[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Not mentioned on the DML, I thought this paper should be/could be the source of much fruitful discussion in light of the growing, well-deserved impact the Yale 2001 volume is having, and as supplementary insight into areas Stephen Jay Gould did not fully elaborate in his 2002 effort.
Jason Scott Robert, B.K. Hall, Wendy M. Olson, 2001. Bridging the gap between developmental systems theory and evolutionary developmental biology. BioEssays 23(10):954-962.
They take the precepts of Susan Oyama (1995, The ontogeny of information), and explicate a possible merging of "evo-devo" (evolutionary developmental biology) and developmental systems theory, A beginning was made in 1994 by Paul E. Griffiths and R.D. Gray (Developmental systems and evolutionary explanation, Journal of Philosophy 91(6):277-304): "evolution" = transformation of the make-up and range of developmental systems, and evo-devo being an examination of embryological development, homologies, and ecomorphological innovations.
For studies of extant theropods (i.e., those living free and not in cages, zoos, or other "entertainment" franchises), the possibilities are exciting: studying the genetic make up of carnivorous theropods (the condors, vultures, et al.) to determine the embryonic processes of bilateral symmetry, organ formations within the egg, etc. (an area of interest to those who, influenced by August Weismann, began to grapple with observed microscopic processes). As Jason Robert et al. note, "organisms inherit more than their genes. They inherit an ovum, cellular machinery for metabolism, mitochondria, and mitochondrial genes..." Thus, when one is studying a dinosaur developing inside its egg, one sees a tapestry of zygotic genome, maternal genome, and mitochondrial genes derived from the mother.