CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,399Philosophy of Biology and Scientific ExplanationEvolution and Genetic DynamicsLanguage and cultural evolution

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 174 of the 175 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions

Open access
Laland, Kevin N., Uller, Tobias, Feldman, Marcus W., Sterelny, Kim, Müller, Gerd B., Moczek, Armin, Jablonka, Eva, Odling-Smee, John·2015·Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
DOI 10.1098/rspb.2015.1019PMC PMC4632619
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Scientific activities take place within the structured sets of ideas and assumptions that define a field and its practices. The conceptual framework of evolutionary biology emerged with the Modern Synthesis in the early twentieth century and has since expanded into a highly successful research program to explore the processes of diversification and adaptation. Nonetheless, the ability of that framework satisfactorily to accommodate the rapid advances in developmental biology, genomics and ecology has been questioned. We review some of these arguments, focusing on literatures (evo-devo, developmental plasticity, inclusive inheritance and niche construction) whose implications for evolution can be interpreted in two ways—one that preserves the internal structure of contemporary evolutionary theory and one that points towards an alternative conceptual framework. The latter, which we label the ‘extended evolutionary synthesis' (EES), retains the fundaments of evolutionary theory, but differs in its emphasis on the role of constructive processes in development and evolution, and reciprocal portrayals of causation. In the EES, developmental processes, operating through developmental bias, inclusive inheritance and niche construction, share responsibility for the direction and rate of evolution, the origin of character variation and organism–environment complementarity. We spell out the structure, core assumptions and novel predictions of the EES, and show how it can be deployed to stimulate and advance research in those fields that study or use evolutionary biology.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2015.1019

Cites

174 of 174 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 175 references

1 of the 175 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Futuyma DJ, 1998, Evolutionary biology
  2. 10.2307/j.ctvjsf433 · DOI
  3. 10.1038/514161a · DOI
  4. Uller T, Challenges to evolutionary theory: development and heredity
  5. Futuyma DJ, 2013, Evolution
  6. Barton N, 2007, Evolution
  7. Ridley M, 2004, Evolution
  8. Darwin C, 1859, The origin of species
  9. Mayr E, 1984, The triumph of the evolutionary synthesis, Times Lit, 2, 1261
  10. Endler JA, 1986, The newer synthesis? Some conceptual problems in evolutionary biology, Oxford Surv. Evol. Biol, 3, 224
  11. Oyama S, 1985, The ontology of information: developmental systems and evolution
  12. O'Brien M, 2011, Cultural niche construction. Special edition of biological theory

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–500 of 1,002

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Laland, K. N., Uller, T., Feldman, M. W., Sterelny, K., Müller, G. B., Moczek, A., Jablonka, E., & Odling-Smee, J.
Affiliations
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • University of Vienna (AT)
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
  • Mansfield College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Corresponding author
Laland, Kevin N.
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Publisher
The Royal Society
Published
2015-08-22
Volume
282
Issue
1813
Pages
20151019
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
DOI
10.1098/rspb.2015.1019
PMC
PMC4632619
OpenAlex
W2103794982
Cited by
1,399
References
175
Citations by year
2026: 90 · 2025: 99 · 2024: 129 · 2023: 179 · 2022: 148 · 2021: 149 · 2020: 189 · 2019: 136 · 2018: 106 · 2017: 105 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 9
FWCI
41.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
royalsociety.org/journals/ethics-policies/data-sharing-mining/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
Keywords
Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, Modern Synthesis, evolutionary developmental biology, developmental plasticity, niche construction, developmental bias, evolutionary theory
MeSH terms
Archaea, Ecology, Biological Evolution, Models, Biological, Developmental Biology, Bacterial Physiological Phenomena, Genomics, Eukaryota

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review