Baldwin effect

Last updated

The Baldwin effect compared to Lamarck's theory of evolution, Darwinian evolution, and Waddington's genetic assimilation. All the theories offer explanations of how organisms respond to a changed environment with adaptive inherited change. Lamarck Compared to Darwin, Baldwin, Waddington.svg
The Baldwin effect compared to Lamarck's theory of evolution, Darwinian evolution, and Waddington's genetic assimilation. All the theories offer explanations of how organisms respond to a changed environment with adaptive inherited change.

In evolutionary biology, the Baldwin effect describes an effect of learned behaviour on evolution. James Mark Baldwin and others suggested that an organism's ability to learn new behaviours (e.g. to acclimatise to a new stressor) will affect its reproductive success and will therefore have an effect on the genetic makeup of its species through natural selection. It posits that subsequent selection might reinforce the originally learned behaviors, if adaptive, into more in-born, instinctive ones. Though this process appears similar to Lamarckism, that view proposes that living things inherited their parents' acquired characteristics. The Baldwin effect only posits that learning ability, which is genetically based, is another variable in / contributor to environmental adaptation. First proposed during the Eclipse of Darwinism in the late 19th century, this effect has been independently proposed several times, and today it is generally recognized as part of the modern synthesis.

Contents

"A New Factor in Evolution"

The effect, then unnamed, was put forward in 1896 in a paper "A New Factor in Evolution" by the American psychologist James Mark Baldwin, with a second paper in 1897. [1] [2] The paper proposed a mechanism for specific selection for general learning ability. As the historian of science Robert Richards explains: [3]

If animals entered a new environment—or their old environment rapidly changed—those that could flexibly respond by learning new behaviours or by ontogenetically adapting would be naturally preserved. This saved remnant would, over several generations, have the opportunity to exhibit spontaneously congenital variations similar to their acquired traits and have these variations naturally selected. It would look as though the acquired traits had sunk into the hereditary substance in a Lamarckian fashion, but the process would really be neo-Darwinian. [3]

Selected offspring would tend to have an increased capacity for learning new skills rather than being confined to genetically coded, relatively fixed abilities. In effect, it places emphasis on the fact that the sustained behaviour of a species or group can shape the evolution of that species. The "Baldwin effect" is better understood in evolutionary developmental biology literature as a scenario in which a character or trait change occurring in an organism as a result of its interaction with its environment becomes gradually assimilated into its developmental genetic or epigenetic repertoire. [4] [5] In the words of the philosopher of science Daniel Dennett: [6]

Thanks to the Baldwin effect, species can be said to pretest the efficacy of particular different designs by phenotypic (individual) exploration of the space of nearby possibilities. If a particularly winning setting is thereby discovered, this discovery will create a new selection pressure: organisms that are closer in the adaptive landscape to that discovery will have a clear advantage over those more distant. [6]

An update to the Baldwin effect was developed by Jean Piaget, Paul Weiss, and Conrad Waddington in the 1960s–1970s. This new version included an explicit role for the social in shaping subsequent natural change in humans (both evolutionary and developmental), with reference to alterations of selection pressures. [7]

Subsequent research shows that Baldwin was not the first to identify the process; Douglas Spalding mentioned it in 1873. [8]

Controversy and acceptance

Initially Baldwin's ideas were not incompatible with the prevailing, but uncertain, ideas about the mechanism of transmission of hereditary information and at least two other biologists put forward very similar ideas in 1896. [9] [10] In 1901, Maurice Maeterlinck referred to behavioural adaptations to prevailing climates in different species of bees as "what had merely been an idea, therefore, and opposed to instinct, has thus by slow degrees become an instinctive habit". [11] The Baldwin effect theory subsequently became more controversial, with scholars divided between "Baldwin boosters" and "Baldwin skeptics". [12] The theory was first called the "Baldwin effect" by George Gaylord Simpson in 1953. [12] Simpson "admitted that the idea was theoretically consistent, that is, not inconsistent with the modern synthesis", [12] but he doubted that the phenomenon occurred very often, or if so, could be proven to occur. In his discussion of the reception of the Baldwin-effect theory Simpson points out that the theory appears to provide a reconciliation between a neo-Darwinian and a neo-Lamarckian approach and that "Mendelism and later genetic theory so conclusively ruled out the extreme neo-Lamarckian position that reconciliation came to seem unnecessary". [4] In 1942, the evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley promoted the Baldwin effect as part of the modern synthesis, saying the concept had been unduly neglected by evolutionists. [4] [13] [14]

In the 1960s, the evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr contended that the Baldwin effect theory was untenable because

  1. the argument is stated in terms of the individual genotype, whereas what is really exposed to the selection pressure is a phenotypically and genetically variable population;
  2. it is not sufficiently emphasized that the degree of modification of the phenotype is in itself genetically controlled;
  3. it is assumed that phenotypic rigidity is selectively superior to phenotypic flexibility. [15]

In 1987 Geoffrey Hinton and Steven Nowlan demonstrated by computer simulation that learning can accelerate evolution, and they associated this with the Baldwin effect. [16] [17] [18]

Paul Griffiths [19] suggests two reasons for the continuing interest in the Baldwin effect. The first is the role mind is understood to play in the effect. The second is the connection between development and evolution in the effect. Baldwin's account of how neurophysiological and conscious mental factors may contribute to the effect [20] [21] [1] brings into focus the question of the possible survival value of consciousness. [22]

The house finch's colonisation of North America has provided empirical evidence of the Baldwin effect. Carpodacus mexicanus -Madison, Wisconsin, USA-8.jpg
The house finch's colonisation of North America has provided empirical evidence of the Baldwin effect.

Still, David Depew observed in 2003, "it is striking that a rather diverse lot of contemporary evolutionary theorists, most of whom regard themselves as supporters of the Modern Synthesis, have of late become 'Baldwin boosters'". [12] These

are typically evolutionary psychologists who are searching for scenarios in which a population can get itself by behavioral trial and error onto a "hard to find" part of the fitness landscape in which human brain, language, and mind can rapidly coevolve. They are searching for what Daniel Dennett, himself a Baldwin booster, calls an "evolutionary crane," an instrument to do some heavy lifting fast. [12]

According to Dennett, also in 2003, recent work has rendered the Baldwin effect "no longer a controversial wrinkle in orthodox Darwinism". [6] Potential genetic mechanisms underlying the Baldwin effect have been proposed for the evolution of natural (genetically determinant) antibodies. [24] In 2009, empirical evidence for the Baldwin effect was provided from the colonisation of North America by the house finch. [23]

The Baldwin effect has been incorporated into the extended evolutionary synthesis. [25] [26] [27]

Comparison with genetic assimilation

The Baldwin effect has been confused with, and sometimes conflated with, a different evolutionary theory also based on phenotypic plasticity, C. H. Waddington's genetic assimilation. The Baldwin effect includes genetic accommodation, of which one type is genetic assimilation. [28] Science historian Laurent Loison has written that "the Baldwin effect and genetic assimilation, even if they are quite close, should not be conflated". [29]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 Baldwin 1896a.
  2. ↑ Baldwin 1897.
  3. 1 2 Richards, Robert J. (1987). Darwin and the Emergence of Evolutionary Theories of Mind and Behavior . The University of Chicago Press. p.  399. ISBN   978-0-226-71199-7.
  4. 1 2 3 Simpson 1953.
  5. ↑ Newman 2002.
  6. 1 2 3 Dennett, Daniel (2003), "The Baldwin Effect: a Crane, not a Skyhook" in: Weber, Bruce H.; Depew, David J. (2003). Evolution and Learning: The Baldwin Effect Reconsidered. MIT Press. pp. 69–106. ISBN   978-0-262-23229-6.
  7. ↑ Burman, J. T. (2013). "Updating the Baldwin Effect: The biological levels behind Piaget's new theory". New Ideas in Psychology. 31 (3): 363–373. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2012.07.003.
  8. ↑ Noble, R.; Noble, D. (2017) Was the Watchmaker Blind? Or Was She One-Eyed? Biology 2017, 6(4), 47; doi:10.3390/biology6040047, quoting Bateson, P. The adaptability driver: Links between behaviour and evolution. Biol. Theory 2006, 1, 342–345. See also Stigler's law.
  9. ↑ Morgan, C. L. (1896). "On modification and variation". Science. 4 (99): 733–740. Bibcode:1896Sci.....4..733L. doi:10.1126/science.4.99.733. PMID   17735249.
  10. ↑ Osborne, H. F. (1896). "Ontogenic and phylogenic variation". Science. 4 (100): 786–789. Bibcode:1896Sci.....4..786O. doi:10.1126/science.4.100.786. PMID   17734840.
  11. ↑ Materlinck, Maurice (1901). The Life of the Bee. Dodd, Mead and Co. pp. Chapter VII section 102.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 Depew, David J. (2003), "Baldwin Boosters, Baldwin Skeptics" in: Weber, Bruce H.; Depew, David J. (2003). Evolution and Learning: The Baldwin Effect Reconsidered. MIT Press. pp. 3–31. ISBN   978-0-262-23229-6.
  13. ↑ Scheiner, Samuel M. (2014). "The Baldwin Effect: Neglected and Misunderstood". The American Naturalist. University of Chicago Press. 184 (4): ii–iii. doi:10.1086/677944. ISSN   0003-0147. PMID   25354416. S2CID   9214778.
  14. ↑ Belew, Richard K. (2018). Adaptive Individuals In Evolving Populations: Models And Algorithms. Taylor & Francis. p. 100. ISBN   978-0-429-97145-7.
  15. ↑ Mayr, Ernst (1963). Animal Species and Evolution . Harvard University Press. ISBN   978-0-674-03750-2.
  16. ↑ Hinton, Geoffrey E.; Nowlan, Steven J. (1987). "How learning can guide evolution". Complex Systems. 1: 495–502.
  17. ↑ Maynard Smith, John (1987). "When learning guides evolution". Nature. 329 (6142): 761–762. Bibcode:1987Natur.329..761S. doi: 10.1038/329761a0 . PMID   3670381. S2CID   5476916.
  18. ↑ Puentedura, Ruben R. (2003). "The Baldwin effect in the age of computation". In Weber, Bruce H.; Depew, David J. (eds.). Evolution and Learning: The Baldwin Effect Reconsidered . MIT press. pp.  219–234. ISBN   9780262232296.
  19. ↑ Griffiths, Paul E. (2003). "Beyond the Baldwin effect: James Mark Baldwin's 'social heredity', epigenetic inheritance, and niche construction". In Weber, Bruce H.; Depew, David J. (eds.). Evolution and Learning: The Baldwin Effect Reconsidered . MIT Press. pp. 193–215. ISBN   9780262232296.
  20. ↑ Baldwin, J. Mark (1896b). "Heredity and instinct". Science. 3 (64): 438–441, 558–561. Bibcode:1896Sci.....3..438B. doi:10.1126/science.3.64.438. PMID   17780356.
  21. ↑ Baldwin, J. Mark (1896c). "Consciousness and evolution". Psychological Review. 3 (3): 300–309. doi:10.1037/h0063996. PMID   17835006.
  22. ↑ Lindahl, B. I. B. (2001). "Consciousness, behavioural patterns and the direction of biological evolution: implications for the mind–brain problem". In Pylkkänen, Paavo; Vadén, Tere (eds.). Dimensions of Conscious Experience . John Benjamins. pp. 73–99. ISBN   978-90-272-5157-2.
  23. 1 2 Badyaev, Alexander V. (March 2009). "Evolutionary significance of phenotypic accommodation in novel environments: an empirical test of the Baldwin effect". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B. 364 (1520): 1125–1141. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0285. PMC   2666683 . PMID   19324617.
  24. ↑ Anderson, Russell (1996). "How the adaptive antibodies facilitate the evolution of natural antibodies". Immunology and Cell Biology. 74 (2): 286–291. doi:10.1038/icb.1996.50. PMID   8799730. S2CID   20023879.
  25. ↑ Pigliucci, Massimo. Phenotypic Plasticity. In Massimo Pigliucci, and Gerd B. Müller (eds), Evolution: The Extended Synthesis (Cambridge, MA, 2010; online edn, MIT Press Scholarship Online, 22 Aug. 2013).
  26. ↑ Loison, Laurent (2019). "Canalization and genetic assimilation: Reassessing the radicality of the Waddingtonian concept of inheritance of acquired characters". Semin Cell Dev Biol. 88: 4–13. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2018.05.009 . PMID   29763656.
  27. ↑ Aaby, Bendik Hellem (2022). "The Ecological Dimension of Natural Selection". Philosophy of Science. 88 (5): 1199–1209. doi:10.1086/714999.
  28. ↑ Crispo, Erika (2007). "The Baldwin effect and genetic assimilation: revisiting two mechanisms of evolutionary change mediated by phenotypic plasticity". Evolution. 61 (11): 2469–2479. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00203.x . PMID   17714500. S2CID   9292273.
  29. ↑ Loison, Laurent (2021). "Epigenetic inheritance and evolution: a historian's perspective". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 376 (1826). doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0120 . PMC   8059632 .

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Natural selection</span> Mechanism of evolution by differential survival and reproduction of individuals

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection", contrasting it with artificial selection, which is intentional, whereas natural selection is not.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Modern synthesis (20th century)</span> Fusion of natural selection with Mendelian inheritance

The modern synthesis was the early 20th-century synthesis of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and Gregor Mendel's ideas on heredity into a joint mathematical framework. Julian Huxley coined the term in his 1942 book, Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. The synthesis combined the ideas of natural selection, Mendelian genetics, and population genetics. It also related the broad-scale macroevolution seen by palaeontologists to the small-scale microevolution of local populations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lamarckism</span> Scientific hypothesis about inheritance

Lamarckism, also known as Lamarckian inheritance or neo-Lamarckism, is the notion that an organism can pass on to its offspring physical characteristics that the parent organism acquired through use or disuse during its lifetime. It is also called the inheritance of acquired characteristics or more recently soft inheritance. The idea is named after the French zoologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829), who incorporated the classical era theory of soft inheritance into his theory of evolution as a supplement to his concept of orthogenesis, a drive towards complexity.

Population genetics is a subfield of genetics that deals with genetic differences within and among populations, and is a part of evolutionary biology. Studies in this branch of biology examine such phenomena as adaptation, speciation, and population structure.

Evolvability is defined as the capacity of a system for adaptive evolution. Evolvability is the ability of a population of organisms to not merely generate genetic diversity, but to generate adaptive genetic diversity, and thereby evolve through natural selection.

In biology, adaptation has three related meanings. Firstly, it is the dynamic evolutionary process of natural selection that fits organisms to their environment, enhancing their evolutionary fitness. Secondly, it is a state reached by the population during that process. Thirdly, it is a phenotypic trait or adaptive trait, with a functional role in each individual organism, that is maintained and has evolved through natural selection.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">C. H. Waddington</span> British biologist

Conrad Hal Waddington was a British developmental biologist, paleontologist, geneticist, embryologist and philosopher who laid the foundations for systems biology, epigenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology.

The gene-centered view of evolution, gene's eye view, gene selection theory, or selfish gene theory holds that adaptive evolution occurs through the differential survival of competing genes, increasing the allele frequency of those alleles whose phenotypic trait effects successfully promote their own propagation. The proponents of this viewpoint argue that, since heritable information is passed from generation to generation almost exclusively by DNA, natural selection and evolution are best considered from the perspective of genes.

Evolutionary capacitance is the storage and release of variation, just as electric capacitors store and release charge. Living systems are robust to mutations. This means that living systems accumulate genetic variation without the variation having a phenotypic effect. But when the system is disturbed, robustness breaks down, and the variation has phenotypic effects and is subject to the full force of natural selection. An evolutionary capacitor is a molecular switch mechanism that can "toggle" genetic variation between hidden and revealed states. If some subset of newly revealed variation is adaptive, it becomes fixed by genetic assimilation. After that, the rest of variation, most of which is presumably deleterious, can be switched off, leaving the population with a newly evolved advantageous trait, but no long-term handicap. For evolutionary capacitance to increase evolvability in this way, the switching rate should not be faster than the timescale of genetic assimilation.

Eva Jablonka is an Israeli evolutionary theorist and geneticist, known especially for her interest in epigenetic inheritance. Born in 1952 in Poland, she emigrated to Israel in 1957. She is a professor at the Cohn Institute for the History of Philosophy of Science and Ideas at Tel Aviv University. In 1981 she was awarded the Landau prize of Israel for outstanding Master of Science (M.Sc.) work and in 1988, the Marcus prize for outstanding Ph.D. work. She is a proponent of academic freedom, recognising that on such matters, "academic and political issues cannot really be kept apart", although she is not a proponent of simplistic solutions, and shows a preference to describe her own position.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Facilitated variation</span>

The theory of facilitated variation demonstrates how seemingly complex biological systems can arise through a limited number of regulatory genetic changes, through the differential re-use of pre-existing developmental components. The theory was presented in 2005 by Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canalisation (genetics)</span> Measure of the ability of a population to produce the same phenotype

Canalisation is a measure of the ability of a population to produce the same phenotype regardless of variability of its environment or genotype. It is a form of evolutionary robustness. The term was coined in 1942 by C. H. Waddington to capture the fact that "developmental reactions, as they occur in organisms submitted to natural selection...are adjusted so as to bring about one definite end-result regardless of minor variations in conditions during the course of the reaction". He used this word rather than robustness to consider that biological systems are not robust in quite the same way as, for example, engineered systems.

Genetic assimilation is a process described by Conrad H. Waddington by which a phenotype originally produced in response to an environmental condition, such as exposure to a teratogen, later becomes genetically encoded via artificial selection or natural selection. Despite superficial appearances, this does not require the (Lamarckian) inheritance of acquired characters, although epigenetic inheritance could potentially influence the result. Waddington stated that genetic assimilation overcomes the barrier to selection imposed by what he called canalization of developmental pathways; he supposed that the organism's genetics evolved to ensure that development proceeded in a certain way regardless of normal environmental variations.

Developmental systems theory (DST) is an overarching theoretical perspective on biological development, heredity, and evolution. It emphasizes the shared contributions of genes, environment, and epigenetic factors on developmental processes. DST, unlike conventional scientific theories, is not directly used to help make predictions for testing experimental results; instead, it is seen as a collection of philosophical, psychological, and scientific models of development and evolution. As a whole, these models argue the inadequacy of the modern evolutionary synthesis on the roles of genes and natural selection as the principal explanation of living structures. Developmental systems theory embraces a large range of positions that expand biological explanations of organismal development and hold modern evolutionary theory as a misconception of the nature of living processes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evolutionary physiology</span> Study of changes in physiological characteristics

Evolutionary physiology is the study of the biological evolution of physiological structures and processes; that is, the manner in which the functional characteristics of individuals in a population of organisms have responded to natural selection across multiple generations during the history of the population. It is a sub-discipline of both physiology and evolutionary biology. Practitioners in the field come from a variety of backgrounds, including physiology, evolutionary biology, ecology, and genetics.

Marion Julia Lamb was Senior Lecturer at Birkbeck, University of London, before her retirement. She studied the effect of environmental conditions such as heat, radiation and pollution on metabolic activity and genetic mutability in the fruit fly Drosophila. From the late 1980s, Lamb collaborated with Eva Jablonka, researching and writing on the inheritance of epigenetic variations, and in 2005 they co-authored the book Evolution in Four Dimensions, considered by some to be in the vanguard of an ongoing revolution within evolutionary biology.

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) consists of a set of theoretical concepts argued to be more comprehensive than the earlier modern synthesis of evolutionary biology that took place between 1918 and 1942. The extended evolutionary synthesis was called for in the 1950s by C. H. Waddington, argued for on the basis of punctuated equilibrium by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in the 1980s, and was reconceptualized in 2007 by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Müller.

State switching is a fundamental physiological process in which a cell/organism undergoes spontaneous, and potentially reversible, transitions between different phenotypes. Thus, the ability to switch states/phenotypes is a key feature of development and normal function of cells within most multicellular organisms that enables the cell to respond to various intrinsic and extrinsic cues and stimuli in a concerted fashion enabling them to ‘make’ appropriate cellular decisions. Although state switching is essential for normal functioning, the repertoire of phenotypes in a normal cell is albeit limited.

In biology, reciprocal causation arises when developing organisms are both products of evolution as well as causes of evolution. Formally, reciprocal causation exists when process A is a cause of process B and, subsequently, process B is a cause of process A, with this feedback potentially repeated. Some researchers, particularly advocates of the extended evolutionary synthesis, promote the view that causation in biological systems is inherently reciprocal.

In biology, constructive development refers to the hypothesis that organisms shape their own developmental trajectory by constantly responding to, and causing, changes in both their internal state and their external environment. Constructive development can be contrasted with programmed development, the hypothesis that organisms develop according to a genetic program or blueprint. The constructivist perspective is found in philosophy, most notably developmental systems theory, and in the biological and social sciences, including developmental psychobiology and key themes of the extended evolutionary synthesis. Constructive development may be important to evolution because it enables organisms to produce functional phenotypes in response to genetic or environmental perturbation, and thereby contributes to adaptation and diversification.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.