TY - CHAP

T1 - Natural Selection, Morphoprocess and a Logical Field of Evolutionary Concepts

AU - Granovitch, A. I.

N1 - Granovitch A.I. (2021) Natural Selection, Morphoprocess and a Logical Field of Evolutionary Concepts. 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_13

PY - 2021

Y1 - 2021

N2 - Since the publication of The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (1859), the mechanism of natural selection has invariably been considered as the main force of transformism. This tradition culminated in the paradigm of the Modern Synthesis. This study invites the reader to critically examine the precept that selectogenesis is the only possible framework for an evolutionary synthesis. Abundant data on the organisation of living systems at all levels, from molecules to ecosystems, indicate that various evolutionary mechanisms are possible, including those in which natural selection is not the main driving force. Time has come to take a broader look and develop a “logical field” of approaches allowing the explanation of evolution in all its diversity.We will begin with the consideration of the mechanism of natural selection with its two main prerequisites, tychogenesis and selectogenesis. The first prerequisite, tychogenesis, seems a phantom in the light of the modern data on the canalised, limited, species-specific and dynamic range of the hereditary variation. The second prerequisite, selectogenesis, is extremely difficult to test. Further, the model of natural selection has several grave flaws. It underestimates the conditional nature of the importance of hereditary characters in the context of the organism’s interaction with the environment; makes an unfounded extrapolation that the vector of selectogenetic impact is the same in the series of generations; misjudges the possibilities of the organism as a regulatory, self-organising system; and dismisses the possibility of transgenerational transfer of structural, dynamic and epigenetic information. Last but not least, it lacks the mechanism responsible for an increasing complexity of the morphofunctional features of organisms. Thus, overwhelming evidence indicates that the model of natural selection cannot be realistically considered as the major mechanism of transformism. Numerous diverse approaches to the explanation of evolutionary mechanisms have been suggested during the last two centuries. It is their combination rather than the elaboration of the selectogenetic narrative alone that should underlie the new evolutionary thinking. “Evolutionary syntheses” based on selectogenesis are no longer productive. What is needed is a total reset of evolutionary thought or, one may say, the development of the platform Evolution 2.0.

AB - Since the publication of The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (1859), the mechanism of natural selection has invariably been considered as the main force of transformism. This tradition culminated in the paradigm of the Modern Synthesis. This study invites the reader to critically examine the precept that selectogenesis is the only possible framework for an evolutionary synthesis. Abundant data on the organisation of living systems at all levels, from molecules to ecosystems, indicate that various evolutionary mechanisms are possible, including those in which natural selection is not the main driving force. Time has come to take a broader look and develop a “logical field” of approaches allowing the explanation of evolution in all its diversity.We will begin with the consideration of the mechanism of natural selection with its two main prerequisites, tychogenesis and selectogenesis. The first prerequisite, tychogenesis, seems a phantom in the light of the modern data on the canalised, limited, species-specific and dynamic range of the hereditary variation. The second prerequisite, selectogenesis, is extremely difficult to test. Further, the model of natural selection has several grave flaws. It underestimates the conditional nature of the importance of hereditary characters in the context of the organism’s interaction with the environment; makes an unfounded extrapolation that the vector of selectogenetic impact is the same in the series of generations; misjudges the possibilities of the organism as a regulatory, self-organising system; and dismisses the possibility of transgenerational transfer of structural, dynamic and epigenetic information. Last but not least, it lacks the mechanism responsible for an increasing complexity of the morphofunctional features of organisms. Thus, overwhelming evidence indicates that the model of natural selection cannot be realistically considered as the major mechanism of transformism. Numerous diverse approaches to the explanation of evolutionary mechanisms have been suggested during the last two centuries. It is their combination rather than the elaboration of the selectogenetic narrative alone that should underlie the new evolutionary thinking. “Evolutionary syntheses” based on selectogenesis are no longer productive. What is needed is a total reset of evolutionary thought or, one may say, the development of the platform Evolution 2.0.

KW - Evolutionary concepts

KW - Morphoprocess and dissipative structures

KW - Natural selection

KW - Adaptogenesis and self-organisation

KW - Models of microevolution

UR - https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-65536-5_13

M3 - Chapter

SN - 978-3-030-65535-8

SN - 978-3-030-65536-5

T3 - Evolutionary Biology – New Perspectives on Its Development

SP - 391

EP - 418

BT - Natural Selection

A2 - Delisle, R. G.

PB - Springer Nature

CY - Cham

ER -