%0 Journal Article
%T The Impact of the Organism on Its Descendants
%A Patrick Bateson
%J Genetics Research International
%D 2012
%I Hindawi Publishing Corporation
%R 10.1155/2012/640612
%X Historically, evolutionary biologists have taken the view that an understanding of development is irrelevant to theories of evolution. However, the integration of several disciplines in recent years suggests that this position is wrong. The capacity of the organism to adapt to challenges from the environment can set up conditions that affect the subsequent evolution of its descendants. Moreover, molecular events arising from epigenetic processes can be transmitted from one generation to the next and influence genetic mutation. This in turn can facilitate evolution in the conditions in which epigenetic change was first initiated. 1. Introduction The view that knowledge of development was irrelevant to the understanding of evolution was forcefully set out by the advocates of the Modern Synthesis [1]. They brought the mechanism for the evolution of adaptations originally proposed by Darwin and Wallace together with Mendelian and population genetics. Maynard Smith [2] suggested that the widespread acceptance of WeismannĄ¯s [3] doctrine of the separation of the germline from the soma was crucial to this line of thought even though it did not apply to plants. Such acceptance led to the view that genetics and hence evolution could be understood without understanding development. These views were, until recently, dominant. Briefly put, genes influence the characteristics of the individual; if individuals differ because of differences in their genes, some may be better able to survive and reproduce than others and, as a consequence, their genes are perpetuated. The extreme alternative to the modern synthesis is a caricature of LamarckĄ¯s views about biological evolution and inheritance. If a blacksmith develops strong arms as a result of his work, it was argued, his children will have stronger arms than would have been the case if their father had been an office worker. This view has been ridiculed by essentially all contemporary biologists. Nevertheless, as so often happens in polarised debates, the excluded middle ground concerning the evolutionary significance of development and plasticity has turned out to be much more interesting and potentially productive than either of the extreme alternatives. This view was developed at length by West-Eberhard [4] who argued that developmental plasticity was crucial in biological evolution. These same ideas are well expressed in Gilbert and EpelĄ¯s [5] book and developed further in the book edited by Pigliucci and M¨šller [6]. Bateson and Gluckman [7] have argued that developmental plasticity is an umbrella term for multiple
%U http://www.hindawi.com/journals/gri/2012/640612/