Publications of Daniel W. McShea :chronological combined listing:
%% Books
@book{fds139001,
Author = {D.W. McShea and Robert Brandon},
Title = {Biology's First Law},
Publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
Year = {2010},
Key = {fds139001}
}
@book{fds229047,
Author = {McShea, DW and Brandon, RN},
Title = {Biology's First Law The Tendency for Diversity and
Complexity to Increase in Evolutionary Systems},
Pages = {184 pages},
Publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
Year = {2010},
Month = {July},
ISBN = {9780226562278},
Abstract = {Intended for evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, and
other scientists studying complex systems, and written in a
concise and engaging format that speaks to students and
interdisciplinary practitioners alike, this book will also
find ...},
Key = {fds229047}
}
@book{fds229049,
Author = {Rosenberg, A and McShea, DW},
Title = {Philosophy of Biology: A Contemporary Introduction},
Pages = {1-241},
Publisher = {Routledge.},
Year = {2007},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9780415315920},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203926994},
Abstract = {Is life a purely physical process? What is human nature?
Which of our traits is essential to us? In this volume,
Daniel McShea and Alex Rosenberg - a biologist and a
philosopher, respectively - join forces to create a new
gateway to the philosophy of biology; making the major
issues accessible and relevant to biologists and
philosophers alike. Exploring concepts such as
supervenience; the controversies about genocentrism and
genetic determinism; and the debate about major transitions
central to contemporary thinking about macroevolution; the
authors lay out the broad terms in which we should assess
the impact of biology on human capacities, social
institutions and ethical values.},
Doi = {10.4324/9780203926994},
Key = {fds229049}
}
@book{fds353115,
Author = {Brandon, R and McShea, DW},
Title = {The Missing Two-Thirds of Evolutionary Theory},
Pages = {75 pages},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
Year = {2020},
Month = {March},
ISBN = {9781108716680},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108591508},
Abstract = {<jats:p>In this Element, we extend our earlier treatment of
biology's first law. The law says that in any evolutionary
system in which there is variation and heredity, there is a
tendency for diversity and complexity to increase. The law
plays the same role in biology that Newton's first law plays
in physics, explaining what biological systems are expected
to do when no forces act, in other words, what happens when
nothing happens. Here we offer a deeper explanation of
certain features of the law, develop a quantitative version
of it, and explore its consequences for our understanding of
diversity and complexity.</jats:p>},
Doi = {10.1017/9781108591508},
Key = {fds353115}
}
%% Papers Published
@article{fds28542,
Author = {Marcot, J.D. and D.W. McShea},
Title = {(Abstract) Phylogenetic tests of directional bias in
hierarchical evolution},
Journal = {Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America, vol.
36},
Pages = {A-18},
Year = {2004},
Key = {fds28542}
}
@article{fds28541,
Author = {D.W. McShea},
Title = {(Abstract) The evolution of complexity without
natural selection},
Journal = {Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America, vol.
36},
Pages = {A-18},
Year = {2004},
Key = {fds28541}
}
@article{fds229080,
Author = {Marino, L and Uhen, MD and McShea, D},
Title = {(Abstract) Encephalization trends in cetacean evolution: New
data and new analyses},
Journal = {Brain, Behavior, and Evolution},
Year = {2003},
Key = {fds229080}
}
@article{fds229079,
Author = {Novack Gottshall and PM and McShea, DW},
Title = {(Abstract) Quantifying ecological disparity: comparative
paleoecology of Ordovician and Recent marine
assemblages},
Journal = {Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of
America},
Volume = {35},
Year = {2003},
Key = {fds229079}
}
@article{fds229088,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {A complexity drain on cells in the evolution of
multicellularity.},
Journal = {Evolution; international journal of organic
evolution},
Volume = {56},
Number = {3},
Pages = {441-452},
Year = {2002},
Month = {March},
ISSN = {0014-3820},
url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11989676},
Abstract = {A hypothesis has been advanced recently predicting that, in
evolution, as higher-level entities arise from associations
of lower-level organisms, and as these entities acquire the
ability to feed, reproduce, defend themselves, and so on,
the lower-level organisms will tend to lose much of their
internal complexity (McShea 2001a). In other words, in
hierarchical transitions, there is a drain on numbers of
part types at the lower level. One possible rationale is
that the transfer of functional demands to the higher level
renders many part types at the lower level useless, and thus
their loss in evolution is favored by selection for economy.
Here, a test is conducted at the cell level, comparing
numbers of part types in free-living eukaryotic cells
(protists) and the cells of metazoans and land plants.
Differences are significant and consistent with the
hypothesis, suggesting that tests at other hierarchical
levels may be worthwhile.},
Doi = {10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb01357.x},
Key = {fds229088}
}
@article{fds3923,
Author = {D.W. McShea},
Title = {A hypothesis about hierarchies},
Booktitle = {Unifying Themes in Complex Systems},
Editor = {Y. Bar-Yam},
Year = {2000},
Key = {fds3923}
}
@article{fds229065,
Author = {McSHEA, DW},
Title = {A metric for the study of evolutionary trends in the
complexity of serial structures},
Journal = {Biological Journal of the Linnean Society},
Volume = {45},
Number = {1},
Pages = {39-55},
Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
Year = {1992},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {0024-4066},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1992.tb00630.x},
Abstract = {Little empirical work has been done to see what sort of
patterns of change in morphological complexity occur in
evolution, mainly because the complexity of whole organisms
has been so hard to define and to measure. For serial
structures within organisms, there are fewer difficulties;
this paper introduces a set of complexity metrics that are
designed especially for serial structures, and then explores
some of the properties of the new metrics. Also, a principle
proposed in the last century by Herbert Spencer, and offered
recently in a new form by the thermodynamic school of
evolutionary thought, predicts that complexity should
increase in evolution as a consequence of the accumulation
of perturbations. Here, simulations in which perturbations
are introduced to ideal and real series of vertebral
measurements show how the complexity increase predicted by
Spencer's principle would be captured by the new metrics.
Copyright © 1992, Wiley Blackwell. All rights
reserved},
Doi = {10.1111/j.1095-8312.1992.tb00630.x},
Key = {fds229065}
}
@article{fds353117,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {A post‐modern vision of artificial life},
Journal = {Complexity},
Volume = {1},
Number = {5},
Pages = {36-38},
Publisher = {Wiley},
Year = {1996},
Month = {May},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cplx.6130010509},
Doi = {10.1002/cplx.6130010509},
Key = {fds353117}
}
@article{fds343318,
Author = {McShea, DW and Wang, SC and Brandon, RN},
Title = {A quantitative formulation of biology's first
law.},
Journal = {Evolution; international journal of organic
evolution},
Volume = {73},
Number = {6},
Pages = {1101-1115},
Year = {2019},
Month = {June},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/evo.13735},
Abstract = {The zero-force evolutionary law (ZFEL) states that in
evolutionary systems, in the absence of forces or
constraints, diversity and complexity tend to increase. The
reason is that diversity and complexity are both variance
measures, and variances tend to increase spontaneously as
random events accumulate. Here, we use random-walk models to
quantify the ZFEL expectation, producing equations that give
the probabilities of diversity or complexity increasing as a
function of time, and that give the expected magnitude of
the increase. We produce two sets of equations, one for the
case in which variation occurs in discrete steps, the other
for the case in which variation is continuous. The equations
provide a way to decompose actual trajectories of diversity
or complexity into two components, the portion due to the
ZFEL and a remainder due to selection and constraint.
Application of the equations is demonstrated using real and
hypothetical data.},
Doi = {10.1111/evo.13735},
Key = {fds343318}
}
@article{fds229068,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {A revised Darwinism},
Journal = {Biology and Philosophy},
Volume = {19},
Number = {1},
Pages = {45-53},
Publisher = {Springer Nature},
Year = {2004},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:BIPH.0000013260.40162.dd},
Doi = {10.1023/B:BIPH.0000013260.40162.dd},
Key = {fds229068}
}
@article{fds229054,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {A universal generative tendency toward increased organismal
complexity},
Pages = {435-453},
Booktitle = {Variation: A Central Concept in Biology},
Publisher = {Elsevier},
Editor = {B. Hallgrimsson and B. Hall},
Year = {2005},
Month = {December},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-012088777-4/50020-X},
Abstract = {Characterizing internal variance as complexity needs
justification, because in colloquial usage, complexity
connotes so much more. A complex organism is ordinarily
understood to be not just more internally varied, or more
differentiated, but more capable as well. The human brain is
thought to be complex not simply because it has many cell
types, but because of its impressive functional
capabilities, because of what it can do. Thus, as
conventionally understood, complexity depends on both
structure and function. However, in biology, a narrower view
has been adopted, herein complexity refers to number of part
types, or degree of differentiation among parts. Complexity
has other aspects besides number of part types. For example,
there is complexity of spatial arrangement of parts, a kind
of second-order complexity (where number of part types is
first order), and number of types of connections among
parts. The chapter introduces three simple models to
illustrate the internal-variance principle and also to
reveal its robustness. In each successive model, the
variations introduced are more finely tuned in such a way as
to negate or overcome the internal-variance principle. ©
2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.},
Doi = {10.1016/B978-012088777-4/50020-X},
Key = {fds229054}
}
@article{fds356869,
Author = {Babcock, G and McShea, DW},
Title = {An externalist teleology},
Journal = {Synthese},
Volume = {199},
Number = {3-4},
Pages = {8755-8780},
Year = {2021},
Month = {December},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03181-w},
Abstract = {Teleology has a complicated history in the biological
sciences. Some have argued that Darwin’s theory has
allowed biology to purge itself of teleological
explanations. Others have been content to retain teleology
and to treat it as metaphorical, or have sought to replace
it with less problematic notions like teleonomy. And still
others have tried to naturalize it in a way that distances
it from the vitalism of the nineteenth century, focusing on
the role that function plays in teleological explanation. No
consensus has seemed possible in this debate. This paper
takes a different approach. It argues that teleology is a
perfectly acceptable scientific notion, but that the debate
took an unfortunate misstep some 2300 years ago, one that
has confused things ever since. The misstep comes in the
beginning of Aristotle’s Physics when a distinction is
made between two types of teleological explanation. One type
pertains to artifacts while the other pertains to entities
in nature. For Aristotle, artifacts are guided by something
external to themselves, human intentions, while natural
entities are guided by an internal nature. We aim to show
that there is, in fact, only one type of legitimate
teleological explanation, what Aristotle would have
considered a variant of an artifact model, where entities
are guided by external fields. We begin with an analysis of
the differences between the two types of explanation. We
then examine some evidence in Aristotle’s biological works
suggesting that in his account of the natural-artifactual
distinction, he encountered difficulties in trying to
provide teleological accounts of spontaneous generation. And
we show that it is possible to resolve these difficulties
with a more robust version of an artifact model of
teleology, in other words, with an externalist teleology.
This is McShea’s model, in which goal-directed entities
are guided by a nested series a of upper-level fields. To
explain teleological behavior, this account invokes only
external physical forces rather than mysterious internal
natures. We then consider how field theory differs from
other efforts to naturalize teleology in biology. And
finally, we show how the account enables us to grapple with
certain difficult cases—genes and intentions—where, even
in biology today, the temptation to posit internal natures
remains strong.},
Doi = {10.1007/s11229-021-03181-w},
Key = {fds356869}
}
@article{fds363030,
Author = {De Castro and C and McShea, DW},
Title = {Applying the Prigogine view of dissipative systems to the
major transitions in evolution},
Journal = {Paleobiology},
Volume = {48},
Number = {4},
Pages = {711-728},
Year = {2022},
Month = {November},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/pab.2022.7},
Abstract = {Ilya Prigogine's trinomial concept is, he argued, applicable
to many complex dissipative systems, from physics to biology
and even to social systems. For Prigogine, this trinomial -
functions, structure, fluctuations - was intended to capture
the feedback-rich relations between upper and lower levels
in these systems. The main novelty of his vision was his
view of causation, in which the causal arrow runs downward
from dissipative structures to their components or
functions. Following this insight, some physicists and
biophysicists are beginning to apply terms formerly used
mainly in biology, such as evolution, adaptation, learning,
and life-like behavior, to physical and chemical
nonequilibrium systems. Here, instead, we apply Prigogine's
view to biology, in particular to evolution, and especially
the major transitions in evolution (MTE), arguing that at
least the hierarchical transitions - the transitions in
individuality - follow a trajectory anticipated by the
trinomial. In this trajectory, formerly free-living
organisms are transformed into functions within a larger
organic structure. The Prigogine view also predicts that,
consistent with available data, the increase in number of
hierarchical levels in organisms should accelerate over
time. Finally, it predicts that, on geological timescales,
ecosystems and Gaia in particular will tend to de-Darwinize
or machinify their component organisms.},
Doi = {10.1017/pab.2022.7},
Key = {fds363030}
}
@article{fds229056,
Author = {Mcshea, DW},
Title = {Arguments, tests, and the Burgess Shale � a commentary on
the debate},
Journal = {Paleobiology},
Volume = {19},
Number = {4},
Pages = {399-402},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {1993},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {0094-8373},
url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:A1993ML91300001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
Doi = {10.1017/S0094837300014044},
Key = {fds229056}
}
@article{fds327781,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Bernd Rosslenbroich: On the origin of autonomy: a new look
at the major transitions in evolution},
Journal = {Biology & Philosophy},
Volume = {30},
Number = {3},
Pages = {439-446},
Publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC},
Year = {2015},
Month = {May},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10539-015-9474-2},
Doi = {10.1007/s10539-015-9474-2},
Key = {fds327781}
}
@article{fds366842,
Author = {Rosenberg, A and McShea, DW},
Title = {Biological laws and theories},
Pages = {32-64},
Booktitle = {PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY: A CONTEMPORARY INTRODUCTION},
Year = {2008},
Key = {fds366842}
}
@article{fds3820,
Author = {R.J. McShea and D.W. McShea},
Title = {Biology and value theory},
Booktitle = {Biology and the Foundation of Ethics},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
Editor = {J. Maienschein and M. Ruse},
Year = {1999},
Key = {fds3820}
}
@article{fds366837,
Author = {Rosenberg, A and McShea, DW},
Title = {Biology, human behavior, social science, and moral
philosophy},
Pages = {187-225},
Booktitle = {PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY: A CONTEMPORARY INTRODUCTION},
Year = {2008},
Key = {fds366837}
}
@article{fds322304,
Author = {Smith, FA and Payne, JL and Heim, NA and Balk, MA and Finnegan, S and Kowalewski, M and Lyons, SK and McClain, CR and McShea, DW and Novack-Gottshall, PM and Anich, PS and Wang, SC},
Title = {Body Size Evolution Across the Geozoic},
Journal = {Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences},
Volume = {44},
Number = {1},
Pages = {523-553},
Publisher = {ANNUAL REVIEWS},
Year = {2016},
Month = {June},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-060115-012147},
Abstract = {The Geozoic encompasses the 3.6 Ga interval in Earth history
when life has existed. Over this time, life has diversified
from exclusively tiny, single-celled organisms to include
large, complex multicellular forms. Just how and why this
diversification occurred has been a major area of interest
for paleontologists and evolutionary biologists for
centuries. Here, we compile data on organism size throughout
the Geozoic fossil record for the three domains of life. We
describe canonical trends in the evolution of body size,
synthesize current understanding of the patterns and causal
mechanisms at various hierarchical scales, and discuss the
biological and geological consequences of variation in
organismal size.},
Doi = {10.1146/annurev-earth-060115-012147},
Key = {fds322304}
}
@article{fds229053,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Comments on "evolutionary complexity, " H. Morowitz,
complexity 3(6): pp 12-14.},
Journal = {Complex.},
Volume = {4},
Number = {2},
Pages = {11-12},
Publisher = {WILEY},
Year = {1998},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0526(199811/12)4:2<11::AID-CPLX2>3.0.CO;2},
Doi = {10.1002/(SICI)1099-0526(199811/12)4:2<11::AID-CPLX2>3.0.CO;2},
Key = {fds229053}
}
@article{fds229063,
Author = {McShea, DW and Raup, DM},
Title = {Completeness of the geological record.},
Journal = {The Journal of geology},
Volume = {94},
Pages = {569-574},
Year = {1986},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {0022-1376},
url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11542057},
Abstract = {The completeness of a sedimentary section of known timespan
may be assessed qualitatively by comparing its thickness
with the average accumulation for that timespan. Average
accumulations may be estimated from sediment volume and
continental area data. Quantitative completeness estimation
methods based on data compiled from the geological
literature have been proposed, but we argue that the
literature data are significantly biased and cannot support
such methods. Interestingly, however, a comparison of the
literature data and accumulation averages computed from
sediment volume data suggests that the thickest known
sections may be extremely complete.},
Doi = {10.1086/629058},
Key = {fds229063}
}
@article{fds229064,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Complexity and evolution: What everybody
knows},
Journal = {Biology and Philosophy},
Volume = {6},
Number = {3},
Pages = {303-324},
Publisher = {Springer Nature},
Year = {1991},
Month = {July},
ISSN = {0169-3867},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00132234},
Abstract = {The consensus among evolutionists seems to be (and has been
for at least a century) that the morphological complexity of
organisms increases in evolution, although almost no
empirical evidence for such a trend exists. Most studies of
complexity have been theoretical, and the few empirical
studies have not, with the exception of certain recent ones,
been especially rigorous; reviews are presented of both the
theoretical and empirical literature. The paucity of
evidence raises the question of what sustains the consensus,
and a number of suggestions are offered, including the
possibility that certain cultural and/or perceptual biases
are at work. In addition, a shift in emphasis from
theoretical to empirical inquiry is recommended for the
study of complexity, and guidelines for future empirical
studies are proposed. © 1991 Kluwer Academic
Publishers.},
Doi = {10.1007/BF00132234},
Key = {fds229064}
}
@article{fds355923,
Author = {McSHEA, DW},
Title = {COMPLEXITY AND HOMOPLASY},
Pages = {207-225},
Booktitle = {Homoplasy},
Publisher = {Elsevier},
Year = {1996},
ISBN = {9780126180305},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-012618030-5/50010-1},
Doi = {10.1016/b978-012618030-5/50010-1},
Key = {fds355923}
}
@article{fds353116,
Author = {McShea, DW and Hordijk, W},
Title = {Complexity by Subtraction},
Journal = {Evolutionary Biology},
Pages = {1-17},
Year = {2013},
Key = {fds353116}
}
@article{fds366838,
Author = {Rosenberg, A and McShea, DW},
Title = {Complexity, directionality, and progress in
evolution},
Pages = {127-156},
Booktitle = {PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY: A CONTEMPORARY INTRODUCTION},
Year = {2008},
Key = {fds366838}
}
@article{fds366843,
Author = {Rosenberg, A and McShea, DW},
Title = {Darwin makes a science},
Pages = {12-31},
Booktitle = {PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY: A CONTEMPORARY INTRODUCTION},
Year = {2008},
Key = {fds366843}
}
@article{fds229089,
Author = {Ciampaglio, CN and Kemp, M and McShea, DW},
Title = {Detecting changes in morphospace occupation patterns in the
fossil record: Characterization and analysis of measures of
disparity},
Journal = {Paleobiology},
Volume = {27},
Number = {4},
Pages = {695-715},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2001},
Month = {Fall},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1666/0094-8373(2001)027<0695:DCIMOP>2.0.CO;2},
Abstract = {Recently, there has been much interest in detecting and
measuring patterns of change in disparity. Although most
studies have used one or two measures of disparity to
quantify and characterize the occupation of morphospace,
multiple measures may be necessary to fully detect changes
in patterns of morphospace occupation. Also, the ability to
detect morphological trends and occupation patterns within
morphospace depends on using the appropriate measure(s) of
disparity. In this study, seven measures were used to
determine and characterize sensitivity to sample size of the
data, number of morphological characters, percentage of
missing data, and changes in morphospace occupation pattern.
These consist of five distance measures - sum of univariate
variances, total range, mean distance, principal coordinate
analysis volume, average pairwise dissimilarity - and two
non-distance measures - participation ratio and number of
unique pairwise character combinations. Evaluation of each
measure with respect to sensitivity to sample size, number
of morphological characters, and percentage of missing data
was accomplished by using both simulated and Ordovician
crinoid data. For simulated data, each measure of disparity
was evaluated for its response to changes of morphospace
occupation pattern, and with respect to simulated random and
nonrandom extinction events. Changes in disparity were also
measured within the Crinoidea across the Permian extinction
event. Although all measures vary in sensitivity with
respect to species sample size, number of morphological
characters, and percentage of missing data, the non-distance
measures overall produce the lowest estimates of variance
(in bootstrap analyses). The non-distance measures appear to
be relatively insensitive to changes in morphospace
occupation pattern. All measures, except average pairwise
dissimilarity, detect changes in occupation pattern in
simulated nonrandom extinction events, but all measures,
except number of unique pairwise character combinations and
principal coordinate analysis volume, are relatively
insensitive to changes in pattern in simulated random
extinction events. The distance measures report similar
changes in disparity over the Permian extinction event,
whereas the non-distance measures differ. This study
suggests that each measures of disparity is designed for
different purposes, and that by using a combination of
techniques a clearer picture of disparity should
emerge.},
Doi = {10.1666/0094-8373(2001)027<0695:DCIMOP>2.0.CO;2},
Key = {fds229089}
}
@article{fds229072,
Author = {Fleming, L and McShea, DW},
Title = {Drosophila mutants suggest a strong drive toward complexity
in evolution},
Journal = {Evolution and Development},
Volume = {15},
Number = {1},
Pages = {53-62},
Year = {2012},
url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23331917},
Abstract = {The view that complexity increases in evolution is
uncontroversial, yet little is known about the possible
causes of such a trend. One hypothesis, the Zero Force
Evolutionary Law (ZFEL), predicts a strong drive toward
complexity, although such a tendency can be overwhelmed by
selection and constraints. In the absence of strong
opposition, heritable variation accumulates and complexity
increases. In order to investigate this claim, we evaluate
the gross morphological complexity of laboratory mutants in
Drosophila melanogaster, which represent organisms that
arise in a context where selective forces are greatly
reduced. Complexity was measured with respect to part types,
shape, and color over two independent focal levels. Compared
to the wild type, we find that D. melanogaster mutants are
significantly more complex. When the parts of mutants are
categorized by degree of constraint, we find that weakly
constrained parts are significantly more complex than more
constrained parts. These results support the ZFEL
hypothesis. They also represent a first step in establishing
the domain of application of the ZFEL and show one way in
which a larger empirical investigation of the principle
might proceed.},
Doi = {10.1111/ede.12014},
Key = {fds229072}
}
@article{fds3926,
Author = {D.W. McShea},
Title = {Dynamics of large-scale trends},
Booktitle = {Biodiversity Dynamics},
Editor = {M.L. McKinney and J.A. Drake},
Year = {1998},
Key = {fds3926}
}
@article{fds355920,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Evolution of Complexity},
Pages = {169-179},
Booktitle = {Evolutionary Developmental Biology},
Publisher = {Springer International Publishing},
Year = {2021},
ISBN = {9783319329772},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32979-6_123},
Doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-32979-6_123},
Key = {fds355920}
}
@article{fds355921,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Evolution of Complexity},
Pages = {1-11},
Booktitle = {Evolutionary Developmental Biology},
Publisher = {Springer International Publishing},
Year = {2017},
ISBN = {9783319330389},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33038-9_123-1},
Doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-33038-9_123-1},
Key = {fds355921}
}
@article{fds229060,
Author = {MCSHEA, DW},
Title = {EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE IN THE MORPHOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY OF THE
MAMMALIAN VERTEBRAL COLUMN},
Journal = {EVOLUTION},
Volume = {47},
Number = {3},
Pages = {730-740},
Publisher = {JSTOR},
Year = {1993},
ISSN = {0014-3820},
url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:A1993MA41600002&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
Abstract = {The notion that morphological complexity increases in
evolution is widely accepted in biology and paleontology.
Several possible explanations have been offered for this
trend, among them the suggestion that it has an active
forcing mechanism, such as natural selection or the second
law of thermodynamics. No such mechanism has yet been
empirically demonstrated, but testing is possible: if a
forcing mechanism has operated, the expectation is that
complexity would have increased in evolutionary lineages
more frequently than it decreased. However, a quantitative
analysis of changes in the complexity of the vertebral
column in a random sample of mammalian lineages reveals a
nearly equal number of increases and decreases. This finding
raises the possibility that no forcing mechanism exists, or
at least that it may not be as powerful or pervasive as has
been assumed. The finding also highlights the need for more
empirical tests.},
Doi = {10.2307/2410179},
Key = {fds229060}
}
@article{fds229045,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Evolutionary progress},
Pages = {550-557},
Booktitle = {Evolution: The First Four Billion Years},
Publisher = {Harvard University Press},
Editor = {Ruse, M and Travis, J},
Year = {2011},
Key = {fds229045}
}
@article{fds370659,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Evolutionary Success: Standards of Value},
Pages = {17-39},
Booktitle = {Human Success: Evolutionary Origins and Ethical
Implications},
Year = {2023},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9780190096168},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190096168.003.0002},
Doi = {10.1093/oso/9780190096168.003.0002},
Key = {fds370659}
}
@article{fds322305,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Evolutionary Trends},
Pages = {206-211},
Booktitle = {Palaeobiology II},
Year = {2007},
Month = {December},
ISBN = {9780632051496},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470999295ch.44},
Doi = {10.1002/9780470999295ch.44},
Key = {fds322305}
}
@article{fds372477,
Author = {Mcshea, DW},
Title = {Evolutionary Trends},
Series = {pp. 206-210},
Pages = {206-211},
Booktitle = {Palaeobiology II},
Publisher = {Wiley},
Editor = {DEG Briggs and PR Crowther},
Year = {2001},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9780632051496},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470999295.ch44},
Doi = {10.1002/9780470999295.ch44},
Key = {fds372477}
}
@article{fds370848,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Evolutionary trends and goal directedness.},
Journal = {Synthese},
Volume = {201},
Number = {5},
Pages = {178},
Year = {2023},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04164-9},
Abstract = {The conventional wisdom declares that evolution is not goal
directed, that teleological considerations play no part in
our understanding of evolutionary trends. Here I argue that,
to the contrary, under a current view of teleology, field
theory, most evolutionary trends would have to be considered
goal directed to some degree. Further, this view is
consistent with a modern scientific outlook, and more
particularly with evolutionary theory today. Field theory
argues that goal directedness is produced by higher-level
fields that direct entities contained within them to behave
persistently and plastically, that is, returning them to a
goal-directed trajectory following perturbations
(persistence) and directing them to a goal-directed
trajectory from a large range of alternative starting points
(plasticity). The behavior of a bacterium climbing a
chemical food gradient is persistent and plastic, with
guidance provided by the external "food field," the chemical
gradient. Likewise, an evolutionary trend that is produced
by natural selection is a lineage behaving persistently and
plastically under the direction of its local ecology, an
"ecological field." Trends directed by selection-generated
boundaries, thermodynamic gradients, and certain internal
constraints, would also count as goal directed. In other
words, most of the causes of evolutionary trends that have
been proposed imply goal directedness. However, under field
theory, not all trends are goal directed. Examples are
discussed. Importantly, nothing in this view suggests that
evolution is guided by intentionality, at least none at the
level of animal intentionality. Finally, possible
implications for our thinking about evolutionary
directionality in the history of life are
discussed.},
Doi = {10.1007/s11229-023-04164-9},
Key = {fds370848}
}
@article{fds322306,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Evolutionary Trends and the Salience Bias (with Apologies to
Oil Tankers, Karl Marx, and Others)},
Journal = {Technical Communication Quarterly},
Volume = {3},
Number = {1},
Pages = {21-38},
Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
Year = {1994},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10572259409364556},
Abstract = {Salient examples may bias human judgments about the
probability or frequency of events, an effect known as the
“availability heuristic” or the “salience bias.”
Scientific work has not been immune to this bias; in
particular, the existence of certain large-scale trends in
evolution, such as those in size, complexity, and fitness,
is widely accepted among professionals within evolutionary
biology and paleontology, as well as among people outside
these fields, even though these trends are poorly
documented. Often, what documentation exists consists mainly
of long lists of cases exemplifying the trend, or detailed
descriptions of a small number of salient cases. Here, it is
argued that although these lists and salient cases are not
good evidence that a trend is pervasive, they may convince
both the trend researcher and his or her audience. The
possibility is raised that the bias may be pervasive in
science and everyday thought, and a strategy for avoiding
it, namely the use of random samples, is offered. © 1994,
Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. All rights reserved.},
Doi = {10.1080/10572259409364556},
Key = {fds322306}
}
@article{fds3803,
Author = {D.W. McShea},
Title = {Feelings as the proximate cause of behavior},
Booktitle = {Where Psychology Meets Biology: Philosophical
Essays},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
Editor = {V.G. Hardcastle},
Year = {1999},
Key = {fds3803}
}
@article{fds369050,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Four reasons for scepticism about a human major transition
in social individuality.},
Journal = {Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London.
Series B, Biological sciences},
Volume = {378},
Number = {1872},
Pages = {20210403},
Year = {2023},
Month = {March},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0403},
Abstract = {The 'major transitions in evolution' are mainly about the
rise of hierarchy, new individuals arising at ever higher
levels of nestedness, in particular the eukaryotic cell
arising from prokaryotes, multicellular individuals from
solitary protists and individuated societies from
multicellular individuals. Some lists include human
societies as a major transition, but based on a comparison
with the non-human transitions, there are reasons for
scepticism. (i) The foundation of the major transitions is
hierarchy, but the cross-cutting interactions in human
societies undermine hierarchical structure. (ii) Natural
selection operates in three modes-stability, growth and
reproductive success-and only the third produces the complex
adaptations seen in fully individuated higher levels. But
human societies probably evolve mainly in the stability and
growth modes. (iii) Highly individuated entities are marked
by division of labour and commitment to morphological
differentiation, but in humans differentiation is mostly
behavioural and mostly reversible. (iv) As higher-level
individuals arise, selection drains complexity, drains
parts, from lower-level individuals. But there is little
evidence of a drain in humans. In sum, a comparison with the
other transitions gives reasons to doubt that human social
individuation has proceeded very far, or if it has, to doubt
that it is a transition of the same sort. This article is
part of the theme issue 'Human socio-cultural evolution in
light of evolutionary transitions'.},
Doi = {10.1098/rstb.2021.0403},
Key = {fds369050}
}
@article{fds229073,
Author = {Brandon, RN and McShea, DW},
Title = {Four solutions for four puzzles},
Journal = {Biology and Philosophy},
Volume = {27},
Number = {5},
Pages = {737-744},
Publisher = {Springer Nature},
Year = {2012},
Month = {September},
ISSN = {0169-3867},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10539-012-9330-6},
Abstract = {Barrett et al. (Biol Philos, 2012) present four puzzles for
the ZFEL-view of evolution that we present in our 2010 book,
Biology's First Law: The Tendency for Diversity and
Complexity to Increase in Evolutionary Systems. Our intent
in writing this book was to present a radically different
way to think about evolution. To the extent that it really
is radical, it will be easy to misunderstand. We think
Barrett et al. have misunderstood several crucial points and
so we welcome the opportunity to clarify. © 2012 Springer
Science+Business Media B.V.},
Doi = {10.1007/s10539-012-9330-6},
Key = {fds229073}
}
@article{fds322303,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Freedom and purpose in biology.},
Journal = {Studies in history and philosophy of biological and
biomedical sciences},
Volume = {58},
Pages = {64-72},
Year = {2016},
Month = {August},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.12.002},
Abstract = {All seemingly teleological systems share a common
hierarchical structure. They consist of a small entity
moving or changing within a larger field that directs it
from above (what I call "upper direction"). This is true for
organisms seeking some external resource, for the organized
behavior of cells and other parts in organismal development,
and for lineages evolving by natural selection. In all
cases, the lower-level entity is partly "free," tending to
wander under the influence of purely local forces, and
partly directed by a larger enveloping field. The persistent
and plastic behavior that characterizes goal-directedness
arises, I argue, at intermediate levels of freedom and upper
direction, when the two are in a delicate balance. I
tentatively extend the argument to human teleology (wants,
purposes).},
Doi = {10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.12.002},
Key = {fds322303}
}
@article{fds229083,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Functional complexity in organisms: Parts as
proxies},
Journal = {Biology and Philosophy},
Volume = {15},
Number = {5},
Pages = {641-668},
Publisher = {Springer Nature},
Year = {2000},
Month = {December},
ISSN = {0169-3867},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006695908715},
Abstract = {The functional complexity, or the number of functions, of
organisms has figured prominently in certain theoretical and
empirical work in evolutionary biology. Large-scale trends
in functional complexity and correlations between functional
complexity and other variables, such as size, have been
proposed. However, the notion of number of functions has
also been operationally intractable, in that no method has
been developed for counting functions in an organism in a
systematic and reliable way. Thus, studies have had to rely
on the largely unsupported assumption that number of
functions can be measured indirectly, by using number of
morphological, physiological, and behavioral partsas a
proxy. Here, a model is developed that supports this
assumption. Specifically, the model predicts that few parts
will have many functions overlapping in them, and therefore
the variance in number of functions per part will be low. If
so, then number of parts is expected to be well correlated
with number of functions, and we can use part counts as
proxies for function counts in comparative studies of
organisms, even when part counts are low. Also discussed
briefly is a strategy for identifying certain kinds of parts
in organisms in a systematic way.},
Doi = {10.1023/A:1006695908715},
Key = {fds229083}
}
@article{fds366841,
Author = {Rosenberg, A and McShea, DW},
Title = {Further problems of Darwinism Constraint, drift,
function},
Pages = {65-95},
Booktitle = {PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY: A CONTEMPORARY INTRODUCTION},
Year = {2008},
Key = {fds366841}
}
@article{fds366839,
Author = {Rosenberg, A and McShea, DW},
Title = {Genes, groups, teleosemantics, and the major
transitions},
Pages = {157-186},
Booktitle = {PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY: A CONTEMPORARY INTRODUCTION},
Year = {2008},
Key = {fds366839}
}
@article{fds355924,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Gene‐talk talk about sociobiology},
Journal = {Social Epistemology},
Volume = {6},
Number = {2},
Pages = {183-192},
Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
Year = {1992},
Month = {April},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02691729208578653},
Doi = {10.1080/02691729208578653},
Key = {fds355924}
}
@article{fds374935,
Author = {Babcock, G and McShea, DW},
Title = {Goal Directedness and the Field Concept},
Journal = {Philosophy of Science},
Pages = {1-10},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2023},
Month = {October},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.121},
Abstract = {<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>A long-standing
problem in understanding goal-directed systems has been the
insufficiency of mechanistic explanations to make sense of
them. This article offers a solution to this problem. It
begins by observing the limitations of mechanistic
decompositions when it comes to understanding physical
fields. We argue that introducing the field concept, as it
has been developed in <jats:italic>field
theory</jats:italic>, alongside mechanisms is able to
provide an account of goal directedness in the
sciences.</jats:p>},
Doi = {10.1017/psa.2023.121},
Key = {fds374935}
}
@article{fds327277,
Author = {Heim, NA and Payne, JL and Finnegan, S and Knope, ML and Kowalewski, M and Lyons, SK and McShea, DW and Novack-Gottshall, PM and Smith, FA and Wang, SC},
Title = {Hierarchical complexity and the size limits of
life.},
Journal = {Proceedings. Biological sciences},
Volume = {284},
Number = {1857},
Pages = {20171039},
Year = {2017},
Month = {June},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1039},
Abstract = {Over the past 3.8 billion years, the maximum size of life
has increased by approximately 18 orders of magnitude. Much
of this increase is associated with two major evolutionary
innovations: the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotic
cells approximately 1.9 billion years ago (Ga), and
multicellular life diversifying from unicellular ancestors
approximately 0.6 Ga. However, the quantitative relationship
between organismal size and structural complexity remains
poorly documented. We assessed this relationship using a
comprehensive dataset that includes organismal size and
level of biological complexity for 11 172 extant genera. We
find that the distributions of sizes within complexity
levels are unimodal, whereas the aggregate distribution is
multimodal. Moreover, both the mean size and the range of
size occupied increases with each additional level of
complexity. Increases in size range are non-symmetric: the
maximum organismal size increases more than the minimum. The
majority of the observed increase in organismal size over
the history of life on the Earth is accounted for by two
discrete jumps in complexity rather than evolutionary trends
within levels of complexity. Our results provide
quantitative support for an evolutionary expansion away from
a minimal size constraint and suggest a fundamental
rescaling of the constraints on minimal and maximal size as
biological complexity increases.},
Doi = {10.1098/rspb.2017.1039},
Key = {fds327277}
}
@article{fds229092,
Author = {McShea, DW and Venit, EP and Simon, VB},
Title = {Hierarchical complexity of organisms: dynamics of a
well-known trend},
Journal = {Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of
America},
Volume = {31},
Pages = {A-171},
Year = {1999},
Key = {fds229092}
}
@article{fds229062,
Author = {Golob, RS and McShea, DW},
Title = {IMPLICATIONS OF THE IXTOC 1 BLOW-OUT AND OIL
SPILL.},
Pages = {743-759},
Year = {1981},
Month = {December},
Key = {fds229062}
}
@article{fds229077,
Author = {Marcot, JD and McShea, DW},
Title = {Increasing hierarchical complexity throughout the history of
life: Phylogenetic tests of trend mechanisms},
Journal = {Paleobiology},
Volume = {33},
Number = {2},
Pages = {182-200},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2007},
Month = {March},
ISSN = {0094-8373},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1666/06028.1},
Abstract = {The history of life is punctuated by a number of major
transitions in hierarchy, defined here as the degree of
nestedness of lower-level individuals within higher-level
ones: the combination of single-celled prokaryotic cells to
form the first eukaryotic cell, the aggregation of single
eukaryotic cells to form complex multicellular organisms,
and finally, the association of multicellular organisms to
form complex colonial individuals. These transitions
together constitute one of the most salient and certain
trends in the history of life, in particular, a trend in
maximum hierarchical structure, which can be understood as a
trend in complexity. This trend could be produced by a
biased mechanism, in which increases in hierarchy are more
likely than decreases, or by an unbiased one, in which
increases and decreases are about equally likely. At stake
is whether or not natural selection or some other force acts
powerfully over the history of life to drive complexity
upward. Too few major transitions are known to permit
rigorous statistical discrimination of trend mechanisms
based on these transitions alone. However, the mechanism can
be investigated by using "minor transitions" in hierarchy,
or, in other words, changes in the degree of individuation
of the upper level. This study tests the null hypothesis
that the probability (or rate) of increase and decrease in
individuation are equal in a phylogenetic context. We found
published phylogenetic trees for clades spanning minor
transitions across the tree of life and identified changes
in character states associated with those minor transitions.
We then used both parsimony- and maximum-likelihood-based
methods to test for asymmetrical rates of character
evolution. Most analyses failed to reject equal rates of
hierarchical increase and decrease. In fact, a bias toward
decreasing complexity was observed for several clades. These
results suggest that no strong tendency exists for
hierarchical complexity to increase. © 2007 The
Paleontological Society. All rights reserved.},
Doi = {10.1666/06028.1},
Key = {fds229077}
}
@article{fds229084,
Author = {Anderson, C and McShea, DW},
Title = {Individual versus social complexity, with particular
reference to ant colonies.},
Journal = {Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical
Society},
Volume = {76},
Number = {2},
Pages = {211-237},
Year = {2001},
Month = {May},
ISSN = {1464-7931},
url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11396847},
Abstract = {Insect societies colonies of ants, bees, wasps and
termites--vary enormously in their social complexity. Social
complexity is a broadly used term that encompasses many
individual and colony-level traits and characteristics such
as colony size, polymorphism and foraging strategy. A number
of earlier studies have considered the relationships among
various correlates of social complexity in insect societies;
in this review, we build upon those studies by proposing
additional correlates and show how all correlates can be
integrated in a common explanatory framework. The various
correlates are divided among four broad categories
(sections). Under 'polyphenism' we consider the differences
among individuals, in particular focusing upon 'caste' and
specialization of individuals. This is followed by a section
on 'totipotency' in which we consider the autonomy and
subjugation of individuals. Under this heading we consider
various aspects such as intracolony conflict, worker
reproductive potential and physiological or morphological
restrictions which limit individuals' capacities to perform
a range of tasks or functions. A section entitled
'organization of work' considers a variety of aspects, e.g.
the ability to tackle group, team or partitioned tasks,
foraging strategies and colony reliability and efficiency. A
final section, 'communication and functional integration',
considers how individual activity is coordinated to produce
an integrated and adaptive colony. Within each section we
use illustrative examples drawn from the social insect
literature (mostly from ants, for which there is the best
data) to illustrate concepts or trends and make a number of
predictions concerning how a particular trait is expected to
correlate with other aspects of social complexity. Within
each section we also expand the scope of the arguments to
consider these relationships in a much broader sense
of'sociality' by drawing parallels with other 'social'
entities such as multicellular individuals, which can be
understood as 'societies' of cells. The aim is to draw out
any parallels and common causal relationships among the
correlates. Two themes run through the study. The first is
the role of colony size as an important factor affecting
social complexity. The second is the complexity of
individual workers in relation to the complexity of the
colony. Consequently, this is an ideal opportunity to test a
previously proposed hypothesis that 'individuals of highly
social ant species are less complex than individuals from
simple ant species' in light of numerous social correlates.
Our findings support this hypothesis. In summary, we
conclude that, in general, complex societies are
characterized by large colony size, worker polymorphism,
strong behavioural specialization and loss of totipotency in
its workers, low individual complexity, decentralized colony
control and high system redundancy, low individual
competence, a high degree of worker cooperation wher
tackling tasks, group foraging strategies, high tempo,
multi-chambered tailor-made nests, high functional
integration, relatively greater use of cues and modulatory
signals to coordinate individuals and heterogeneous patterns
of worker-worker interaction.},
Doi = {10.1017/s1464793101005656},
Key = {fds229084}
}
@article{fds229094,
Author = {Anderson, C and McShea, DW},
Title = {Intermediate-level parts in insect societies: Adaptive
structures that ants build away from the
nest},
Journal = {Insectes Sociaux},
Volume = {48},
Number = {4},
Pages = {291-301},
Publisher = {Springer Nature},
Year = {2001},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {0020-1812},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/PL00001781},
Abstract = {Insect societies function at various organisational levels.
Most research has focused on one or other organisational
extreme. At one extreme, it is the adaptive behaviours at
the individual level, the behaviour of workers, which is of
interest. At the other extreme, colony-level adaptive
behaviour and swarm intelligence is the focus. However,
between these two extremes, numerous functional adaptive
units, or "parts," exist. These intermediate-level parts
include the behavioural properties of "groups" or "teams" in
which the functionality only emerges at the group-level and
not within the individuals themselves, and also the
structural properties of "self-assemblages" in which
individuals link themselves together to form an adaptive
configuration, such as a living bridge. We review another
type of intermediate-level part in insect societies: these
are the physical structures that ants build away from the
nest. The structures, that are larger than an individual
worker but smaller than the colony (hence intermediate),
include cleared trails, walled trenches, arcades, tunnels,
outstations, shelters, protective pens, shelters over
nectaries, food coverings on foraging trails, elevated
corridors, and bridges. They are found in a diverse range of
species, and are constructed using a variety of materials.
We detail the structures built by ants focussing chiefly on
the adaptive benefits these structures may confer to the
colony.},
Doi = {10.1007/PL00001781},
Key = {fds229094}
}
@article{fds326590,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Logic, passion and the problem of convergence.},
Journal = {Interface focus},
Volume = {7},
Number = {3},
Pages = {20160122},
Year = {2017},
Month = {June},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2016.0122},
Abstract = {Our estimate of the likelihood of convergence on human-style
intelligence depends on how we understand our various mental
capacities. Here I revive David Hume's theory of motivation
and action to argue that the most common understanding of
the two conventionally recognized components of
intelligence-reason and emotion-is confused. We say things
like, 'Reason can overcome emotion', but to make this
statement meaningful, we are forced to treat reason as a
compound notion, as a forced and unhappy mixture of concepts
that are incommensurate. An alternative is to parse
intelligence in a different way, into two sets of
capacities: (i) non-affective capacities, including logic,
calculation and problem-solving; (ii) affective capacities,
including wants, preferences and cares, along with the
emotions. Thus, the question of convergence becomes two
questions, one having to do with affective and one with
non-affective capacities. What is the likelihood of
convergence of these in non-human lineages, in other
ecologies, on other worlds? Given certain assumptions,
convergence of the non-affective capacities in thinking
species seems likely, I argue, while convergence of the
affective capacities seems much less likely.},
Doi = {10.1098/rsfs.2016.0122},
Key = {fds326590}
}
@article{fds229055,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Machine wanting.},
Journal = {Studies in history and philosophy of biological and
biomedical sciences},
Volume = {44},
Number = {4 Pt B},
Pages = {679-687},
Year = {2013},
Month = {December},
ISSN = {1369-8486},
url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23792091},
Abstract = {Wants, preferences, and cares are physical things or events,
not ideas or propositions, and therefore no chain of pure
logic can conclude with a want, preference, or care. It
follows that no pure-logic machine will ever want, prefer,
or care. And its behavior will never be driven in the way
that deliberate human behavior is driven, in other words, it
will not be motivated or goal directed. Therefore, if we
want to simulate human-style interactions with the world, we
will need to first understand the physical structure of
goal-directed systems. I argue that all such systems share a
common nested structure, consisting of a smaller entity that
moves within and is driven by a larger field that contains
it. In such systems, the smaller contained entity is
directed by the field, but also moves to some degree
independently of it, allowing the entity to deviate and
return, to show the plasticity and persistence that is
characteristic of goal direction. If all this is right, then
human want-driven behavior probably involves a
behavior-generating mechanism that is contained within a
neural field of some kind. In principle, for goal
directedness generally, the containment can be virtual,
raising the possibility that want-driven behavior could be
simulated in standard computational systems. But there are
also reasons to believe that goal-direction works better
when containment is also physical, suggesting that a new
kind of hardware may be necessary.},
Doi = {10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.05.015},
Key = {fds229055}
}
@article{fds229066,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {MECHANISMS OF LARGE-SCALE EVOLUTIONARY TRENDS},
Journal = {Evolution},
Volume = {48},
Number = {6},
Pages = {1747-1763},
Publisher = {Wiley},
Year = {1994},
Month = {December},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1994.tb02211.x},
Abstract = {Large-scale evolutionary trends may result from driving
forces or from passive diffusion in bounded spaces. Such
trends are persistent directional changes in higher taxa
spanning significant periods of geological time; examples
include the frequently cited long-term trends in size,
complexity, and fitness in life as a whole, as well as
trends in lesser supraspecific taxa and trends in space. In
a driven trend, the distribution mean increases on account
of a force (which may manifest itself as a bias in the
direction of change) that acts on lineages throughout the
space in which diversification occurs. In a passive system,
no pervasive force or bias exists, but the mean increases
because change in one direction is blocked by a boundary, or
other inhomogeneity, in some limited region of the space.
Two tests have been used to distinguish these trend
mechanisms: (1) the test based on the behavior of the
minimum; and (2) the ancestor-descendant test, based on
comparisons in a random sample of ancestor-descendant pairs
that lie far from any possible lower bound. For skewed
distributions, a third test is introduced here: (3) the
subclade test, based on the mean skewness of a sample of
subclades drawn from the tail of a terminal distribution.
With certain restrictions, a system is driven if the minimum
increases, if increases significantly outnumber decreases
among ancestor-descendant pairs, and if the mean skew of
subclades is significantly positive. A passive mechanism is
more difficult to demonstrate but is the more likely
mechanism if decreases outnumber increases and if the mean
skew of subclades is negative. Unlike the other tests, the
subclade test requires no detailed phylogeny or
paleontological time series, but only terminal (e.g.,
modern) distributions. Monte Carlo simulations of the
diversification of a clade are used to show how the subclade
test works. In the empirical cases examined, the three tests
gave concordant results, suggesting first, that they work,
and second, that the passive and driven mechanisms may
correspond to natural categories of causes of large-scale
trends.},
Doi = {10.1111/j.1558-5646.1994.tb02211.x},
Key = {fds229066}
}
@article{fds365439,
Author = {Lee, JG and McShea, D},
Title = {Operationalizing goal directedness: An empirical route to
advancing a philosophical discussion},
Journal = {Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology},
Volume = {12},
Number = {5},
Publisher = {University of Michigan Library},
Year = {2020},
Month = {June},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/ptpbio.16039257.0012.005},
Doi = {10.3998/ptpbio.16039257.0012.005},
Key = {fds365439}
}
@article{fds229081,
Author = {Marino, L and McShea, DW and Uhen, MD},
Title = {Origin and evolution of large brains in toothed
whales.},
Journal = {The anatomical record. Part A, Discoveries in molecular,
cellular, and evolutionary biology},
Volume = {281},
Number = {2},
Pages = {1247-1255},
Year = {2004},
Month = {December},
ISSN = {1552-4884},
url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15497142},
Abstract = {Toothed whales (order Cetacea: suborder Odontoceti) are
highly encephalized, possessing brains that are
significantly larger than expected for their body sizes. In
particular, the odontocete superfamily Delphinoidea
(dolphins, porpoises, belugas, and narwhals) comprises
numerous species with encephalization levels second only to
modern humans and greater than all other mammals.
Odontocetes have also demonstrated behavioral faculties
previously only ascribed to humans and, to some extent,
other great apes. How did the large brains of odontocetes
evolve? To begin to investigate this question, we quantified
and averaged estimates of brain and body size for 36 fossil
cetacean species using computed tomography and analyzed
these data along with those for modern odontocetes. We
provide the first description and statistical tests of the
pattern of change in brain size relative to body size in
cetaceans over 47 million years. We show that brain size
increased significantly in two critical phases in the
evolution of odontocetes. The first increase occurred with
the origin of odontocetes from the ancestral group
Archaeoceti near the Eocene-Oligocene boundary and was
accompanied by a decrease in body size. The second occurred
in the origin of Delphinoidea only by 15 million years
ago.},
Doi = {10.1002/ar.a.20128},
Key = {fds229081}
}
@article{fds3809,
Author = {D.W. McShea},
Title = {Parts and integration: consequences of hierarchy},
Series = {pp. 27-60},
Booktitle = {Evolutionary Patterns: Growth, Form, and Tempo in the Fossil
Record},
Publisher = {Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press},
Editor = {JBC Jackson and S Lidgard and FK McKinney},
Year = {2001},
Key = {fds3809}
}
@article{fds229067,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Perspective: Metazoan Complexity and Evolution: Is There a
Trend?},
Journal = {Evolution},
Volume = {50},
Number = {2},
Pages = {477-477},
Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
Year = {1996},
Month = {April},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2410824},
Abstract = {The notion that complexity increases in evolution is widely
accepted, but the best-known evidence is highly
impressionistic. Here I propose a scheme for understanding
complexity that provides a conceptual basis for objective
measurement. The scheme also shows complexity to be a broad
term covering four independent types. For each type, I
describe some of the measures that have been devised and
review the evidence for trends in the maximum and mean. In
metazoans as a whole, there is good evidence only for an
early-Phanerozoic trend, and only in one type of complexity.
For each of the other types, some trends have been
documented, but only in a small number of metazoan
subgroups.},
Doi = {10.2307/2410824},
Key = {fds229067}
}
@article{fds229070,
Author = {Liow, LH and Simpson, C and Bouchard, F and Damuth, J and Hallgrimsson,
B and Hunt, G and McShea, DW and Powell, JR and Stenseth, NC and Stoller,
MK and Wagner, G},
Title = {Pioneering paradigms and magnificent manifestos--Leigh Van
Valen's priceless contributions to evolutionary
biology.},
Journal = {Evolution; international journal of organic
evolution},
Volume = {65},
Number = {4},
Pages = {917-922},
Year = {2011},
Month = {April},
url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21463292},
Doi = {10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01242.x},
Key = {fds229070}
}
@article{fds229082,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Possible largest-scale trends in organismal evolution: Eight
'live hypotheses'},
Journal = {Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics},
Volume = {29},
Number = {1},
Pages = {293-318},
Publisher = {ANNUAL REVIEWS},
Year = {1998},
Month = {December},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.293},
Abstract = {Historically, a great many features of organisms have been
said to show a trend over the history of life, and many
rationales for such trends have been proposed. Here I review
eight candidates, eight 'live hypotheses' that are inspiring
research on largest-scale trends today: entropy, energy
intensiveness, evolutionary versatility, developmental
depth, structural depth, adaptedness, size, and complexity.
For each, the review covers the principal arguments that
have been advanced for why a trend is expected, as well as
some of the empirical approaches that have been adopted.
Also discussed are three conceptual matters arising in
connection with trend studies: 1. Alternative bases for
classifying trends: pattern versus dynamics; 2. alternative
modes in which largest-scale trends have been studied:
'exploratory' versus 'skeptical'; and 3. evolutionary
progress.},
Doi = {10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.293},
Key = {fds229082}
}
@article{fds366840,
Author = {Rosenberg, A and McShea, DW},
Title = {Reductionism about biology},
Pages = {96-126},
Booktitle = {PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY: A CONTEMPORARY INTRODUCTION},
Year = {2008},
Key = {fds366840}
}
@article{fds366835,
Author = {Babcock, G and McShea, DW},
Title = {Resolving teleology's false dilemma},
Journal = {Biological Journal of the Linnean Society},
Volume = {139},
Number = {4},
Pages = {415-432},
Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
Year = {2023},
Month = {August},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blac058},
Abstract = {This paper argues that the account of teleology previously
proposed by the authors is consistent with the physical
determinism that is implicit across many of the sciences. We
suggest that much of the current aversion to teleological
thinking found in the sciences is rooted in debates that can
be traced back to ancient natural science, which pitted
mechanistic and deterministic theories against teleological
ones. These debates saw a deterministic world as one where
freedom and agency is impossible. And, because teleological
entities seem to be free to either reach their ends or not,
it was assumed that they could not be deterministic. Mayr's
modern account of teleonomy adheres to this basic
assumption. Yet, the seeming tension between teleology and
determinism is illusory because freedom and agency do not,
in fact, conflict with a deterministic world. To show this,
we present a taxonomy of different types of freedom that we
see as inherent in teleological systems. Then we show that
our taxonomy of freedom, which is crucial to understanding
teleology, shares many of the features of a philosophical
position regarding free will that is known in the
contemporary literature as 'compatibilism'. This position
maintains that an agent is free when the sources of its
actions are internal, when the agent itself is the
deterministic cause of those actions. Our view shows that
freedom is not only indispensable to teleology, but also
that, contrary to common intuitions, there is no conflict
between teleology and causal determinism.},
Doi = {10.1093/biolinnean/blac058},
Key = {fds366835}
}
@article{fds229061,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Sense and Depth},
Journal = {Biology & Philosophy},
Volume = {15},
Number = {5},
Pages = {751-758},
Publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC},
Year = {2000},
Month = {November},
ISSN = {0169-3867},
url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000165088500008&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
Doi = {10.1023/a:1006754311040},
Key = {fds229061}
}
@article{fds368096,
Author = {Keenan, JP and McShea, DW},
Title = {Synergies Among Behaviors Drive the Discovery of Productive
Interactions},
Journal = {Biological Theory},
Volume = {18},
Number = {1},
Pages = {43-62},
Year = {2023},
Month = {March},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13752-022-00420-2},
Abstract = {When behaviors assemble into combinations, then synergies
have a central role in the discovery of productive patterns
of behavior. In our view—what we call the Synergy
Emergence Principle (SEP)—synergies are dynamic
attractors, drawing interactions toward greater returns as
they happen, in the moment. This Principle offers an
alternative to the two conventionally acknowledged routes to
discovery: directed problem solving, involving forethought
and planning; and the complete randomness of trial and
error. Natural selection has a role in the process, in
humans favoring the maintenance and improvement of certain
key underlying capabilities, such as prosocial helping and
episodic foresight, but selection is not required for
discovery by synergy (which occurs too rapidly for selection
anyway). Here we discuss the consequences of the SEP for
the evolution in humans of key synergies such as tool
usage and interactions that reward cooperation, show how
discovery by synergy and the selection of synergy-supporting
abilities formed a positive feedback loop, and show how
synergies can combine, forming clusters and packages that
are the core of institutions and cultures. Finally, clusters
and packages represent an intermediate level of organization
above the individual and below whole society, with
consequences for our understanding of the major transitions
in evolution.},
Doi = {10.1007/s13752-022-00420-2},
Key = {fds368096}
}
@article{fds229087,
Author = {McShea, DW and Venit, EP},
Title = {Testing for bias in the evolution of coloniality: A
demonstration in cyclostome bryozoans},
Journal = {Paleobiology},
Volume = {28},
Number = {3},
Pages = {308-327},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2002},
Month = {Summer},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1666/0094-8373(2002)028<0308:TFBITE>2.0.CO;2},
Abstract = {Colonial organisms vary in the degree to which they are
individuated at the colony level, i.e., in the degree to
which the colony constitutes a unified whole, as opposed to
a group of independent lower-level entities. Various
arguments have been offered suggesting that evolutionary
change along this continuum may be biased, that increases
may be more probable than decreases. However,
counterarguments can be devised, and the existing evidence
is meager and inconclusive. In this paper, we demonstrate
how the question can be addressed empirically by conducting
a test for bias in a group of stenolaemate bryozoans, the
cyclostomes. More specifically, we suggest three criteria
for colony individuation: degree of connectedness among
lower-level entities (in this case, zooids), degree of
differentiation among lower-level entities, and number of
intermediate-level parts. And we show these criteria can be
used together with a phylogeny and ancestral-state
reconstruction methods to test for bias. In this case,
results do not unambiguously support any single
interpretation but are somewhat supportive of a null
hypothesis of no bias in favor of increase. As part of the
demonstration, we also show how results can be transformed
into a quantitative estimate of an upper limit on bias.
Finally, we place the question of bias in a larger context,
arguing that the same criteria and methods we employ here
can be used to test for bias in other colonial taxa, and
also at other hierarchical levels, for example, in the
transitions from free-living eukaryotic cells to
multicellular organisms. © 2002 Paleontological
Society.},
Doi = {10.1666/0094-8373(2002)028<0308:TFBITE>2.0.CO;2},
Key = {fds229087}
}
@article{fds229085,
Author = {Anderson, C and Franks, NR and McShea, DW},
Title = {The complexity and hierarchical structure of tasks in insect
societies},
Journal = {Animal Behaviour},
Volume = {62},
Number = {4},
Pages = {643-651},
Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
Year = {2001},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {0003-3472},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1795},
Abstract = {To understand the functioning and organizational complexity
of insect societies, a combination of different approaches
is needed. One such approach, which we adopt in this study,
is to consider tasks in insect societies not based upon
their function, as is traditional, but upon their structure.
Four types of task in insect societies have been proposed:
individual, group, team and partitioned tasks. We examine
the relationships among these four task types and consider
'task complexity' to mean the degree of cooperation and
coordination required to complete a particular task
successfully. In this respect, individual tasks are
considered the simplest (low complexity), group tasks are
more complex (medium), and team and partitioned tasks the
most complex (high). We decompose tasks into their component
subtasks to understand how the demands of a task influence
how workers must work together to complete it successfully.
We describe a simple method to measure the complexity of
tasks using task deconstruction. Points are assigned to each
subtask within the task and summed to give a total score.
This measure, the task's score, allows objective comparison
of tasks (different tasks may be ranked in order of their
complexity) within and between species, or even higher taxa,
and we hope it will be of practical use to researchers. We
propose that both team and partitioned tasks may contain
individual, group, team and partitioned subtasks. We examine
each of the possible task-subtask relationships and provide
examples from known social insect behaviour. © 2001 The
Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.},
Doi = {10.1006/anbe.2001.1795},
Key = {fds229085}
}
@article{fds229078,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {The evolution of complexity without natural selection, a
possible large-scale trend of the fourth
kind},
Journal = {Paleobiology},
Volume = {31},
Number = {2 SUPPL.},
Pages = {146-156},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2005},
Month = {July},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1666/0094-8373(2005)031[0146:TEOCWN]2.0.CO;2},
Abstract = {A simple principle predicts a tendency, or vector, toward
increasing organismal complexity in the history of life: As
the parts of an organism accumulate variations in evolution,
they should tend to become more different from each other.
In other words, the variance among the parts, or what I call
the "internal variance" of the organism, will tend to
increase spontaneously. Internal variance is complexity, I
argue, albeit complexity in a purely structural sense,
divorced from any notion of function. If the principle is
correct, this tendency should exist in all lineages, and the
resulting trend (if there is one) will be driven, or more
precisely, driven by constraint (as opposed to selection).
The existence of a trend is uncertain, because the
internal-variance principle predicts only that the range of
options offered up to selection will be increasingly
complex, on average. And it is unclear whether selection
will enhance this vector, act neutrally, or oppose it,
perhaps negating it. The vector might also be negated if
variations producing certain kinds of developmental
truncations are especially common in evolution.
Constraint-driven trends - or what I ca ll large-scale
trends of the fourth kind - have been in bad odor in
evolutionary studies since the Modern Synthesis. Indeed, one
such trend, orthogenesis, is famous for having been
discredited. In Stephen Jay Gould's last book, The Structure
of Evolutionary Thought, he tried to rehabilitate this
category (although not orthogenesis), showing how
constraint-driven trends could be produced by processes well
within the mainstream of contemporary evolutionary theory.
The internal-variance principle contributes to Gould's
project by adding another candidate trend to this category.
© 2005 The Paleontological Society. All rights
reserved.},
Doi = {10.1666/0094-8373(2005)031[0146:TEOCWN]2.0.CO;2},
Key = {fds229078}
}
@article{fds229075,
Author = {Payne, JL and McClain, CR and Boyer, AG and Brown, JH and Finnegan, S and Kowalewski, M and Krause, RA and Lyons, SK and McShea, DW and Novack-Gottshall, PM and Smith, FA and Spaeth, P and Stempien, JA and Wang, SC},
Title = {The evolutionary consequences of oxygenic photosynthesis: a
body size perspective.},
Journal = {Photosynthesis research},
Volume = {107},
Number = {1},
Pages = {37-57},
Year = {2011},
Month = {January},
url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20821265},
Abstract = {The high concentration of molecular oxygen in Earth's
atmosphere is arguably the most conspicuous and geologically
important signature of life. Earth's early atmosphere lacked
oxygen; accumulation began after the evolution of oxygenic
photosynthesis in cyanobacteria around 3.0-2.5 billion
years ago (Gya). Concentrations of oxygen have since varied,
first reaching near-modern values ~600 million years ago
(Mya). These fluctuations have been hypothesized to
constrain many biological patterns, among them the evolution
of body size. Here, we review the state of knowledge
relating oxygen availability to body size. Laboratory
studies increasingly illuminate the mechanisms by which
organisms can adapt physiologically to the variation in
oxygen availability, but the extent to which these findings
can be extrapolated to evolutionary timescales remains
poorly understood. Experiments confirm that animal size is
limited by experimental hypoxia, but show that plant
vegetative growth is enhanced due to reduced
photorespiration at lower O(2):CO(2). Field studies of size
distributions across extant higher taxa and individual
species in the modern provide qualitative support for a
correlation between animal and protist size and oxygen
availability, but few allow prediction of maximum or mean
size from oxygen concentrations in unstudied regions. There
is qualitative support for a link between oxygen
availability and body size from the fossil record of
protists and animals, but there have been few quantitative
analyses confirming or refuting this impression. As oxygen
transport limits the thickness or volume-to-surface area
ratio-rather than mass or volume-predictions of maximum
possible size cannot be constructed simply from metabolic
rate and oxygen availability. Thus, it remains difficult to
confirm that the largest representatives of fossil or living
taxa are limited by oxygen transport rather than other
factors. Despite the challenges of integrating findings from
experiments on model organisms, comparative observations
across living species, and fossil specimens spanning
millions to billions of years, numerous tractable avenues of
research could greatly improve quantitative constraints on
the role of oxygen in the macroevolutionary history of
organismal size.},
Doi = {10.1007/s11120-010-9593-1},
Key = {fds229075}
}
@article{fds229071,
Author = {Kowalewski, M and Payne, JL and Smith, FA and Wang, SC and McShea, DW and Xiao, S and Novack-Gottshall, PM and McClain, CR and Krause, RA and Boyer, AG and Finnegan, S and Lyons, SK and Stempien, JA and Alroy, J and Spaeth, PA},
Title = {The geozoic supereon},
Journal = {Palaios},
Volume = {26},
Number = {5},
Pages = {251-255},
Publisher = {Society for Sedimentary Geology},
Year = {2011},
Month = {May},
ISSN = {0883-1351},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/palo.2011.S03},
Doi = {10.2110/palo.2011.S03},
Key = {fds229071}
}
@article{fds229090,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {The hierarchical structure of organisms: A scale and
documentation of a trend in the maximum},
Journal = {Paleobiology},
Volume = {27},
Number = {2},
Pages = {405-423},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2001},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1666/0094-8373(2001)027<0405:THSOOA>2.0.CO;2},
Abstract = {The degree of hierarchical structure of organisms-the number
of levels of nesting of lower-level entities within
higher-level individuals-has apparently increased a number
of times in the history of life, notably in the origin of
the eukaryotic cell from an association of prokaryotic
cells, of multicellular organisms from clones of eukaryotic
cells, and of intergrated colonies from aggregates of
multicellular individuals. Arranged in order of first
occurrence, these three transitions suggest a trend, in
particular a trend in the maximum, or an increase in the
degree of hierarchical structure present in the
hierarchically deepest organism on Earth. However, no
rigorous documentation of such a trend-based on operational
and consistent criteria for hierarchical levels-has been
attempted. Also, the trajectory of increase has not been
examined in any detail. One limitation is that no hierarchy
scale has been developed with sufficient resolution to
document more than these three major increases. Here, a
higher-resolution scale is proposed in which hierarchical
structure is decomposed into levels and sublevels, with
levels reflecting number of layers of nestedness, and
sublevels reflecting degree of individuation at the highest
level. The scale is then used, together with the body-fossil
record, to plot the trajectory of the maximum. Two
alternative interpretations of the record are considered,
and both reveal a long-term trend extending from the Archean
through the early Phanerozoic. In one, the pattern of
increase was incremental, with almost all sublevels arising
precisely in order. The data also raise the possibility that
waiting times for transitions between sublevels may have
decreased with increasing hierarchical level (and with
time). These last two findings-incremental increase in level
and decreasing waiting times-are tentative, pending a study
of possible biases in the fossil record.},
Doi = {10.1666/0094-8373(2001)027<0405:THSOOA>2.0.CO;2},
Key = {fds229090}
}
@article{fds229091,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {The minor transitions in hierarchical evolution and the
question of a directional bias},
Journal = {Journal of Evolutionary Biology},
Volume = {14},
Number = {3},
Pages = {502-518},
Publisher = {WILEY},
Year = {2001},
Month = {July},
ISSN = {1010-061X},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2001.00283.x},
Abstract = {The history of life shows a clear trend in hierarchical
organization, revealed by the successive emergence of
organisms with ever greater numbers of levels of nestedness
and greater development, or 'individuation', of the highest
level. Various arguments have been offered which suggest
that the trend is the result of a directional bias, or
tendency, meaning that hierarchical increases are more
probable than decreases among lineages, perhaps because
hierarchical increases are favoured, on average, by natural
selection. Further, what little evidence exists seems to
point to a bias: some major increases are known-including
the origin of the eukaryotic cell from prokaryotic cells and
of animals, fungi and land plants from solitary eukaryotic
cells - but no major decreases (except in parasitic and
commensal organisms), at least at the cellular and
multicellular levels. The fact of a trend, combined with the
arguments and evidence, might make a bias seem beyond doubt,
but here I argue that its existence is an open empirical
question. Further, I show how testing is
possible.},
Doi = {10.1046/j.1420-9101.2001.00283.x},
Key = {fds229091}
}
@article{fds229046,
Author = {McShea, DW and Simpson, CG},
Title = {The miscellaneous transitions in evolution},
Pages = {19-34},
Booktitle = {The Major Transitions in Evolution Revisited},
Publisher = {MIT Press},
Editor = {Calcott, B and Sterelny, K},
Year = {2011},
ISBN = {9780262294539},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262015240.003.0002},
Doi = {10.7551/mitpress/9780262015240.003.0002},
Key = {fds229046}
}
@article{fds366836,
Author = {Brandon, RN and McShea, DW},
Title = {The Missing Two-Thirds of Evolutionary Theory},
Pages = {1-+},
Booktitle = {MISSING TWO-THIRDS OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY},
Year = {2020},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108591508},
Doi = {10.1017/9781108591508},
Key = {fds366836}
}
@article{fds43079,
Author = {D.W. McShea and C. Anderson},
Title = {The remodularization of the organism},
Pages = {185-206},
Booktitle = {Modularity: Understanding the Development and Evolution of
Natural Complex Systems},
Publisher = {The MIT Press},
Editor = {W. Callebaut and D. Rasskin-Gutman},
Year = {2005},
Key = {fds43079}
}
@article{fds229057,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Three provocative patterns in hierarchical
evolution.},
Journal = {AMERICAN ZOOLOGIST},
Volume = {41},
Number = {6},
Pages = {1522-1522},
Publisher = {SOC INTEGRATIVE COMPARATIVE BIOLOGY},
Year = {2001},
Month = {December},
ISSN = {0003-1569},
url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000174306500495&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
Key = {fds229057}
}
@article{fds229093,
Author = {McShea, DW and Changizi, MA},
Title = {Three puzzles in hierarchical evolution.},
Journal = {Integrative and comparative biology},
Volume = {43},
Number = {1},
Pages = {74-81},
Year = {2003},
Month = {February},
ISSN = {1540-7063},
url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21680411},
Abstract = {The maximum degree of hierarchical structure of organisms
has risen over the history of life, notably in three
transitions: the origin of the eukaryotic cell from
symbiotic associations of prokaryotes; the emergence of the
first multicellular individuals from clones of eukaryotic
cells; and the origin of the first individuated colonies
from associations of multicellular organisms. The trend is
obvious in the fossil record, but documenting it using a
high-resolution hierarchy scale reveals three puzzles: 1)
the rate of origin of new levels accelerates, at least until
the early Phanerozoic; 2) after that, the trend may slow or
even stop; and 3) levels may sometimes arise out of order.
The three puzzles and their implications are discussed; a
possible explanation is offered for the first.},
Doi = {10.1093/icb/43.1.74},
Key = {fds229093}
}
@article{fds229048,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Three Trends in the History of Life: An Evolutionary
Syndrome},
Journal = {Evolutionary Biology},
Volume = {43},
Number = {4},
Pages = {531-542},
Publisher = {Springer Nature},
Year = {2016},
Month = {December},
ISSN = {0071-3260},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11692-015-9323-x},
Abstract = {The history of life seems to be characterized by three
large-scale trends in complexity: (1) the rise in complexity
in the sense of hierarchy, in other words, an increase in
the number of levels of organization within organisms; (2)
the increase in complexity in the sense of differentiation,
that is, a rise in the number of different part types at the
level just below the whole; and (3) a downward trend, the
loss of differentiation at the lowest levels in organisms, a
kind of complexity drain within the parts. Here, I describe
the three trends, outlining the evidence for each and
arguing that they are connected with each other, that
together they constitute an evolutionary syndrome, one that
has recurred a number times over the history of life.
Finally, in the last section, I offer an argument connecting
the third trend to the reduction at lower levels of
organization in “autonomy”, or from a different
perspective, to an increase in what might be called the
“machinification” of the lower levels.},
Doi = {10.1007/s11692-015-9323-x},
Key = {fds229048}
}
@article{fds229086,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Trends, tools, and terminology},
Journal = {PALEOBIOLOGY},
Volume = {26},
Number = {3},
Pages = {330-333},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2000},
ISSN = {0094-8373},
url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000089104700002&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
Doi = {10.1666/0094-8373(2000)026<0330:TTAT>2.0.CO;2},
Key = {fds229086}
}
@article{fds229076,
Author = {Payne, JL and Boyer, AG and Brown, JH and Finnegan, S and Kowalewski, M and Krause, RA and Lyons, SK and McClain, CR and McShea, DW and Novack-Gottshall, PM and Smith, FA and Stempien, JA and Wang,
SC},
Title = {Two-phase increase in the maximum size of life over 3.5
billion years reflects biological innovation and
environmental opportunity.},
Journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America},
Volume = {106},
Number = {1},
Pages = {24-27},
Year = {2009},
Month = {January},
url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19106296},
Abstract = {The maximum size of organisms has increased enormously since
the initial appearance of life >3.5 billion years ago (Gya),
but the pattern and timing of this size increase is poorly
known. Consequently, controls underlying the size spectrum
of the global biota have been difficult to evaluate. Our
period-level compilation of the largest known fossil
organisms demonstrates that maximum size increased by 16
orders of magnitude since life first appeared in the fossil
record. The great majority of the increase is accounted for
by 2 discrete steps of approximately equal magnitude: the
first in the middle of the Paleoproterozoic Era
(approximately 1.9 Gya) and the second during the late
Neoproterozoic and early Paleozoic eras (0.6-0.45 Gya). Each
size step required a major innovation in organismal
complexity--first the eukaryotic cell and later eukaryotic
multicellularity. These size steps coincide with, or
slightly postdate, increases in the concentration of
atmospheric oxygen, suggesting latent evolutionary potential
was realized soon after environmental limitations were
removed.},
Doi = {10.1073/pnas.0806314106},
Key = {fds229076}
}
@article{fds229051,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Unnecessary Complexity Complexity and the Arrow of Time
Charles H. Lineweaver, Paul C. W. Davies, and Michael
Ruse, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
2013. 369 pp. $30, £21.99. ISBN 9781107027251.},
Journal = {Science},
Volume = {342},
Number = {6164},
Pages = {1319-1320},
Publisher = {American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS)},
Year = {2013},
Month = {December},
ISSN = {0036-8075},
url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000328196000028&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
Abstract = {<jats:p>The contributors examine the nature of complexity
and its changes over time as well as their
causes.</jats:p>},
Doi = {10.1126/science.1245386},
Key = {fds229051}
}
@article{fds229059,
Author = {Mcshea, DW},
Title = {Unpredictability! and the Function of Mind in
Nature},
Journal = {Adaptive Behavior},
Volume = {4},
Number = {4},
Pages = {466-470},
Publisher = {SAGE Publications},
Year = {1996},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {1059-7123},
url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:A1996VY98400009&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
Doi = {10.1177/105971239600400309},
Key = {fds229059}
}
@article{fds229069,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Untangling the morass},
Journal = {American Scientist},
Volume = {99},
Number = {2},
Pages = {154-156},
Publisher = {Sigma Xi},
Year = {2011},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {0003-0996},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1511/2011.89.154},
Abstract = {Daniel W. McShea reviews the book 'The mirage of a space
between nature and nurture,' by Evelyn Fox Keller. Keller
argues that much of the trouble has to do with linguistic
practice, with slippages in usage and concepts. In her apt
words, the nature- nurture debate is a 'morass of linguistic
and conceptual vegetation grown together in ways that seem
to defy untangling.' The address on an envelope makes a huge
difference in where the letter goes but has little to do
with generating the process that actually gets it there. A
mutant allele associated with a speech and language disorder
still gets labeled a speech and language gene. Most
behavioral geneticists would agree that a mistake has been
made when explicit claims about the genetic basis of
individual traits are inferred from measures of technical
heritability.},
Doi = {10.1511/2011.89.154},
Key = {fds229069}
}
@article{fds229074,
Author = {McShea, DW},
Title = {Upper-directed systems: A new approach to teleology in
biology},
Journal = {Biology and Philosophy},
Volume = {27},
Number = {5},
Pages = {663-684},
Publisher = {Springer Nature},
Year = {2012},
Month = {September},
ISSN = {0169-3867},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10539-012-9326-2},
Abstract = {How shall we understand apparently teleological systems?
What explains their persistence (returning to past
trajectories following errors) and their plasticity (finding
the same trajectory from different starting points)? Here I
argue that all seemingly goal-directed systems-e. g., a
food-seeking organism, human-made devices like thermostats
and torpedoes, biological development, human goal seeking,
and the evolutionary process itself-share a common
organization. Specifically, they consist of an entity that
moves within a larger containing structure, one that directs
its behavior in a general way without precisely determining
it. If so, then teleology lies within the domain of the
theory of compositional hierarchies. © 2012 Springer
Science+Business Media B.V.},
Doi = {10.1007/s10539-012-9326-2},
Key = {fds229074}
}
@article{fds355922,
Author = {McShea, DW and Venit, EP},
Title = {What is a Part?},
Pages = {259-284},
Booktitle = {The Character Concept in Evolutionary Biology},
Publisher = {Elsevier},
Editor = {G.P. Wagner},
Year = {2001},
ISBN = {9780127300559},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-012730055-9/50022-7},
Doi = {10.1016/b978-012730055-9/50022-7},
Key = {fds355922}
}
@article{fds366844,
Author = {Rosenberg, A and McShea, DW},
Title = {What is the philosophy of biology? Introduction},
Pages = {1-+},
Booktitle = {PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY: A CONTEMPORARY INTRODUCTION},
Year = {2008},
Key = {fds366844}
}
%% Book Reviews
@article{fds197562,
Author = {D.W. McShea},
Title = {(Review of The Tangled Web, by Carl Zimmer)},
Journal = {Quarterly Review of Biology},
Volume = {86},
Pages = {47},
Year = {2011},
Key = {fds197562}
}
@article{fds16144,
Author = {D.W. McShea},
Title = {Adaptive glory},
Journal = {American Scientist},
Volume = {91},
Pages = {567-569},
Year = {2003},
Month = {November},
Key = {fds16144}
}
%% Book Chapter
@misc{fds219847,
Author = {D.W. McShea},
Title = {Freedom and purpose in biology},
Booktitle = {Contingency and Order in History and the Sciences (working
title)},
Editor = {Peter Harrison},
Year = {2013},
Key = {fds219847}
}
%% Published Abstracts
@misc{fds219848,
Author = {Finnegan, Seth and Steve C. Wang and John Alroy and Alison G. Boyer and Matthew E. Clapham and Zoe V. Finkel and Matthew A. Kosnik and Michał Kowalewski and Richard A. Krause, Jr. and S. Kathleen
Lyons and Craig R. McClain and Daniel W. McShea and Philip M.
Novack- Gottshall and Rowan Lockwood and Jonathan L. Payne and Felisa
A. Smith and Paula A. Spaeth and Jennifer A.
Stempien},
Title = {No consistent relationship between body size and extinction
risk in the marine fossil record},
Journal = {GSA Abstracts},
Year = {2009},
Key = {fds219848}
}