The genetic control paradigm in biology: What we say, and what we are entitled to mean.

We comment on the article by Keith Baverstock (2021) and provide critiques of the concepts of genetic control, genetic blueprint and genetic program.

Understanding Drivers of Variation and Predicting Variability Across Levels of Biological Organization.

Differences within a biological system are ubiquitous, creating variation in nature. Variation underlies all evolutionary processes and allows persistence and resilience in changing environments; thus, uncovering the drivers of variation is critical. The growing recognition that variation is central to biology presents a timely opportunity for determining unifying principles that drive variation across biological levels of organization. Currently, most studies that consider variation are focused at a single biological level and not integrated into a broader perspective. Here we explain what variation is and how it can be measured. We then discuss the importance of variation in natural systems, and briefly describe the biological research that has focused on variation. We outline some of the barriers and solutions to studying variation and its drivers in biological systems. Finally, we detail the challenges and opportunities that may arise when studying the drivers of variation due to the multi-level nature of biological systems. Examining the drivers of variation will lead to a reintegration of biology. It will further forge interdisciplinary collaborations and open opportunities for training diverse quantitative biologists. We anticipate that these insights will inspire new questions and new analytic tools to study the fundamental questions of what drives variation in biological systems and how variation has shaped life.

Competitive and Coordinative Interactions between Body Parts Produce Adaptive Developmental Outcomes.

Large-scale patterns of correlated growth in development are partially driven by competition for metabolic and informational resources. It is argued that competition between organs for limited resources is an important mesoscale morphogenetic mechanism that produces fitness-enhancing correlated growth. At the genetic level, the growth of individual characters appears independent, or "modular," because patterns of expression and transcription are often highly localized, mutations have trait-specific effects, and gene complexes can be co-opted as a unit to produce novel traits. However, body parts are known to interact over the course of ontogeny, and these reciprocal exchanges can be an important determinant of developmental outcomes. Genetic mechanisms underlie cell and tissue behaviors that allow organs to communicate with one another, but they also create evolutionarily adaptive competitive dynamics that are driven by physiological and biophysical processes. Advances in the understanding of competitive and closely related coordinative interactions across scales will complement existing research programs that emphasize the role of cellular mechanisms in morphogenesis. Study of the large-scale order produced by competitive dynamics promises to facilitate advances in basic evolutionary and developmental biology, as well as applied research in fields such as bioengineering and regenerative medicine that aim to regulate patterning outcomes.

Unmodern Synthesis: Developmental Hierarchies and the Origin of Phenotypes.

The question of whether the modern evolutionary synthesis requires an extension has recently become a topic of discussion, and a source of controversy. We suggest that this debate is, for the most part, not about the modern synthesis at all. Rather, it is about the extent to which genetic mechanisms can be regarded as the primary determinants of phenotypic characters. The modern synthesis has been associated with the idea that phenotypes are the result of gene products, while supporters of the extended synthesis have suggested that environmental factors, along with processes such as epigenetic inheritance, and niche construction play an important role in character formation. We argue that the methodology of the modern evolutionary synthesis has been enormously successful, but does not provide an accurate characterization of the origin of phenotypes. For its part, the extended synthesis has yet to be transformed into a testable theory, and accordingly, has yielded few results. We conclude by suggesting that the origin of phenotypes can only be understood by integrating findings from all levels of the organismal hierarchy. In most cases, parts and processes from a single level fail to accurately explain the presence of a given phenotypic trait.

Superorganismality and caste differentiation as points of no return: how the major evolutionary transitions were lost in translation.

More than a century ago, William Morton Wheeler proposed that social insect colonies can be regarded as superorganisms when they have morphologically differentiated reproductive and nursing castes that are analogous to the metazoan germ-line and soma. Following the rise of sociobiology in the 1970s, Wheeler's insights were largely neglected, and we were left with multiple new superorganism concepts that are mutually inconsistent and uninformative on how superorganismality originated. These difficulties can be traced to the broadened sociobiological concept of eusociality, which denies that physical queen-worker caste differentiation is a universal hallmark of superorganismal colonies. Unlike early evolutionary naturalists and geneticists such as Weismann, Huxley, Fisher and Haldane, who set out to explain the acquisition of an unmated worker caste, the goal of sociobiology was to understand the evolution of eusociality, a broad-brush convenience category that covers most forms of cooperative breeding. By lumping a diverse spectrum of social systems into a single category, and drawing attention away from the evolution of distinct quantifiable traits, the sociobiological tradition has impeded straightforward connections between inclusive fitness theory and the major evolutionary transitions paradigm for understanding irreversible shifts to higher organizational complexity. We evaluate the history by which these inconsistencies accumulated, develop a common-cause approach for understanding the origins of all major transitions in eukaryote hierarchical complexity, and use Hamilton's rule to argue that they are directly comparable. We show that only Wheeler's original definition of superorganismality can be unambiguously linked to irreversible evolutionary transitions from context-dependent reproductive altruism to unconditional differentiation of permanently unmated castes in the ants, corbiculate bees, vespine wasps and higher termites. We argue that strictly monogamous parents were a necessary, albeit not sufficient condition for all transitions to superorganismality, analogous to single-zygote bottlenecking being a necessary but not sufficient condition for the convergent origins of complex soma across multicellular eukaryotes. We infer that conflict reduction was not a necessary condition for the origin of any of these major transitions, and conclude that controversies over the status of inclusive fitness theory primarily emanate from the arbitrarily defined sociobiological concepts of superorganismality and eusociality, not from the theory itself.

Neither logical empiricism nor vitalism, but organicism: what the philosophy of biology was.

Philosophy of biology is often said to have emerged in the last third of the twentieth century. Prior to this time, it has been alleged that the only authors who engaged philosophically with the life sciences were either logical empiricists who sought to impose the explanatory ideals of the physical sciences onto biology, or vitalists who invoked mystical agencies in an attempt to ward off the threat of physicochemical reduction. These schools paid little attention to actual biological science, and as a result philosophy of biology languished in a state of futility for much of the twentieth century. The situation, we are told, only began to change in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when a new generation of researchers began to focus on problems internal to biology, leading to the consolidation of the discipline. In this paper we challenge this widely accepted narrative of the history of philosophy of biology. We do so by arguing that the most important tradition within early twentieth-century philosophy of biology was neither logical empiricism nor vitalism, but the organicist movement that flourished between the First and Second World Wars. We show that the organicist corpus is thematically and methodologically continuous with the contemporary literature in order to discredit the view that early work in the philosophy of biology was unproductive, and we emphasize the desirability of integrating the historical and contemporary conversations into a single, unified discourse.

Rethinking Woodger's Legacy in the Philosophy of Biology.

The writings of Joseph Henry Woodger (1894-1981) are often taken to exemplify everything that was wrongheaded, misguided, and just plain wrong with early twentieth-century philosophy of biology. Over the years, commentators have said of Woodger: (a) that he was a fervent logical empiricist who tried to impose the explanatory gold standards of physics onto biology, (b) that his philosophical work was completely disconnected from biological science, (c) that he possessed no scientific or philosophical credentials, and (d) that his work was disparaged - if not altogether ignored - by the biologists and philosophers of his era. In this paper, we provide the first systematic examination of Woodger's oeuvre, and use it to demonstrate that the four preceding claims are false. We argue that Woodger's ideas have exerted an important influence on biology and philosophy, and submit that the current consensus on his legacy stems from a highly selective reading of his works. By rehabilitating Woodger, we hope to show that there is no good reason to continue to disregard the numerous contributions to the philosophy of biology produced in the decades prior to the professionalization of the discipline.