Evo-devo

Recently I have taken interest in the field of evolutionary developmental biology. It is perhaps natural to get engaged in the evolutionary roots and/or evolutionary consequences of developmental processes. Another way to view this field might be the construction of a map between genotype and phenotype. The illustration above depicts such a map. It is easy to philosophize on such a topic. Even if the conversation is entirely non-scientific I find myself feeling pleased to even talk about such grand (if vague) concepts.

Following an initial surge of enthusiasm I find myself disappointed in the field. Despite interest in the field for over a century (if not more) very little science appears to have been done. To highlight this fact, a serious scientific/quantitative attempt at posing a question seems to have evaded the entire field.

Perhaps the field has been hindered by the natural disposition of scientists to take extreme points of views. Either, developmental processes, genetic circuitry and architecture etc. have been selected upon and what we see in extant species is optimized, or, everything is random and scientific enquiry, into the why questions, is futile. The former, I believe, oversimplifies natural evolution and reflects a lack of interest in really figuring it out. The latter represents a surrender and goes against the very basis of what drives science and scientists.

Currently, I find myself employing both arguments when I see fit. There are examples of optimality (vision), there also examples of neutral processes. However, I also admit to biology (encompassing developmental processes and genetic circuitry and architecture) being, perhaps, enroute to optimality. Perhaps we can shed light on biology by considering what might have the optimum been, and how does what we see compare to that. Since I don't yet know of secure and tried & tested ways of making progress in biology, I will try all reasonable routes.