Abstract
George Gaylord Simpson, one of the architects of Modern Synthesis, was one of the main figures of paleontology who discredited and rejected the theory of orthogenesis in his discipline. Following the neo-Darwinian agenda, he thought that this theory had little basis to be proven. Since then, orthogenesis has been defined in textbooks as a “metaphysical,” “vitalistic,” or “theological” theory. However, in the present analysis, I demonstrate that Simpson indirectly advocated for an explanation of orthogenesis through his explanation of the concept of “parallelism.” In other words, Simpson did not end orthogenesis but rather ended up defending the phenomenon of orthogenesis through the concept of parallelism. I argue that Simpson maintained pluralistic ideas upon including constraints into his evolutionary system as a complementary factor to the argument of natural selection.
The structure of an ancestral group inevitably restricts the lines of possible evolutionary change. That simple fact greatly increases the probability that among the number of descendant lineages several or all will follow one line.
George Gaylord Simpson (1961)
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Whether microevolution is different from macroevolution has been one of the central issues in evolutionary thought; see Adams (2021) in this volume.
- 2.
However, it is important to note that Dobzhansky had doubts about the central role of natural selection in macroevolution through his life; for this discussion, see van de Meer (2021) in this volume.
- 3.
To account for the origin of the species and higher taxa, Simpson argued that there were different modes of evolution. Speciation (splitting up of a population) pertains to species and subspecies. Phyletic evolution (directional shift of average characters of the entire population) was related to the genus level. Quantum evolution (a rapid change of the population from a state of instability to stability) corresponds to higher categories such as families, classes, and orders.
- 4.
Osborn was a champion of the orthogenesis theory as well. He integrated natural selection as one of the several causes which explains evolutionary trends. For more information, see in this volume Ceccarelli 2021.
- 5.
Or we should use the term “developmental bias” to be more precise.
- 6.
This phenomenon is now recognized as stasis (see Gould and Eldredge 1977).
- 7.
For instance, the orthogenesis theories of Osborn and Vialleton are far from being metaphysical or vitalistic. Simpson only recognized this fact in Osborn’s theory. On the other hand, Teilhard de Chardin developed a thought which had nothing to do with orthogenesis, while Robert Broom openly recognized a divine plan.
- 8.
- 9.
Ronal Aylmer Fisher, well-known for founding the population genetics, in his famous book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, argued that orthogenesis was false because experimental experience does not support the assumption that the mutations can be directed toward certain points. Most mutations, according to him, occur randomly and without any adaptive value. However, if the mutations had a steady direction, he reasons, they would have to possess a constancy of rate greater than the required selection to fix the new mutation into the population (see Ochoa 2017).
- 10.
In Principles of Animal Taxonomy (1961), Simpson defines the term of convergence as follows: Convergence is the development of similar characters separately in two or more lineages without a common ancestry pertinent to the similarity but involving adaptation to similar ecological status (Simpson 1961, pp. 78–79; his italics). That is, the characters “may and frequently do also arise as independent convergent adaptations to similar ways of life in taxa of quite different ancestries” (Simpson 1961, p. 78; his italics). For Simpson, and unlike the case of parallelism, similarities instigated under convergence is the product of the action of natural selection on organisms living in similar environments.
References
Adams MB (2021) Little evolution, BIG evolution: rethinking the history of Darwinism, population genetics, and the “synthesis”. In: Delisle RG (ed) Natural selection: revisiting its explanatory role in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 195–230
Amundson R (2005) The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: roots of evo-devo. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Arthur W (2004) The effect of development on the direction of evolution: toward a twenty-first century consensus. Evol Dev 6:282–288
Bowler PJ (1983) The eclipse of Darwinism: anti-Darwinian evolution theories in the decades around 1900. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
Bowler PJ (2017) Alternatives to Darwinism in the early twentieth century. In: Delisle RG (ed) The Darwinian tradition in context: research programs in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 195–218
Cain JA (1992) Building a temporal biology: Simpson’s program for paleontology during an American expansion of biology. Earth Sci Hist 11:30–36
Ceccarelli D (2021) Recasting natural selection: Osborn and the pluralistic view of life. In: Delisle RG (ed) Natural selection: revisiting its explanatory role in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 171–194
De Renzi M (2014) Evolutionary trends promoted by internal causes versus orthogenesis-a discussion. In: Royo-Torres R, Verdú FJ, Alcalá L (eds) XXX Jornadas de Paleontología de la Sociedad Española de Paleontología. ¡Fundamental! vol 24, pp 57–60
Delisle RG (2009) Les philosophies du néo-darwinisme: conceptions divergentes sur l’homme et le sens de l’évolution. PUF, Paris
Delisle RG (2011) What was really synthesized during the evolutionary synthesis? A historiographic proposal. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 42:50–59
Delisle RG (2017) From Charles Darwin to the evolutionary synthesis: weak and diffused connections only. In: Delisle RG (ed) The Darwinian tradition in context: research programs in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 133–167
Diogo R (2017) Evolution driven by organismal behavior: a unifying view of life, function, form, mismatches, and trends. Springer, Cham
Dobzhansky T (1937) Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York
Dobzhansky T (1951) Genetics and the origin of species, 3rd edn. Columbia University Press, New York
Esposito M (2021) Cathedrals, corals and mycelia: three analogies for the history of evolutionary biology. In: Delisle RG (ed) Natural selection: revisiting its explanatory role in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 11–38
Goldschmidt R (1940) The material basis of evolution. Yale University Press, New Haven
Gould SJ (1980) G. G. Simpson, paleontology, and the modern synthesis. In: Mayr E, Provine WB (eds) The evolutionary synthesis: perspectives on the unification of biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 153–172
Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Gould SJ, Eldredge N (1977) Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology 3:115–151
Grehan JR, Ainsworth R (1985) Orthogenesis and evolution. Sys Zool 34:174–192
Haas O, Simpson GG (1946) Analysis of some phylogenetic terms, with attempts at redefinition. Proc Am Phil Soc 90:319–349
Jablonski D (2020) Developmental bias, macroevolution, and the fossil record. Evol Dev 22:103–125
Kellogg VL (1907) Darwinism to-day: a discussion of present-day scientific criticism of the Darwinian selection theories, together with a brief account of the principal other proposed auxiliary and alternative theories of species-forming. G. Bell and Sun, London
Laporte LF (2000) George Gaylord Simpson: paleontologist and evolutionist. Columbia University Press, New York
Levit GS, Olsson L (2006) “Evolution on rails”: mechanisms and levels of orthogenesis. Ann Hist Philos Biol 11:99–138
Levit GS, Meister K, Hoßfeld U (2008) Alternative evolutionary theories: a historical survey. J Bioecon 10:71–96
Mayr E (1942) Systematics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York
Mayr E (1963) Animals species and evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Mayr E (1980a) Prologue: some thoughts on the history of the evolutionary synthesis. In: Mayr E, Provine WB (eds) The evolutionary synthesis: perspectives on the unification of biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–48
Mayr E (1980b) The role of systematics in the evolutionary synthesis. In: Mayr E, Provine WB (eds) The evolutionary synthesis: perspectives on the unification of biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 123–136
Mayr E, Provine WB (eds) (1980) The evolutionary synthesis: perspectives on the unification of biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Moczek AP (2020) Biases in the study of developmental bias. Evol Dev 22:3–6
Monnet C, Klug C, De Baets K (2015) Evolutionary patterns of ammonoids: phenotypic trends, convergence, and parallel evolution. In: Klug C, Korn D, De Baets K, Kruta I, Mapes RH (eds) Ammonoid paleobiology: from macroevolution to paleogeography. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 95–142
Ochoa C (2017) El eclipse del antidarwinismo: la historia detrás de la síntesis moderna. Centro de Estudios Filosóficos, Políticos y Sociales Vicente Lombardo Toledano, México
Ochoa C (2021) The origins of theoretical developmental genetics: reinterpreting William Bateson’s role in the history of evolutionary thought. In: Delisle RG (ed) Natural selection: revisiting its explanatory role in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 261–290
Ochoa C, Barahona A (2014) El Jano de la morfología: de la homología a la homoplasia, historia, debates y evolución. UNAM; Centro de Estudios Filosóficos, Políticos y Sociales Vicente Lombardo Toledano, México
Ochoa C, Rasskin-Gutman D (2015) Evo-devo mechanisms underlying the continuum between homology and homoplasy. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 324:91–103
Pigliucci M (2017) Darwinism after the modern synthesis. In: Delisle RG (ed) The Darwinian tradition in context: research programs in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 89–103
Popov I (2009) The problem of constraints on variation, from Darwin to the present. Ludus Vitalis 17:201–220
Popov I (2018) Orthogenesis versus Darwinism. Translated by Natalia Lentsman. Springer, Cham
Reif W-E (1993) Afterword of OH Schindewolf, basic questions in paleontology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 435–453
Schindewolf OH (1993) Basic questions in paleontology: geologic time, organic evolution, and biological systematics. Translated by Judith Schaefer. Original (1950). University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Schwartz JH (2021) What’s natural about natural selection? In: Delisle RG (ed) Natural selection: revisiting its explanatory role in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 329–390
Scott WB (1891) On the osteology of Mesohippus and Leptomeryx, with observations on the modes and factors of evolution in the Mammalia. J Morphol 5:301–406
Scott WB (1896) Paleontology as a morphological discipline. Science 4:177–188
Sepkoski D (2019) The unfinished synthesis? Paleontology and evolutionary biology in the 20th century. J Hist Biol 52:687–703
Simpson GG (1944) Tempo and mode in evolution. Columbia University Press, New York
Simpson GG (1945) The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 85:1–350
Simpson GG (1948) Biographical memoir of William Berryman Scott, 1858-1947. BMNAS 25:175–203
Simpson GG (1949) The meaning of evolution: a study of the history of life and its significance for man. Yale University Press, New Haven
Simpson GG (1953) The major features of evolution. Columbia University Press, New York
Simpson GG (1961) Principles of animal taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York
Smocovitis VB (1996) Unifying biology: the evolutionary synthesis and evolutionary biology. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Stoltzfus A (2017) Why we don’t want another “Synthesis”. Biol Direct 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13062-017-0194-1
Turner DD (2017) Paleobiology’s uneasy relationship with the Darwinian tradition: stasis as data. In: Delisle RG (ed) The Darwinian tradition in context: research programs in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 333–352
Ulett MA (2014) Making the case for orthogenesis: the popularization of definitely directed evolution (1890-1926). Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 45:124–132
Ulett MA (2016) Directed evolution, history of. In: Kliman RM (ed) The encyclopedia of evolutionary biology. Academic Press, Oxford, pp 441–443
van der Meer JM (2021) The concept of natural selection in Theodosius Dobzhansky. Its development and interpretation. In: Delisle RG (ed) Natural selection: revisiting its explanatory role in evolutionary biology. Springer, Cham, pp 291–328
Wake DB, Wake MH, Specht CD (2011) Homoplasy: from detecting pattern to determining process and mechanism of evolution. Science 331:1032–1035
Wittington HB (1986) George Gaylord Simpson: 16 June 1902 – 6 October 1984. Biogr Mems Fell R Soc 32:526–539
Acknowledgments
I thank Sandra Naitzé Martínez Byer and Aaron Thompson for the English review. I am very grateful to Richard Delisle for the trust that he has placed in me, his support, and his suggestions that improved this work. I also want to thank the reviewers for their suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ochoa, C. (2021). Inertia, Trend, and Momentum Reconsidered: G. G. Simpson—An Orthogeneticist?. In: Delisle, R.G. (eds) Natural Selection. Evolutionary Biology – New Perspectives on Its Development, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65536-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65536-5_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-65535-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-65536-5
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)