Is Macroevolution More Than Successive Rounds of Mircoevolution?

50 1 January 75 85 10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00603.x

GRANTHAM, T. 2007. Is Macroevolution More Than Successive Rounds of Mircoevolution?. Palaeontology, 50, 1, 75–85.

Todd Grantham Whether macrovolution is reducible to microevolution is one of the persistent debates in evolutionary biology. Although the concept of emergence is important to answering this question, it has not been extensively discussed within palaeobiology. A taxonomy of emergence concepts is presented to clarify the ways in which emergence relates to this debate. Weak emergence is a particularly helpful way to understand the hierarchical nature of biology: it captures the ways in which higher-level traits depend on lower-level processes, while recognizing that emergent traits can nonetheless provide the basis for autonomous higher-level theories. A brief review of the biological literature suggests that geographical range size is weakly emergent. While some concepts of emergence do not block the attempt to reduce macroevolution (i.e. the attempt to explain all macroevolutionary phenomena in terms of microevolutionary processes), weak emergence does. Thus, if geographical range is weakly emergent, it provides a basis for arguing that macroevolutionary phenomena cannot be fully explained by microevolutionary processes.
  • BEDAU, M. 1997. Weak emergence. 375–399. In TOMBERLIN, J. (ed.). Philosophical perspectives 11: mind causation and world. Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, 471 pp.
  • BEDAU, M. 2002. Downward causation and the autonomy of weak emergence. Principia, 6, 5–50.
  • BOCK, W. J. 1979. The synthetic explanation of macroevolutionary change: a reductionistic approach. Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, 13, 20–69.
  • BOOGERD, F. C., BRUGGEMAN, F. J., RICHARDSON, R. C., STEPHAN, A. and WESTERHOFF, H. V. 2005. Emergence and its place in nature: a case study of biochemical networks. Synthese, 145, 131–164.
  • BRANDON, R. N. 1990. Adaptation and environment. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 214 pp.
  • BROWN, J. H. 1995. Macroecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 269 pp.
  • BROWN, J. H., STEPHENS, G. C. and KAUFMAN, D. M. 1996. Geographic range: size, shape, boundaries and internal structure. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 27, 597–623.
  • CASSILL, D. 2003. Rules of supply and demand regulate recruitment to food in an ant society. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 54, 441–450.
  • CUNNINGHAM, B. 2000. The reemergence of ‘emergence’. Philosophy of Science, 68 (Proceedings), S62–S75.
  • FODOR, J. 1974. Special sciences: the disunity of science as a working hypothesis. Synthese, 28, 97–115.
  • GASTON, K. J. 1998. Species range size distributions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B, 353, 219–230.
  • GASTON, K. J. 2003. Structure and dynamics of geographic ranges. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 266 pp.
  • GERARD, J., BIDEAU, E., MAUBLANC, M., LOISEL, P. and MARCHAL, C. 2002. Herd size in large herbivores: encoded in the individual or emergent? Biological Bulletin, 202, 275–282.
  • GOULD, S. J. 1980. The promise of paleobiology as a nomothetic, evolutionary discipline. Paleobiology, 6, 96–118.
  • GOULD, S. J. 2002. The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1433 pp.
  • GRANTHAM, T. A. 1995. Hierarchical approaches to macroevolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 26, 301–321.
  • GRANTHAM, T. A. 2002. Species selection. 1086–1087. In PAGEL, M. (ed.). Encyclopedia of evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1205 pp.
  • GRANTHAM, T. A. 2004. The role of fossils in phylogeny reconstruction, or why is it difficult to integrate paleontological and neontological evolutionary biology? Biology and Philosophy, 19, 687–720.
  • HUNT, G., ROY, K. and JABLONSKI, D. 2005. Species level heritability reaffirmed. A comment on ‘On the heritability of geographic range sizes’. American Naturalist, 166, 129–135.
  • JABLONSKI, D. 1986. Larval ecology and macroevolution in marine invertebrates. Bulletin of Marine Science, 39, 565–587.
  • JABLONSKI, D. 1988. Response [to Russell and Lindberg]. Science, 240, 969.
  • JABLONSKI, D. and HUNT, G. 2006. Larval ecology, geographic range, and species survivorship in Cretaceous mollusks: organismal vs. species-level explanations. American Naturalist, 168, 556–564.
  • JONES, K. E., PURVIS, A. and GITTLEMAN, J. L. 2003. Biological correlates of extinction risk in bats. American Naturalist, 161, 601–614.
  • KIM, J. 1992. ‘Downward causation’ in emergentism and nonreductive physicalism. 119–138. In BECKERMAN, A. and FLOHR, H. J. (eds). Emergence or reduction? DeGruyter, Berlin, 315 pp.
  • KIM, J. 1999. Making sense of emergence. Philosophical Studies, 95, 3–36.
  • KINCAID, H. 1990. Molecular biology and the unity of science. Philosophy of Science, 53, 492–513.
  • LENNON, J. J., TURNER, J. R. G. and CONNELL, D. 1997. A metapopulation model of species boundaries. Oikos, 78, 486–502.
  • MARSHALL, C. R. 1991. Estimation of taxonomic ranges from the fossil record. 19–38. In GILINSKY, N. and SIGNOR, P. (eds). Analytical paleobiology. Paleontological Society, Knoxville, TN.
  • MAYNARD SMITH, J. and SZATHMARY, E. 1995. Major transitions in evolution. W. H. Freeman, New York, NY, 346 pp.
  • McLAUGHLIN, B. 1992. The rise and fall of British emergentism. 49–93. In BECKERMAN, A. and FLOHR, H. J. (eds). Emergence or reduction? DeGruyter, Berlin, 315 pp.
  • McLAUGHLIN, B. 1995. Varieties of supervenience. 16–59. In SAVELLOS, E. E. and YALCIN, U. D. (eds). Supervenience: new essays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 321 pp.
  • PURVIS, A., JONES, K. E. and MACE, G. M. 2000. Extinction. BioEssays, 22, 1123–1133.
  • SARKAR, S. 1998. Genetics and reductionism. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 246 pp.
  • SCHAFFNER, K. 1993. Discovery and explanation in biology and medicine. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 617 pp.
  • SHEEHAN, P. M. 2001. History of marine biodiversity. Geological Journal, 36, 231–249.
  • SILBERSTEIN, M. and McGEEVER, J. 1999. The search for ontological emergence. Philosophical Quarterly, 49, 182–200.
  • VRBA, E. S. 1984. What is species selection? Systematic Zoology, 33, 318–328.
  • VRBA, E. S. 1989. Levels of selection and sorting with special reference to the species level. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, 6, 111–168.
  • WEBB, T. J. and GASTON, K. J. 2003. On the heritability of geographic range sizes. American Naturalist, 161, 553–566.
  • WEBB, T. J., GASTON, K. J. 2005. Heritability of geographic range sizes revisited: a reply to Hunt et al. American Naturalist, 166, 136–143.
  • WIMSATT, W. C. 1997. Aggregativity: reductive heuristics for finding emergence. Philosophy of Science, 64, S372–S384.
Wiley Online Library