Lamarckism and Darwinism are
traditionally seen as alternative theories
trying to account for evolutionary change.
The verdict of history is that Lamarck got it
wrong - evolutionary change does not occur
through the inheritance of acquired
characters. Acquired characters are the
outcome of instructive processes, such as
those seen in embryonic induction,
transcriptional regulation, and learning all
of which involve highly specific and usually
adaptive responses to factors external to the
responding system. The inheritance of the
outcomes of instructive processes is deemed
to be impossible. Adaptive evolutionary
change is assumed to be based on darwinian
(or more accurately neo-darwinian) evolution
in which guidance comes exclusively from
selective processes. The production and
nature of heritable variation is assumed to
be uninformed by the environment or by
previous history. The future is open-ended,
determined solely by the contingencies of
life. lt is neither foretold nor intimated.
General selection theory makes no
assumptions about the origin of heritable
variation. It maintains that evolution by
natural selection will occur in any system
with entities manifesting the properties of
multiplication, heredity and heritable
variation affecting reproductive success.
In the current version of biological
darwinism, it is assumed that information is
digital and encoded in DNA base sequences,
that multiplication of information occurs
through DNA replication, and that variation.
which is generated by mutation and
recombination, is random with respect to the
selecting environment and the
developmental history of the organism and the
lineage. However, this version of evolution
-'genic neodarwinism'- is incomplete: it
gives natural selection an exclusive
deterministic role in the evolution of all
conceivable complex adaptations, but until
recently it bas had rather little to say
about the evolution of new systems for
acquiring, storing and transferring
information, and even less about the
evolutionary effects of such systems once
they are in place. Natural selection leads
not only to the evolution of eyes, wings, and
sonars, but also to the evolution of new
evolutionary rules. Many of these rules
undermine the assumption that variation is
random. Mechanisms allowing the inheritance
of acquired characters have evolved several
times during the history of life, and
understanding their evolution is crucial to
understanding the transitions to new levels
of individuality.
Evolved 'lamarckian' heredity
systems
The heredity systems that we consider here
are all complex mechanisms for the
acquisition, storage and transfer of
information. All evolved through natural
selection, but they differ from each other in
the type of information they transmit, in
their evolutionary history, and in their
evolutionary effects. They include
adaptive mutational systems involving
non-random changes in DNA, cellular heredity
systems in which information is acquired and
transmitted through intracellular structures
and biochemical mechanisms, the transfer of
patterns of behaviour through social learning
coupled with certain types of social
organization, and the transmission of
information using symbolic languages. All
of these systems allow certain outcomes of
the interaction between the organism and its
environment to be incorporated into and
maintained within the information carrying
system, and the information to be transmitted
to future generations. All therefore allow
the inheritance of acquired or learnt
characters.
Adaptive mutational systems : the
intelligent genome
In the genetic inheritance system,
information for making RNA and proteins is
stored in DNA base sequences; an elaborate
enzyme system enables this information to be
replicated and transmitted to the next
generation. Physico-chemical damage to the
DNA and errors occurring during its
replication can be removed by a battery
of repair processes. Errors that remain, and
sequence changes that are created during
repair, or result from the movements of
genomic parasites, provide the raw material
on which selection ultimately acts. Since
replication and repair are enzyme-dependent
processes, genetic variation in the
enzyme-coding genes can affect their
efficiency. In addition base sequences differ
in the likelihood that they will be damaged,
replicated inaccurately, or be invaded by
parasitic elements. Consequently, the type of
DNA variation generated, the rate at which it
is generated, and when and where it is
generated, can all be selectively modified.
Systems that were presumably selected to
maintain the fidelity of the genetic
inheritance system can, once they are in
place, be modified and used in ways that lead
to the generation of mutations at particular
sites, or of a particular type, or at a
particular time. [...]
Shapiro suggests that organisms respond to
stress by activating their natural genetic
engineering systems. There is biological and
environmental feedback into the genome. This
means that evolutionary change may be very
rapid because mutation rates can be
increased, and coordinated changes may occur
at many sites within a single genome.
Furthermore, although the induced genetic
changes may not be specifically those that
solve the organism's immediate survival
problem, if similar stress episodes have been
frequent in the past, the genome and
genetic machinery may have been modified to
target variation to a subset of sites or to
be of a type that is likely to provide useful
variation. Whether or not mutation is
'directed' in the sense that environmental
factors induce exclusively those mutations
that are beneficial is still highly
debatable. However, given the well-known
ability of natural selection to take two or
more old functions and cobble them together
to construct something new, it would not be
surprising if the mechanisms that enable
selective control of transcription have been
coupled with those that maintain (or fail to
maintain) genetic fidelity. The result would
be that the inducible systems that turn genes
on and off could then also turn the
production of genetic change on and off.
Cellular heredity : epigenetic
inheritance systems
From what we know at present, it seems
that only rarely is DNA sequence information
changed during determination and
differentiation. Most organisms have
different ways of generating and transmitting
cellular phenotypes - they use epigenetic
inheritance systems (ElSs). Three classes of
EIS have been recognized: steady-state,
structural, and chromatinmarking systems.
Steady-state systems are based on
positive feedback loops. At its simplest, a
gene produces a product that stimulates
further activity of the gene and hence
further synthesis of the product. Once
switched on by physiological or developmental
events, the cell lineage continues
transcription unless the concentration of the
product falls. In structural inheritance
systems, cell structures are used to
template the formation of new similar
structures. For example, genetically
identical ciliates can have different
patterns of cilia on their cell surface which
are inherited; even experimentally altered
patterns can sometimes be transmitted to
daughter cells. ln the third type of EIS,
chromatinmarking, states of chromatin
that affect gene expression are clonally
inherited. The textbook example is the
transmission of the inactive X chromosome in
fernale mammals: once one of the two X
chromosomes in a cell has been inactivated,
all of the descendants of that cell normally
have the same X inactive. Information about
gene and chromosome activity is contained in
what have been called chromatin marks, ie. in
the proteins associated with DNA and the
distribution of DNA modifications such as
cytosine methylation.
We can only guess at the evolutionary
origins of the various ElSs. Simple feedback
and structural inheritance systems probably
evolved very early in evolutionary history,
but chromatin-marking systems depend upon DNA
and its orderly replication, so they must
have followed the evolution of DNA-based
inheritance. DNA methylation and
heterochromatinization are both ways of
inactivating repeated DNA sequences such as
those that arise from viral invasion, so the
chromatin-marking ElSs may have originated as
defence mechanisms against genomic parasites
which were later modified by selection to
fulfil additional roles in gene regulation
and cell memory.
Whatever the origins of the various ElSs.
they were probably selectively refined in
early unicells living in enviromments that
fluctuated in a regular way (e.g. between
summer and winter). When environmental
fluctuations are short relative to the
lifespan, selection favours adjustment
through physiological change (for example,
turning genes on and off); when they are
long, so that many generations are spent in
each phase of the cycle, adaptation through
the selection of genetic variation is
possible. However, in cycles of intermediate
length. where adaptation through selection of
genetic variations is usually too slow
(although hypermutable loci may evolve), the
ability to transmit functional states (for
example. whether a gene is on or off) should
be strongly selected. Any genetic changes
that link epigenetic switching to the
environmental change would have obvious
selective advantages.
The outcome of this type of selection was
systems through which alternative cellular
phenotypes, including induced phenotypes,
could be transmitted in cell lineages with
various degrees of fidelity. Such systems
opened up new evolutionary possibilities.
ElSs were probably important in the
transition to multicellularity, because the
phenotypic uniformity they gave to a clonal
group of cells made the variation within
croups less than variation between groups.
Certainly, complex ontogenies would have been
unlikely without ElSs, since the ability of
cells to transmit their induced epigenetic
states to daughter cells is fundamentai to
development. In organisms that reproduce by
budding or fragmentation. induced changes in
epigenetic states can readily be transmitted
to further generations. In such organisms
inherited epigenetic variations may be able
to'hold'an adapted state for long enough to
allow similar genetic variations to catch up.
Theoretically, transmitting induced
phenotypes, even if only for a few
generations, can have considerable advantages
in some environments.
Social learning and the origin of
traditions
Animals acquire information that affects
the way they will behave in the future and
store it in their nervous systems. In
animals that show parental care and other
forms of social interaction, patterns of
behaviour can be transferred between
individuals and across generations. New
patterns of behaviour, first acquired either
by accident or by individual learning in new
conditions, can be transmitted
transgenerationally through social learning.
This inheritance system operates at the whole
organism level, and the information encoded
is analog in nature - as a rule, it is not
readily dissociated into independently
heritable parts, but is contained in the
dynamics of the interactions between the
organism and its social and ecological
enviromment. It is this dynamic system that
is reconstituted anew every generation.
In birds and mammals, social learning
occurs when the presence of one relatively
experienced individual increases the chances
that a naive individual learns a similar
behaviour pattern. A young male song-bird,
hearing the song of his father, learns some
of the idiosyncratic components of the song,
and will later transmit it to his sons. Naive
blackbirds, seeing the mobbing behaviour of
conspecifics towards a particular target,
learn to mob this type of object, even when
it is harmless.[...]
Social learning can have important
effects on the evolution of behaviour,
and hence on our interpretation of
evolutionary change. First, when we observe a
new heritable pattern of behaviour in a
population, its origin and maintenance cannot
automatically be assumed to be due to genetic
variations. The inheritance of purely
cultural variations has to be seriously
considered. Second, taking behavioural
inheritance into consideration leads to
alternative or complementary interpretations
of known patterns of behaviour. For example,
it is possible to show that adoption can
spread and be maintained within populations
through the social learning of certain
parenting styles. Third, the possibility that
sexual imprinting and other mechanisms of
social learning can initiate speciation must
be considered.[...]
Symbolic languages
Language is part of the behavioural
inheritance system. However, some properties
of language make it qualitatively different
from any other information storage and
transmission system: language has a
structure, or syntax, that allows
generativity and creativity. Utterances are
organized into sentences by applying rules
for the formation of hierarchical, recurring
constructions of meaning-relations. This
leads to the production and comprehension of
an infinite number of meaningful sentences.
Moreover, language increases the scope of
transmissible information- the information is
not only messages about the world, but also
messages about beliefs, about past and
future, and about things distant, abstract,
and absent. Unlike other types of information
transmitted through the nervous system,
linguistic information is organized
digitally, and is decomposable into semantic
units. The differences between individuals in
the ability to use a particular language, and
the differences between languages, show how
plastic the system is, notwithstanding the
fact that language bas an evolved genetic
basis.
Reconstructing the evolution of language
is extremely problematical, not only because
we have to rely on very indirect evidence,
but also because there is disagreement among
linguists as to what qualifies as 'true'
language. The ape-language controversy
illustrates the problem: Kanzi, the
language-instructed bonobo (Pan paniscus),
can (arguably) understand some form of simple
spoken English, and is able to converse,
though with little syntactical regularity and
with the aid of human-made visual symbols,
about his desires and intentions. However,
many linguists are adamant that the
non-syntactical communication and
representation system of Kanzi and other
language-instructed higher apes are not a
true language, but rather a'protolanguage'.
The acquisition of syntax, which is unique to
humans, is perceived by many linguists as a
saltatory event. However, to most
evolutionary biologists it seems more likely
that the phonetic system, the ability to
learn many lexical elements, and syntax must
all have evolved through gradual cultural and
genetical evolution. Eventually, from some
form of proto-language, the mature language
of Homo sapiens evolved.
Certain basic preconditions for language
evolution were presumably present in our
ancestors, since they exist in the higher
apes, and also in some monkeys. These include
intense sociality with a highly evolved
social intelligence involving some theory of
mind (the ability to understand another
individuai's intentions), a sign system that
functions to modulate social interactions,
and increased voluntary motor control of
hands, breathing, and the expression of
emotions. Dunbar has stressed the importance
of social bonding among individuals for early
protolanguage evolution. He argued that as
human groups grew in size, grooming was no
longer able to manage the intimate and
complex social interactions within the group.
Language evolved as a more effective
grooming-system, because it involves
several individuals at the same time. Other
authors have stressed other features that
have been important in the evolution of
language, such as its prosodic and rhythmical
aspects which lead to group-bonding, and its
role in extending and allowing voluntary
access to memories.[...]
The evolution of language may have been
driven by cultural evolution, followed by
genetic assimilation. Genes and culture
co-evolved, with the rare linguistic
innovations of adults being quickly adopted
and absorbed by the young children of the
group, to become the behavioural norm and
habit of the next generation. Cultural
evolution for ever more efficient linguistic
competence 'stretched' the linguistic
abilities of the individuals and exerted
stable and consistent directional selection
on the underlying, genetically encoded
features of the nervous system that promote
ever more effective language use.
Conclusions
All the inheritance svstems that we have
described have the properties necessary for
darwinian evolution: the information (be it
digital or non-dicital) can vary, and the
variations can be transmitted across
generations. Natural selection of the
variations leads to adaptation and
divergence. Although variations may result
from random errors in maintenance and copying
processes, heritable variations in these
systems (1) are often induced or learnt, (2)
are frequently adaptive, (3) can sometimes be
generated at a very high rate and are often
reversible, (4) may affect several characters
in the same individual, and (5) may affect
several individuals in a similar way. Rapid,
reversible, coordinated, induced or learnt
changes are not characteristics of the
classical genetic system. Although the
evolved systems allowing 'adaptive' mutation
obviously depend on DNA variations, DNA base
sequence changes are not required for the
generation of epigenetic, behavioural, and
language-based variations.
It is possible to study the effects of
each inheritance system in isolation from the
others for a limited number of generations,
but the different systems clearly interact.
One of the most neglected and challenging
aspects of the study of evolutionary history
is the investigation of these interactions.
Genetic adaptations may be guided by
heritable induced or learnt phenotypic
adaptations, usually through genetic
assimilation. As additional inheritance
systems evolved, the new systems began to
guide the changes at the underlying levels.
As the figure shows, the importance of the
different systems is not the same in all
groups. While ElSs and genomic mutational
systems have probably played a major role in
the evolution of unicellular organisms,
plants, fungi and lower animals, behavioural
inheritance systems have attained prominence
in higher animals, and language has a major
directing role in human evolution.
Instructive (or 'lamarckian') inheritance
systems are all adaptations that have evolved
through darwinian natural selection, often
through the selection of randomly generated
variations. The kind of environment in which
such systems have evolved is likely to have
been one with some re-occurring features, but
with enough temporal or spatial diversity to
preclude a fixed genetic response on the one
hand, yet on the other hand make an
individual, physiological response too
costly. Once present, these instructive
inheritance systems constrain and channel
evolution. Unlike other constraints on
evolutionary change, such constraints do not
merely define the range of the possible, they
also, more positively, specify what is
likely. The future may spring more directly
from the present than we have been accustomed
to believe.