In the six decades since the publication of Julian Huxley's Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, spectacular empirical advances in the biological sciences have been accompanied by equally significant developments within the core theoretical framework of the discipline. As a result, evolutionary theory today includes concepts and even entire new fields that were not part of the foundational structure of the Modern Synthesis. In this volume, sixteen leading evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science survey the conceptual changes that have emerged since Huxley's (...) landmark publication, not only in such traditional domains of evolutionary biology as quantitative genetics and paleontology but also in such new fields of research as genomics and EvoDevo. Most of the contributors to Evolution—The Extended Synthesis accept many of the tenets of the classical framework but want to relax some of its assumptions and introduce significant conceptual augmentations of the basic Modern Synthesis structure—just as the architects of the Modern Synthesis themselves expanded and modulated previous versions of Darwinism. This continuing revision of a theoretical edifice the foundations of which were laid in the middle of the nineteenth century—the reexamination of old ideas, proposals of new ones, and the synthesis of the most suitable—shows us how science works, and how scientists have painstakingly built a solid set of explanations for what Darwin called the "grandeur" of life. (shrink)

The so-called "adaptationism" of mainstream evolutionary biology has been criticized from a variety of sources. One, which has received relatively little philosophical attention, is developmental biology. Developmental constraints are said to be neglected by adaptationists. This paper explores the divergent methodological and explanatory interests that separate mainstream evolutionary biology from its embryological and developmental critics. It will focus on the concept of constraint itself; even this central concept is understood differently by the two sides of the dispute.

This collection broadens the scientific discussion of modularity by bringing together experts from a variety of disciplines, including artificial life, ...

Here I present and discuss a model that, among other things, appears able to describe the dynamics of cancer cell origin from the perspective of stable and unstable gene expression profiles. In identifying suchaberrantgene expression profiles as lying outside the normal stable states attracted through development and normal cell differentiation, the hypothesis explains why cancer cells accumulate mutations, to which they are not robust, and why these mutations create a new stable state far from the normal gene expression profile space. (...) Such cells are in strong contrast with normal cell types that appeared as an attractor state in the gene expression dynamical system under cell‐cell interaction and achieved robustness to noise through evolution, which in turn also conferred robustness to mutation. In complex gene regulation networks, otheraberrantcellular states lacking such high robustness are expected to remain, which would correspond to cancer cells. (shrink)