Genetic reductionism is increasingly seen as a severely limited approach to understanding living systems. The Neo-Darwinian explanatory framework tends to overlook the role of the organism for an understanding of development and evolution. In the current fast-changing theoretical landscape, the autopoietic approach provides conceptual distinctions and tools that may contribute to building an alternative framework. In this article, I examine the implications of the theories of autopoiesis and natural drift for an organism-centered view of evolution. By shifting the attention from genes to ontogenetic organism-niche configurations and their transformations over generations, this approach presents a compelling perspective on the role of organismal behavior in guiding phylogenetic drift.
BichL.EtxeberriaA. (2013). Systems, autopoietic. In DubitzkyW.WolkenhauerO.ChoK-H.YokotaH. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of systems biology (pp. 2110–2113). Springer.
2.
DiogoR. (2017). Evolution driven by organismal behavior: A unifying view of life, function, form, mismatches and trends. Springer.
3.
DupréJ.NicholsonD. J. (2018). A manifesto for a processual philosophy of biology. In NicholsonD. J.DupréJ. (Eds.), Everything flows: Towards a processual philosophy of biology (pp. 3–45). Oxford University Press.
4.
Fox KellerE. (2000). The century of the gene. Harvard University Press.
5.
GouldS. J.LewontinR. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 205(1161), 581–598.
6.
GriffithsP. E.TaberyJ. G. (2013). Developmental systems theory: What does it explain, and how does it explain it? In LernerR. M.BensonJ. B. (Eds.), Embodiment and epigenesis: Theoretical and methodological issues in understanding the role of biology within the relational developmental system. Part A: Philosophical, theoretical, and biological dimensions (pp. 65–94). Elsevier.
7.
HerringtonE.JablonkaE. (2020). Creating a “gestalt shift” in evolutionary science: Roles for metaphor in the conceptual landscape of the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES). Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 45(3), 360–379.
8.
HunemanP.WalshD. M. (2017). Challenging the modern synthesis: Adaptation, development, and inheritance. Oxford University Press.
9.
JablonkaE. (2017). The evolutionary implications of epigenetic inheritance. Interface Focus, 7, 20160135.
10.
JablonkaE.LambM. (2014). Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life (2nd ed.). The MIT Press.
11.
JablonkaE.LambM. (2020). Inheritance systems and the extended evolutionary synthesis. Cambridge University Press.
12.
LalandK. N.UllerT.FeldmanM. W.SterelnyK.MüllerG. B.MoczekA.JablonkaE.Odling-SmeeJ. (2015). The extended evolutionary synthesis: Its structure, assumptions and predictions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1813), 20151019.
13.
LewontinR. C. (2000). The triple helix: Gene, organism and environment. Harvard University Press.
14.
LongoG.MossioM. (2020). Geocentrism vs genocentrism: Theories without metaphors, metaphors without theories. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 45(3), 380–405.
15.
MaturanaH. (2002). Autopoiesis, structural coupling and cognition: A history of these and other notions in the biology of cognition. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 9, 5–34.
16.
MaturanaH.MpodozisJ. (2000). The origin of species by means of natural drift. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 732(2), 261–310.
17.
MaturanaH.VarelaF. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Reidel.
18.
MaturanaH.VarelaF. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Shambhala.
19.
MayrE. (1980). Prologue: Some thoughts on the history of the evolutionary synthesis. In MayrE.ProvineW. B. (Eds.), The evolutionary synthesis: Perspectives on the unification of biology (pp. 1–48). Harvard University Press.
20.
MossioM.MontévilM.LongoG. (2016). Theoretical principles for biology: Organization. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 122(1), 24–35.
21.
NicholsonD. J. (2014). The return of the organism as a fundamental explanatory concept. Biology Philosophy Compass, 9(5), 347–335.
22.
NicholsonD. J.DupréJ. (Eds.). (2018). Everything flows: Towards a processual philosophy of Biology. Oxford University Press.
23.
OyamaS. (2000). Evolution’s eye: A systems view of the biology-culture divide. Duke University Press.
24.
OyamaS. (2011). Life in mind: Commentary on Evan Thompson’s “mind in life.”Journal of Consciousness Studies, 18(5–6), 83–93.
25.
OyamaS.GriffithsP.GrayR. (2001). Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution. The MIT Press.
26.
PigliucciM.MüllerG. (Eds.). (2010). Evolution: The extended synthesis. The MIT Press.
27.
PopperK. R. (1994). Knowledge and the body - mind problem: in defence of interaction. Routledge.
28.
RaimondiV. (2019). The role of languaging in human evolution: An approach based on the theory of natural drift. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 15(4), 675–696.
29.
SotoA. M.SonnenscheinC. (2020). Information, programme, signal: Dead metaphors that negate the agency of organisms. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 45(3), 331–343.
30.
StewartJ. (2001). Radical constructivism in biology and cognitive science. Foundations of Science, 6, 99–124.
31.
StewartJ. (2004). La vie existe-t-elle? Réconcilier génétique et biologie. Vuibert.
32.
StewartJ. (2010). Foundational issues in enaction as a paradigm for cognitive science: From the origin of life to consciousness and writing. In StewartJ.GapenneO.Di PaoloE. (Eds.), Enaction: Toward a new paradigm for cognitive science (pp. 1–31). The MIT Press.
33.
StewartJ. (2019). Breathing life into biology. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
34.
ThompsonE. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Harvard University Press.
35.
VarelaF. (1979). Principles of biological autonomy. Elsevier North Holland.
36.
VarelaF. (1987). Laying down a path in walking: A biologist’s look at a new biology. Cybernetic, 2, 6–15.
37.
VarelaF.ThompsonE.RoschE. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. The MIT Press.
38.
VargasA. O. (2005). Beyond selection. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 78, 4739–4752.
39.
VargasA. O.BotelhoJ. F.MpodozisJ. (2020). The evolutionary consequences of epigenesis and neutral change: A conceptual approach at the organismal level. The Journal of Experimental Zoology. Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.b.23023
40.
WagnerA. (2008). Robustness and evolvability: A paradox resolved. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 275(1630), 91–100.
41.
WagnerA. (2011). The origins of evolutionary innovations: A theory of transformative change in living systems. Oxford University Press.
42.
West-EberhardM. J. (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press.
43.
West-EberhardM. J. (2005). Developmental plasticity and the origin of species differences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 6543–6549.
