Invited guests only

The relationship between development and adaptive diversification has always been at the centre of debates on evolution. Even before the Origin of Species, there was disagreement over what came first, form or function? Darwin seemingly resolved the issue by the theory of evolution by natural selection, which to many biologists implies that adaptive evolutionary change can be explained solely in terms of fitness differences. The counterargument is that developmental processes must contribute adaptive directionality in evolution because development is the source of all phenotypic variation: development is what enables the appearance of phenotypes that are both novel and functional. However, this argument, and its many variants, has never managed to gain traction. Indeed, biologists and philosophers have frequently claimed that, while developmental processes may shape the patterns of evolution, the logic of evolution by natural selection prevents development from contributing to the explanation for adaptive evolution. An asymmetry exists in contemporary understanding of evolutionary causality among evolutionary biologists, whereby developmental causes are explained by earlier natural selection, but not vice-versa. Claims that development is the ‘first order cause’ of adaptive evolution (West-Eberhard 2003) have either been ignored or dismissed.

Nonetheless, recent work from a wide range of fields points towards some form of conceptual change. Zooming in on molecular, cell and developmental biology, researchers are beginning to ask what it is about living systems that explains their capacity to accommodate genetic and environmental perturbations in a functional manner, and whether the ability of developmental systems to produce adaptive solutions explains why organisms are so good at adapting to new challenges. Zooming out, other researchers are asking to what extent macro-evolution follows ‘lines of least developmental resistance’, as well as whether bursts of diversification are associated with developmental reorganization, and whether developmental bias explains why organisms adapt in some ways rather than others. Combining these perspectives, recently researchers have made progress on understanding how and why the capacity to generate adaptive phenotypic variation itself evolves, manifesting in differences between organisms in their capacity to evolve, or ‘evolvability’.

These empirical and theoretical advances are paralleled by efforts within philosophy of biology to understand the structure of evolutionary theory, and the nature of evolutionary explanation. As a result, traditional explanatory agendas are called into question, opening up the possibility that generative and selective processes do not, after all, represent explanations to different questions (i.e., ‘how?’ and ‘why?’). To the contrary, it now seems possible that an integration of selective and developmental explanations may result in explanations of adaptive evolutionary change that might in some respects be considered ‘better’ than explanations solely reliant on natural selection.

This workshop brings together leading researchers who approach evolvability from a developmentalist perspective. In a nutshell, the workshop aims for making progress at different scales and participants together embark on an intellectual journey. We begin with a welcome address, followed by a reflection on the history of our field and past efforts to acknowledge developmental influences on evolvability. Next, we delve into evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) to explore the fundamental principles of how organisms are built. From there, we take a broader view, examining how developmental processes shape evolutionary outcomes (devo-evo). Finally, we conclude with a philosophical discussion on whether and to what extent the developmentalist perspective on evolvability provides a robust and productive research framework.