Assessing evo‐devo in the Darwin year

R. Raff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-142X.2008.00294.x

Evolution & Development

Abstract:The year 2009 is important in being the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species. It also happily marks the 10th year of publication of Evolution & Development. The first two anniversaries are being widely celebrated this year, and we will celebrate them as well in the 2009 issues of Evo & Devo, as we begin our second decade. Because this year reminds us how much we have inherited from Darwin’s travels and thoughts, it’s worth looking over some of the intellectual threads that have contributed to current evo-devo, and their relationship to the Darwinian revolution. We owe directly to Darwin’s genius two crucial foundational concepts of evolutionary biology that retain their force in evolutionary biology a century and a half later. These are common descent and natural selection. Common descent means that all organisms share a common ancestry with others, and that they diverge from that ancestor. From this concept, Darwin was the first to draw a hypothetical phylogenetic tree showing the divergence of descendants as a branching patternFsignificantly the sole illustration in The Origin of Species. Phylogenetic trees have become generally indispensable tools in evolutionary biology and in evo-devo used for displaying character evolution of genes, development, fossil forms, and morphology. Natural selection provides a mechanism for the differential reproductive success of phenotypes and thus genotypes in populations. The application of natural selection has had a more mixed history in evo-devo. Studies of comparisons of developmental features have often ignored selection. This inattention has arisen in part from the fact that many such studies have come from investigators who are primarily interested in developmental evolution, and because these studies have been at a macroevolutionary level, and consequently removed from direct assessments of selection. The growing interest in the relationship between macroevolution and microevolution suggests that a more thorough-going integration is gaining prominence in experimental studiesFextending even to the iconic beaks of Darwin’s finches (Abzhanov et al. 2004). There are other components of evo-devo that particularly do not derive from Darwin’s work, but have arisen from separate more recent discoveries. These have supplied the strongest independent confirmatory tests of evolution. First, Darwin had a concept of ‘‘heredity,’’ but no knowledge of Mendelian genetics, which became a foundation of microevolution in the mid 20th century. Later, once the sequences of proteins and then genes became available, it emerged that there was a general correspondence of phylogenetic trees inferred from gene sequences with those inferred from morphological features. This was a stunning result, and one completely unpredictable by 19th century science. An additional boost to the study of evolution at the molecular level arose from the surprising finding byMotoo Kimura of the existence of DNA sequence evolution by neutral nonselective processes (King and Jukes 1969). Thus was revealed a different level of selective and nonselective processes distinct from anything inferred from morphological evolution but crucial to understanding organismal evolution. Second, Darwin noted two of the key components of evodevo, but made little use of them. He recognized that early stages of development could reveal phylogenetic relationships not evident in adults (e.g., barnacles vs. shrimp, which share similar larval forms). In fact, using crustaceans, Fritz Müller offered support to Darwin’s views by pointing out in his 1864 book, Für Darwin, that evolutionary adaptations can take place in any stage of development. This book helped trigger the late 19th century Haeckelian enterprise of finding ancestors in living embryos. The present state of developmental EVOLUTION & DEVELOPMENT 11:1, 1 –2 (2009)