ReviewDevelopment genes and evolution
Unburdening evo-devo: ancestral attractions, model organisms, and basal baloney.
Review in Development genes and evolution. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Horizontal gene transfer rivals gene duplication as a source of anti-parasitoid immune innovation in the Drosophilidae.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Reflections on Model Species in Evolutionary Developmental Biology.Results and problems in cell differentiation · 2026Review
- Alternative Splicing in TRPA1 Drives Sensory Adaptation to Electrophiles in Drosophilids.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- On the prospects of basal cognition research becoming fully evolutionary: promising avenues and cautionary notes.History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2025Article
- An ancient, conserved gene regulatory network led to the rise of oral venom systems.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- Investigating the evolution and development of biological complexity under the framework of epigenetics.Evolution & development · 2019Article
- Typological thinking: Then and now.Journal of experimental zoology. Part B, Molecular and developmental evolution · 2018Article
- Article
- Article
- The expression of wingless and Engrailed in developing embryos of the mayfly Ephoron leukon (Ephemeroptera: Polymitarcyidae).Development genes and evolution · 2010Article
- Idealization in evolutionary developmental investigation: a tension between phenotypic plasticity and normal stages.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2010Review
- Marine invertebrates, model organisms, and the modern synthesis: epistemic values, evo-devo, and exclusion.Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften · 2009Article
- Problematica old and new.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2008Review
- Ancient connection between NKL genes and the mesoderm? Insights from Tlx expression in a ctenophore.Development genes and evolution · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although flourishing, I argue that evo-devo is not yet a mature scientific discipline. Its philosophical foundation exhibits an internal inconsistency that results from a metaphysical confusion. In modern evolutionary biology, species and other taxa are most commonly considered as individuals. I accept this thesis to be the best available foundation for modern evolutionary biology. However, evo-devo is characterized by a remarkable degree of typological thinking, which instead treats taxa as classes. This metaphysical incompatibility causes much distorted thinking. In this paper, I will discuss the logical implications of accepting the individuality thesis for evo-devo. First, I will illustrate the degree to which typological thinking pervades evo-devo. This ranges from the relatively innocent use of typologically tainted language to the more serious misuse of differences between taxa as evidence against homology and monophyly, and the logically flawed concept of partial homology. Second, I will illustrate how, in a context of typological thinking, evo-devo's harmless preoccupation with distant ancestors has become transformed into a pernicious problem afflicting the choice of model organisms. I will expose the logical flaws underlying the common assumption that model organisms can be expected to represent the clades they are a part of in an unambiguous way. I will expose the logical flaws underlying the general assumption that basal taxa are the best available stand-ins for ancestors and that they best represent the clade of which they are a part, while also allowing for optimal extrapolation of results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16733736What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.