What is a trait? Lessons from the human chin.

The chin, a distinguishing feature of Homo sapiens, has sparked ongoing debates regarding its evolutionary origins and adaptive significance. We contend that these controversies stem from a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes a well-defined biological trait, a problem that has received insufficient attention despite its recognized importance in biology. In this paper, we leverage paleoanthropological research on the human chin to investigate the general issue of character or trait identification. First, we examine four accounts of the human chin from the existing literature: the mandibular differential growth byproduct, the bony prominence, the inverted T-relief, and the symphyseal angle. We then generalize from these accounts and propose a three-stage framework for the process of character identification: description, detection, and justification. We use this framework to reinterpret the four accounts, elucidating key points of contention surrounding the chin as well as other morphological characters. We show that debates over the chin carry broad and important biological implications that extend beyond this trait and that are not mere semantic issues of definition.

Reframing research on evolutionary novelty and co-option: Character identity mechanisms versus deep homology.

A central topic in research at the intersection of development and evolution is the origin of novel traits. Despite progress on understanding how developmental mechanisms underlie patterns of diversity in the history of life, the problem of novelty continues to challenge researchers. Here we argue that research on evolutionary novelty and the closely associated phenomenon of co-option can be reframed fruitfully by: (1) specifying a conceptual model of mechanisms that underwrite character identity, (2) providing a richer and more empirically precise notion of co-option that goes beyond common appeals to "deep homology", and (3) attending to the nature of experimental interventions that can determine whether and how the co-option of identity mechanisms can help to explain novel character origins. This reframing has the potential to channel future investigation to make substantive progress on the problem of evolutionary novelty. To illustrate this potential, we apply our reframing to two case studies: treehopper helmets and beetle horns.

The hierarchical basis of serial homology and evolutionary novelty.

Given the pervasiveness of gene sharing in evolution and the extent of homology across the tree of life, why is everything not homologous with everything else? The continuity and overlapping genetic contributions to diverse traits across lineages seem to imply that no discrete determination of homology is possible. Although some argue that the widespread overlap in parts and processes should be acknowledged as "partial" homology, this threatens a broad base of presumed comparative morphological knowledge accepted by most biologists. Following a long scientific tradition, we advocate a strategy of "theoretical articulation" that introduces further distinctions to existing concepts to produce increased contrastive resolution among the labels used to represent biological phenomena. We pursue this strategy by drawing on successful patterns of reasoning from serial homology at the level of gene sequences to generate an enriched characterization of serial homology as a hierarchical, phylogenetic concept. Specifically, we propose that the concept of serial homology should be applied primarily to repeated but developmentally individualized body parts, such as cell types, differentiated body segments, or epidermal appendages. For these characters, a phylogenetic history can be reconstructed, similar to families of paralogous genes, endowing the notion of serial homology with a hierarchical, phylogenetic interpretation. On this basis, we propose a five-fold theoretical classification that permits a more fine-grained mapping of diverse trait-types. This facilitates answering the question of why everything is not homologous with everything else, as well as how novelty is possible given that any new character possesses evolutionary precursors. We illustrate the fecundity of our account by reference to debates over insect wing serial homologs and vertebrate paired appendages.

Homology of process: developmental dynamics in comparative biology.

Comparative biology builds up systematic knowledge of the diversity of life, across evolutionary lineages and levels of organization, starting with evidence from a sparse sample of model organisms. In developmental biology, a key obstacle to the growth of comparative approaches is that the concept of homology is not very well defined for levels of organization that are intermediate between individual genes and morphological characters. In this paper, we investigate what it means for ontogenetic processes to be homologous, focusing specifically on the examples of insect segmentation and vertebrate somitogenesis. These processes can be homologous without homology of the underlying genes or gene networks, since the latter can diverge over evolutionary time, while the dynamics of the process remain the same. Ontogenetic processes like these therefore constitute a dissociable level and distinctive unit of comparison requiring their own specific criteria of homology. In addition, such processes are typically complex and nonlinear, such that their rigorous description and comparison requires not only observation and experimentation, but also dynamical modelling. We propose six criteria of process homology, combining recognized indicators (sameness of parts, morphological outcome and topological position) with novel ones derived from dynamical systems modelling (sameness of dynamical properties, dynamical complexity and evidence for transitional forms). We show how these criteria apply to animal segmentation and other ontogenetic processes. We conclude by situating our proposed dynamical framework for homology of process in relation to similar research programmes, such as process structuralism and developmental approaches to morphological homology.

Genetic Causation in Complex Regulatory Systems: An Integrative Dynamic Perspective.

The logic of genetic discovery has changed little over time, but the focus of biology is shifting from simple genotype-phenotype relationships to complex metabolic, physiological, developmental, and behavioral traits. In light of this, the traditional reductionist view of individual genes as privileged difference-making causes of phenotypes is re-examined. The scope and nature of genetic effects in complex regulatory systems, in which dynamics are driven by regulatory feedback and hierarchical interactions across levels of organization are considered. This review argues that it is appropriate to treat genes as specific actual difference-makers for the molecular regulation of gene expression. However, they are often neither stable, proportional, nor specific as causes of the overall dynamic behavior of regulatory networks. Dynamical models, properly formulated and validated, provide the tools to probe cause-and-effect relationships in complex biological systems, allowing to go beyond the limitations of genetic reductionism to gain an integrative understanding of the causal processes underlying complex phenotypes.

Functional explanation and the problem of functional equivalence.

The legitimacy of functional explanations in biology is threatened by a problem first identified by Hempel: the problem of functional equivalence. In order for the prevalence of a trait to be explained by its function, the function would have to explain why that very trait is prevalent and not some other functionally equivalent trait. But functions alone cannot meet this explanatory demand. I argue that this is a problem not only for Nagelian deductive-nomological models but also for etiological models of functional explanation. I contrast these models with a dual model of adaptive explanation and design explanation. This dual model largely circumvents the problem of functional equivalence, but divests functions of much explanatory power.

Hylomorphism and the metabolic closure conception of life.

This paper examines three exemplary theories of living organization with respect to their common feature of defining life in terms of metabolic closure: autopoiesis, (M, R) systems, and chemoton theory. Metabolic closure is broadly understood to denote the property of organized chemical systems that each component necessary for the maintenance of the system is produced from within the system itself, except for an input of energy. It is argued that two of the theories considered--autopoiesis and (M, R) systems--participate in a hylomorphist pattern of thinking which separates the "form" of the living system from its "matter." The analysis and critique of hylomorphism found in the work of the philosopher Gilbert Simondon is then applied to these two theories, and on the basis of this critique it is argued that the chemoton model offers a superior theory of minimal life which overcomes many of the problems associated with the other two. Throughout, the relationship between hylomorphism and the understanding of living things as machines is explored. The paper concludes by considering how hylomorphism as a background ontology for theories of life fundamentally influences the way life is defined.