Erwin Douglas H
Department of Paleobiology, MRC-121, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC, 20013-7012, USA.
Hist Philos Life Sci. 2017 Oct 16;39(4):36. doi: 10.1007/s40656-017-0163-0.
Have the large-scale evolutionary patterns illustrated by the fossil record been driven by fluctuations in environmental opportunity, by biotic factors, or by changes in the types of phenotypic variants available for evolutionary change? Since the Modern Synthesis most evolutionary biologists have maintained that microevolutionary processes carrying on over sufficient time will generate macroevolutionary patterns, with no need for other pattern-generating mechanisms such as punctuated equilibrium or species selection. This view was challenged by paleontologists in the 1970s with proposals that the differential sorting and selection of species and clades, and the effects of biotic crises such as mass extinctions, were important extensions to traditional evolutionary theory. More recently those interested in macroevolution have debated the relative importance of abiotic and biotic factors in driving macroevolutionary patterns and have introduced comparative phylogenetic methods to analyze the rates of change in taxonomic diversity. Applying Peter Godfrey-Smith's distinction between distributional explanations and explanations focusing on the origin of variation, most macroevolutionary studies have provided distributional explanations of macroevolutionary patterns. Comparative studies of developmental evolution, however, have implicated the origin of variants as a driving macroevolution force. In particular, the repatterning of gene regulatory networks provides new insights into the origins of developmental novelties. This raises the question of whether macroevolution has been pulled by the generation of environmental opportunity, or pushed by the introduction of new morphologies. The contrast between distributional and origination scenarios has implications for understanding evolutionary novelty and innovation and how macroevolutionary process may have evolved over time.
化石记录所展示的大规模进化模式是由环境机遇的波动、生物因素，还是由可供进化改变的表型变异类型的变化驱动的呢？自现代综合进化论以来，大多数进化生物学家一直认为，持续足够长时间的微观进化过程将产生宏观进化模式，无需其他模式生成机制，如间断平衡或物种选择。20世纪70年代，古生物学家对这一观点提出了挑战，他们提出物种和类群的差异分类与选择，以及诸如大灭绝等生物危机的影响，是对传统进化理论的重要扩展。最近，对宏观进化感兴趣的人一直在争论非生物和生物因素在驱动宏观进化模式中的相对重要性，并引入了比较系统发育方法来分析分类多样性的变化速率。应用彼得·戈弗雷 - 史密斯对分布性解释和关注变异起源的解释所做的区分，大多数宏观进化研究都提供了宏观进化模式的分布性解释。然而，发育进化的比较研究表明变异的起源是一种驱动宏观进化的力量。特别是，基因调控网络的重新构建为发育新奇性的起源提供了新的见解。这就提出了一个问题，即宏观进化是由环境机遇的产生拉动的，还是由新形态的引入推动的。分布性和起源性情景之间的对比对于理解进化新奇性和创新性以及宏观进化过程可能如何随时间演变具有重要意义。
