CONTENT

THE EMERGENCE AND DEVOLPMENT OF EVOLOTIONARY

VIEWS IN BIOLOGY

1.1 Development stages of evolutionary ideas

1.2 Evolutionary theory of J. B. Lamarck. Charles Darwin

2.1 Synthetic theory of evolution

2.2Evolution and emergence: Morgan emergentism and Mead's process

ontology

3.The evolutionary mechanism takes place in different ways.

Conclusion

Introduction
Target. To acquaint students with the emergence and development of evolutionary
ideas, the evolutionary teachings of Charles Darwin.

Evolutionary developmental biology (evo - DevO) is the name of the part of

biology that is associated with understanding how changes in the mechanisms of
embryonic development affect or direct evolutionary changes at any stage of the
life cycle without exception. The area has grown enormous in recent years;
McCain (2009) analyzed thousands of articles published between 1975 and 2004 in
her study of the impact of one of the earliest evo-DevO practitioners, Konrad Hal
Waddington. Therefore, what follows is my view of the past, present and future
evo - DevOv. I apologize in advance to those researchers whose contributions are
underrepresented.

Although the term "evolutionary developmental biology" is not generally

considered the "founding father" of this field, it appears to have been first used in
print in 1983 by zoologist and later environmentalist Peter Kalow of the University
of Sheffield in England. In an earlier book, Kelow (1978) presented an important
treatment of life cycles in terms of development, evolution, and physiology. Kalow
included a chapter on evolution and development (which itself was unusual at the
time, footnote 1) in his 1983 book Principles of Evolution, published by Blackie in
the Tertiary Biology series. Kalow described the realm of evolution and
development as “evolutionary developmental biology,” noting that “this area is
relatively new and complex, so the reader should not expect to find completely
exhaustive therapies in the literature” (p. 80).

In his book, consisting of only 100 pages and 105 references, and contrary to
popular belief, Kalow emphasized that natural selection could and did act at any
stage of the life cycle of multicellular organisms, this conclusion was reached by
one of the founders of evolutionary embryology 109 years ago. previously. In his
first article on shark development, Francis Balfour argued that the role of selection
in embryonic development is perhaps even more important to evolution than adult
selection:

I see no reason to doubt that the embryo in the earliest periods of development is as
subject to the laws of natural selection as an animal in any other period. Indeed, it
seems to me that there is reason to believe that this is not the case yet. (Balfour
1874, p. 343)

While evo-Devi's roots are deep (Gould 1977; Bonner 1982; Arthur 1988; Hall and
Olson 2003; Laubichler and Mayenschein 2007; Olsson et al. 2009), evo-dev is
just coming into its own. In the foreword to the publication of the January 2003
Kovalevsky Medal Laureates Symposium (published in 2004) to recognize the
research of the first Kovalevsky Medal Laureates, Laubichler and Wagner
concluded that “By all accounts, evo-DevO has arrived at ... ... It is now firmly
rooted in the conceptual framework of modern biology and has all the hallmarks of
a new discipline, such as representation in professional communities, scientific
journals dedicated to the field, academic programs and job searches, groups in
financial agencies, textbooks, etc. (2004, p. 1) Eight years later, classes, courses,
seminars, postdoctoral fellowships, faculty positions, university departments, and
research grant commissions at evo –dev have become widespread.

I took the word "evolutionary developmental biology" as the title of my 1992 book
(Hall 1992), in which I wanted to summarize what was then known about the
origin of this area, its history and its role in facilitating the evolutionary process. I
will do the same in the article. Why? Because we can only assess the future
prospects of evo - DevOv in the context of her past. What questions were asked
about embryos and development? To what organisms were these questions
addressed? If we were looking for a broad, overarching evo-DevO theory that
could be applied to all animals or differences that characterize degrees of
biological organization - kingdoms, types, classes, even individual species. What
was lacking in the prevailing approaches to evolution that required this new
approach to development?

In the winter of 1895-1896, the British zoologist and comparative psychologist

C. Lloyd Morgan delivered some lectures in Boston, New York and Chicago.
While in Boston delivering the Lowell Lectures, published the very same year with
the title Habit and Instinct (Morgan 1896), he stayed for a week in the house of
William James, to whose theory of emotion he dedicated part of his lectures. In the
preface of the volume he also mentions the evolutionary biologist Charles O.
Whitman, at the time head professor of the new-born Department of Biology at the
University of Chicago, with whom Morgan spent some time during his stay,
working on experiments on instinct theory with pigeons.
We can suppose that when Morgan was in Chicago he also met George Herbert
Mead. Mead arrived at the University of Chicago in 1894, at the time when he was
trying to explain emotion and the organic evolution of habit, attention and mind
within an experimentalist physiological perspective. In particular, Mead was
focusing on physiological psychology and psychophysics as well as on
comparative psychology, of which Morgan, as disciple of George J. Romanes, was
one of the main proponents. It is therefore highly possible that Mead attended
Morgan’s lecture on “Instinct and Habit” at the University of Chicago, and we can
also conjecture that they had the chance to discuss their common interests: they
were both deeply concerned with physiological psychology and the evolutionary
processes in behaviour. In support of our conjecture is the fact that Mead wrote a
critical review of Morgan’s An Introduction to Comparative Psychology, published
the following year (Mead 1895b). What is even more interesting, however, is the
fact that early in the twentieth century both Morgan and Mead elaborated their own
theories of emergence and emergent evolution in which their respective research
interests found a philosophical synthesis. The Gifford Lectures, published with the
title of Emergent Evolution (Morgan 1927) are in fact Morgan’s philosophical
explanation of the evolution process and his philosophical testament, whereas the
Carus Lectures, published posthumously with the title The Philosophy of the
Present (1932) represent Mead’s last attempt to elaborate a theory of emergence
through which to interpret the theory of the evolution of mind and language he had
developed over the years.

1.1Development stages of evolutionary ideas

In the historical chronology of the development of evolutionary ideas in biology,

four stages can be conventionally distinguished. The first stage starts from the
Ancient World and lasts until the Middle Ages. At this stage, the preconditions for
the formation of evolutionary biology appear, for the identification of the main
directions of the study of evolution. At this time, there are such theories as the
spontaneous generation of life, the influence of environmental conditions on
organisms. The main thinkers of that time are Aristotle, Democritus, Empedocles.
Many of the theories put forward by these philosophers found their continuation in
the writings of scientists of the Renaissance and modern times. Some of these
theories have been refuted in the formulation of scientific experiments.

The second stage belongs to the Middle Ages. During this period, the theory of the
divine creation of the world comes to the fore. All other theories become
unacceptable, persecution of scientists begins. The development of science is
declining. At this stage, the main theory of the origin and development of life on
Earth was theological, divine. According to this concept, God created the Earth and
all life on it.

The third stage in the development of evolutionary ideas belongs to the

Renaissance and New Times. This stage is characterized by the beginning of the
classification of living organisms, where the first main direction is taxonomy; the
advancement of global theories of the evolution of organisms and the discovery of
new laws. The main thinkers of this time are: Lamarck, Cuvier, Buffon, Linnaeus,
Darwin, Mendel. Some scientists continue to adhere to the theory of spontaneous
generation, for example Lamarck. Others discover new laws and put forward new
theories: Darwin, Mendel.

The main provisions and statements about the origin and development of life on
Earth.

Karl Linnaeus in his book "Philosophy of Botany" wrote: "Everything that occurs
in nature belongs to the elements and naturals. Naturals belong to the three
kingdoms of nature: stones, plants, animals."

The classification of living organisms created by Linnaeus is based on a

hierarchical principle. Different levels of the hierarchy (ranks) have their own
names: class, order, genus and species. This simplified the study process and
contributed to the further discovery and development of new patterns of
organization of living nature.

Georges Louis Buffon, in contrast to Carl Linnaeus, who defended the idea of the
constancy of species in his classification, expressed progressive ideas about the
changeability of species under the influence of environmental conditions (climate,
nutrition, etc.). These judgments became the starting point for the formation of
views about the variability of species, natural selection, and, consequently, about
the evolution of living things.
Georges Cuvier, working in the field of paleontology, became the founder of such
a trend in science as comparative anatomy. His theory of "the ratio of parts of the
body" reveals the relationship of all organs and structures with each other, and
makes their structure and functionality dependent on environmental conditions,
nutrition, reproduction.

1.2 Evolutionary theory of J. B. Lamarck. Charles Darwin

The most important work of Lamarck was the book "Philosophy of Zoology",
published in 1809. In his work, Lamarck shares two areas of study of nature:
economic (consumer) and philosophical. The development of the first direction
was due to the fact that during this period there was an active industrial growth, the
development of technology, and the development of the second direction was
determined by the disclosure of the mechanisms of development of living nature.

Lamarck continues Linnaeus's idea of the classification of organisms, writing in a

monograph about the need to divide living organisms into classes, orders, families,
species in order to consolidate knowledge of biodiversity.

In the question of the origin of life on Earth, Lamarck continues to develop the
idea, expressed by Democritus, about the spontaneous generation of living
organisms. He writes about this in his book "Natural History"

However, the theory of spontaneous generation of life was refuted by a number of

experiments conducted by Francesco Redi (1626-1698), Lazzaro Spallanzani
(1729-1799), Louis Pasteur (1822-1895). (it turns out that the theory was refuted
by experiments even before Lamarck published his work ???)

On the question of the evolution of living organisms, Lamarck formulated laws

from which it follows that living organisms develop those organs that are more
necessary for them, and the acquired improvements are inherited. An example is
the appearance of the long neck of a giraffe. Lamarck explains this structure of the
animal by the fact that the giraffe had to constantly reach up for the leaves (the
theory of organ exercise). Subsequently, Lamarck's judgments were refuted by
scientific experiments and discoveries of genetics.

Evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin, in his book The Origin of Species by Natural Selection, wrote the
following: “If, under the changing conditions of life, organic beings can present
individual deviations in almost any part of their organization, and this is
impossible to dispute; if, due to the geometric progression of reproduction, a fierce
struggle for life begins at any age, in any year or season, and this, of course, cannot
be disputed; and also if we recall the infinite complexity of the relationship of
organisms both with each other and with their living conditions and the infinite
variety of useful features arising from these relations structure, inner disposition
and habits - if we take all this into account, it would be extremely improbable that
deviations that are beneficial for the organism possessing them never appear, just
as numerous deviations that are beneficial for a person have arisen. useful for any
organism, someday appear, then possessing Their organisms, of course, will have
all the more chances to survive in the struggle for life, and due to the powerful
principle of heredity, they will find a desire to pass them on to their offspring. This
beginning of conservation, or the experience of the fittest, I called natural
selection. It leads to the improvement of every being in relation to the organic and
inorganic conditions of his life and, consequently, in most cases, and to what can
be considered an ascent to a higher level of organization. "

The main mechanism for Darwin's understanding of changing natural conditions as

the driving force of natural selection was played by artificial selection, which made
it customary to look at domesticated animals and domesticated plants as the result
of such selection.

The fourth stage dates back to the twentieth century. At this stage, the development
of the ideas put forward by scientists of the Renaissance and Modern times
continues. New laws are being discovered in the field of genetics. The theory of
"Darwinism" is being developed and rethought, although at present not all
scientists agree with its provisions.
2.1 Synthetic theory of evolution.

The theory proposed by Darwin has evolved up to modern times. Currently,

some scientists continue to adhere to it, some find errors in it and believe that this
view of evolution should be revised, since Darwin's theory does not reveal the very
mechanism of the evolution of living beings, but only explains its reasons.

The discovery of the laws of genetics played an important role in the development
of evolutionary doctrine. Genetics can explain many of the ongoing changes in
organisms. The founder of this science is Gregor Mendel.

At present, a synthetic theory is proposed to study the theory of evolution, which

includes the provisions of Darwin's theory of evolution and genetics. Natural
selection is taken from Darwin's theory, and genetics explains the very mechanism
of the formation of a species.

The provisions of the synthetic theory of evolution.

The elementary unit of evolution is the population;

The material for evolution is mutational and recombination variability;

Natural selection is considered as the main reason for the development of

adaptations, speciation and the origin of supraspecific taxa;

Gene drift and the founder principle are the reasons for the formation of neutral
traits;

A species is a system of populations reproductively isolated and ecologically

isolated from populations of other species;

Speciation (microevolution) occurs as a result of the work of genetic isolating

mechanisms in conditions of geographic isolation.

External conditions (environmental factors: abiotic, biotic and anthropogenic) and

the activity of organisms affect the development of certain species. When
environmental conditions change, the body needs to adapt to them, which provokes
changes at the genetic level. In the process of adaptation of organisms to the
environment, the most resistant to environmental conditions survive, the least
resistant die, and natural selection occurs. Among organisms, there is both
competition and mutual assistance.

In the organism itself, there is: 1) transformation at the genetic level (adaptation
to temperature, mimicry, seasonal molting, suspended animation, etc.); 2) physical
adaptation (natural selection: expansion of the habitat, increase in population,
competition within the species, struggle for territory); 3) the development in some
species of the mechanism of mutual assistance (ants, bees), which greatly helps in
the struggle for survival

2.2Evolution and emergence: Morgan emergentism and Mead's process

ontology

Gifford's Lectures in 1922 provide Morgan's philosophical explanation of the

evolutionary process, which was a milestone for the first generation of organists.
As already mentioned, his idea, developed in the 1890s, that advanced states of
consciousness arise from infraconscious states corresponding to energy
transformations in the germplasm, and that infraconsciousness is associated with
all forms of energy accompanying brain activity, forced Morgan to accept more a
fundamental monistic view, which, however, "brought him sharply to the brink of
panpsychism," although ultimately "did not plunge him headlong into this
doctrine" (see Richards 1977: 19-20). Thus, he thought that the idea of emergent
evolution could be the solution to the epistemological divide. He first used the term
"emergence" in 1913 (Morgan 1913: 29-33), referring to JS Mill and HH Lewis's
concepts of emergence19. Subsequently, emergence became a fundamental
prerequisite for considering from a philosophical point of view the qualitative gap
between organisms and evolutionary inconsistencies.20 In particular, Morgan
(1927) recognized the key role of the concept of emergence and tried to overcome
epistemological associationism, moving towards an evolutionary epistemology,
which seemed to be more consistent with the assumptions of ontological monism,
showing its constructive dialogue with a number of contemporary figures who
have more or less explicitly dealt with the issue of "the emergence of newness"
(Morgan 1927: 2), from Samuel Alexander to Henri Bergson, Alfred North
Whitehead and Bertrand Russell.

Several years later, in December 1930, Mead gave a lecture by Paul Carus in
which he sketched a process ontology that provided a biosocial interpretation of
emergence similar to that of Morgan. Like Morgan's Emergent Evolution, one of
the dominant strands of Mead's Philosophy of the Present is philosophy of nature,
seen as a characteristic contribution of the Anglo-American philosophy of the
1920s, pioneered by Alexander Space, Time, and Deity (1920). 21 However,
unlike Morgan, Mead was more concerned with his interpretations of Bergson's
vitalism and Whitehead's hypothesis of the organization of perspectives in nature
(Whitehead 1919; 1920; 1925), as well as interpreting the theory of relativity from
a social point of view. points of view 22. He tried to develop a synthesis regarding
the possible integration of his socio-behavioral psychology with the theory of
relativity and to avoid psychophysical dualism and reductionist naturalism. It is
therefore understandable that he used terminology that was more familiar to him.

Key sections of the theory of evolution

• Observations of Charles Darwin and how they support the theory of evolution
and the idea of natural selection.

• The role of natural selection in adaptation.

• Characteristics of microevolutionary and macroevolutionary processes.

Top 5 misconceptions about evolution

This is just a theory

In everyday language, "theory" can mean guess or guess. For scientists, theory
refers to a well-grounded explanation.

The origins of life

During evolution, a series of natural changes cause species to emerge, familiarity

with the environment, and extinction.
Evolution = Change

All species have occurred in the process of biological evolution. The term
"species" refers to a group capable of reproducing fertile offspring. Scientists
classify species with two scientific names, the first is the genus name and the
second is the species name, such as people called Homo sapiens. In populations,
there are variations or differences between individual members due to the diversity
of genes (alleles). Examples are human skin color, fox hair color. When there is a
change in genes passed from parent to offspring in varying proportions, evolution
occurs. These gene variations arose either due to (1) the recombination of alleles
during their sexual reproduction, or (2) due to mutations.

3.The evolutionary mechanism takes place in different ways.

1.

Natural selection.

2.

Biased mutation.

3.

Genetic drift.

4.

Gene stream.

Recombination of genetic material can occur in three ways.

1.

Independent assortment.

2.

Crossing over during meiosis.

3.

The union of the egg and sperm during fertilization.

Mutations are usually neutral or harmful. They can sometimes be useful when the
environment is changing.

1.

A point mutation is a change in one base pair in DNA.

2.

Frame Shift - One base pair is added or removed from DNA.

3.

Chromosomal mutations are errors that affect the entire chromosome.

4.

Deletion mutation - segments of the chromosome break off and do not reattach -
the new cell lacks genes carried by the detached segment.

5.
Duplication or insertion of a mutation - segments of a chromosome attach to a
homologous chromosome that has lost a complementary segment. As a result, one
chromosome carries two copies of the same gene.

6.

Inversion mutations - a segment of a chromosome breaks off and then rejoins the
original chromosome in the opposite direction.

7.

Translocation mutations - a segment of a chromosome attaches to a non-

homologous chromosome.

These variations lead to adaptation. Adaptations are traits that increase a

population's chances of survival and reproduction (Hoyle, 1981).

An individual does not change as a result of evolution, but causes a change in the
inherited modes of growth and development, which are determined for the
population. When a parent inherits these changes to their offspring, then they
become common in that population, and as a result, the offspring inherits these
genetic characteristics for survival probability, ability to give birth, which will
work until the environment changes. Ultimately, genetic changes can alter the
general lifestyle of a species, such as what it eats, how it grows, how it can live.
Because new genetic variations in the preferred new abilities of the early ancestor
population to adapt to environmental changes and thus alter human behavior,
trigger human evolution (John, 2007).

Conclusion

Science must always support inferences about what can be seen and reproduced.
So what is being observed? We see variations in lizards and birds. If
macroevolution happened between forms, they were never fossils.
An alert observer can usually see surprising breaks in these declared upward
changes, as well as in the figure above. Since Darwin's time, evolutionists have
explained why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with
intermediates. Evolution is a scientific theory in the biological sciences that
explains the emergence of new species of living things in the past and present.
Evolution explains the obvious patterns of similarities and differences between
living things over time and in different habitats through the action of biological
processes such as mutation, natural selection, symbiosis and genetic drift.
Evolution has been scientifically tested for over a century and has been validated
over and over again in various fields.

As I have tried to argue in this article, there are some interconnections and many
similarities between the work of Morgan and Mead. In particular, they began their
psychological and philosophical journeys in the same area of interest and faced the
same problems associated with the theory of evolution. At the end of their journey,
they reached a point where they focused their attention on the same philosophical
hypothesis, but contemplated different solutions. According to Morgan's idea of
emergent evolution, when the basic physical processes reach a certain level of
complexity of the corresponding type, truly new characteristics arise that cannot be
predicted on the basis of a complete knowledge of the lower-level parts and their
relationships. Moreover, there is a perspective approach to reality, according to
which the ontological independence of reality is epistemologically dependent on
the supervenient consciousness that enters into a relationship with it, so that
meaning refers to how things enter into relationships with people. Moreover, the
very appearance of novelty should be understood as a completely natural process,
so that no supernatural power is required. Emergent evolution is the expression of
an orderly and progressive development that belongs to the "laws of nature", albeit
unpredictable before the emergence of novelty. The laws of nature are an
expression of some natural plan that underlies emerging evolution, a kind of "plan
of God," so that as soon as newness appears, the natural law hidden behind it can
be recognized.

31 Cm. Parravicini 2016.

In Philosophy of the Present, Mead follows similar paths, synthesizing his social
psychology with a philosophy of process and activity that structures the reality in
which the organism dwells. Emergence as an evolutionary relational process that
can only be explained a posteriori was the concept that he tried to develop through
synthesis in relation to the possible integration of his social psychology and the
theory of relativity. His goal, like Morgan's, was to avoid any psychophysical
dualism or reductionist naturalism, as well as any teleological plan. In particular,
Mead's greater emphasis on the social aspect of the emerging event led him to
associate the emerging events with the habits and selectivity of himself. In turn, his
theory of mind and self as emergent phenomena of social processes better
reconciled the discontinuity of qualitatively different emerging events with the
continuity of the evolutionary process. In particular, Mead reconciled the
discontinuity of emerging events (as qualitatively different from the organizational
structures from which they arise) with the continuity of the evolutionary process
and the old conditions of the past. and the social environment prompted Mead to
interpret psychophysical processes from a broader point of view, according to
which human evolution took place at a social emergent level, which cannot be
reduced to terms of the biological characteristics of the individuals involved.
However, unlike Morgan's idea of a finalistic nature, Mead offers an anti-finalistic
teleological perspective, according to which what arises, although part of the
process, is something truly new and not the result of a divine plan.

Both authors made significant and original contributions to the evolutionary

epistemology of their time, a work that I believe has much more to offer for the
current debate on emergence epistemology and evolutionary epistemology. In my
opinion, Mead's theory of emergence should be seen as the basis of his theory of
the evolution of mind and language. Moreover, as El-Hani and Pilström (2002)
have argued, Mead's anti-reductionist naturalism, together with Dewey's
naturalism, is so closely associated with emergent thought that they should be
considered as some of the more creative exponents of emergentism.
References

Abouheif E, Wray G. Evolution of the gene network underlying wing polyphenism

in ants. Science. 2002;297:249–52.

Allen G. Life science in the twentieth century. New York: Wiley; 1975.

Arthur W. A theory of the evolution of development. Chichester: Wiley; 1988.

Averof M. Arthropod evolution: same Hox genes, different body plans. Curr Biol.

1997;7:R634–6. 

Balfour FM. A preliminary account of the development of the elasmobranch fishes.

Q J Microsc Sci. 1874;14:323–64.

Bateson W. Evolutionary faith and modern doubts. Science. 1922;55:53–61.

Berrill NJ. Biology in action: a beginning college textbook. New York: Dodd,
Mead & Co.; 1966.

Bertossa RC. Morphology and behaviour: functional links in development and

evolution. Philos Trans R Soc B. 2011;366:2056–68.

Biémont C. From genotype to phenotype. What do epigenetics and epigenomics

tell us? Heredity. 2010;105:1–3.

Bonner JT. Evolution and development. Report of the Dahlem Workshop on

Evolution and Development, Berlin 1981, May 10–15. Life Sciences Research
Report 22. Berlin: Springer; 1982.