of acquired characters' a few steps to evolutionary change is indicated, which typically are omitted in the description. Old such descriptions need rebuilding in a new coherent system of notions but to create such system a theory is necessary. The Lamarckian dimension of evolution protrudes beyond the basics of Modern Synthesis however necessity to change the name of the synthesis to Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is discretionary decision. It would be obligatory, when the Modern Synthesis will be treated as typical theory derived from specified assumptions when its assumptions are extended. The article points to the growing need to pay more attention to the precision of definition, specification of assumptions and abstract inference, as deficiencies in these areas are the main cause of misunderstanding and a brake on progress. Unfortunately, they are not appreciated in biology, and even 'speculations' are considered undesirable.

show abstract

Emergence of Growth and Structural Tendencies During Adaptive Evolution of System

Cited by 8 publications

References 19 publications

Why is the term 'developmental bias' misleading? (full version)

Why is the term 'developmental bias' misleading? (full version)

Intrinsic properties of Boolean dynamics in complex networks

Lamarckian mechanisms as developmental bias and their Darwinian base – descriptive versus explanatory biology (full version)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About