{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Contrasting philosophical and scientific views in the long history of studying the generation of form in development.
{Author}: Deichmann U;
{Journal}: Biosystems
{Volume}: 242
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024 Jun 24
{Factor}: 1.957
{DOI}: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2024.105260
{Abstract}: Focusing on the opposing ways of thinking of philosophers and scientists to explain the generation of form in biological development, I show that today's controversies over explanations of early development bear fundamental similarities to the dichotomy of preformation theory versus epigenesis in Greek antiquity. They are related to the acceptance or rejection of the idea of a physical form of what today would be called information for the generating of the embryo as a necessary pre-requisite for specific development and heredity. As a recent example, I scrutinize the dichotomy of genomic causality versus self-organization in 20th and 21st century theories of the generation of form. On the one hand, the generation of patterns and form, as well as the constant outcome in development, are proposed to be causally related to something that is "preformed" in the germ cells, the nucleus of germ cells, or the genome. On the other hand, it is proposed that there is no pre-existing form or information, and development is seen as a process where genuinely new characters emerge from formless matter, either by immaterial "forces of life," or by physical-chemical processes of self-organization. I also argue that these different ways of thinking and the research practices associated with them are not equivalent, and maintain that it is impossible to explain the generation of form and constant outcome of development without the assumption of the transmission of pre-existing information in the form of DNA sequences in the genome. Only in this framework of "preformed" information can "epigenesis" in the form of physical and chemical processes of self-organization play an important role.