# Talk:Structuralism (biology)

Chiswick Chap, Sminthopsis84: Nice work. Mcewan (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice to be able to remove tags that had been in place for many years. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
98% Chiswick Chap's work. It is wonderful to see it done at last. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Structuralism (biology)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Stedil (talk · contribs) 03:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Greetings! I will review this article. I'll probably start over the weekend when I have some time to gain access to some of the sources. I'll put general comments/review progress in the table, with specific things to fix below. Stedil (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


### Reference Check
Wagner source is missing an ISBN or other identifying number that would be useful in finding it. Also, the pages cited parameter (7-38) is too general for some of the times it is cited (for example, instances of quotes from page 7 should be attributed as coming from page 7 rather than from 7-38).
ISBN added. It's a single chapter in a book, no longer than many papers. However, I take it you have that in front of you now (I currently don't), so if you'd like some of the mentions make more specific, do indicate which page/where.
Ah, I found it on Google Books. It's ok like it is now, I suppose. As it is now, the formatting is consistent with the other sources, and there are moments when you are referencing the entire chapter. I could find the references without too much difficulty.
Can an online link or doi be provided for the Wake reference?
JSTOR added.
"The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm" A reference directly to this source would be useful. If available, information from this book could be referenced directly, instead of indirectly through Wagner.
Citation to the Gould/Lewontin paper of that name added.
"effectively denies that natural selection exists"
Changed 'exists' to 'is important', and repeated Price ref for clarity. She quotes Goodwin: "'morphogenesis is the source of emergent evolutionary properties'" and states "Natural selection plays only a superficial role in his description of evolution, because it 'does not have a lot to do except act as a coarse filter that rejects utter failures' (p 157)". In other words, lots of morphogenesis, not a lot of selection.
Ah, I see. His argument did seem to be a bit convoluted: he appears to be making a distinction between the formation of the limb (morphogenesis?) and the frequency of its appearance. Stedil (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


### Lead
The article never specifically explains what structuralism is, i.e. what are the parameters for classifying an idea/mechanism as "structuralist." This should be spelled out in the lead. The lead does summarize the ideas of the structuralists mentioned later in the article, but doesn't really define how these ideas are connected.

Adjusted first paragraph to explain what structuralism is.


### Seilacher's pneu structures
"fabricational constraints on form" What does this mean? Expand more on Seilacher's position and how it relates to Thompson.

Seilacher's idea is that the physical form of his fossils is driven by the physical need to make the pneu structure 'work' when inflated; if you want to pump something up, you have to fabricate it much like an air mattress. So he's arguing the form is constrained by the function and (say this quickly) hence gets like that. We may think there's no way the form could become like that without natural selection, but there you are. You can see what the Darwinists think of that sort of thinking at the end of the article. Not sure I can say anything printable (OR-free) beyond what's already written, however.
Ok, I suppose the photo caption helps provide enough explanation so that the meaning is clear. I can see that you're working to avoid too much interpretation when explaining their positions, especially since you are skeptical of their validity. After rereading Seilacher, I see he uses the term "fabrication" to describe morphogenesis, so I can see why it is used here. Stedil (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


### Wagner's Constraints on development
What is meant by "novelty?" Same with "structural constraints on embryonic development." More explanation and detail will help connect Wagner's ideas with the overarching theme of structuralism. It would also help to better define Wagner's position regarding natural selection, as it differs from other structuralists.

Well, his is an articulate expression of the structuralist idea, but he's still trying to say the same thing, that structure constrains and so (hmm) determines (novel) forms of the embryo. So why are jellyfish round, starfish 5-armed, and nematodes cylindrical, then, hmm? He seems to be trying to get away from natural selection like all the others. Again, very hard to see what else we could put into print, however.
On page 125 of Homology, Genes, and Evolutionary Innovation, Wagner explains what he means by novelty: "an evolutionary novelty originates when a part of the body acquires individuality and quasi-independence." I think having such an explanation of novelty (a direct quote may not be necessary) will clarify Wagner's position: he thinks that the processes that initially formed a body part (novelty) should be researched separately from any later changes that occur to it via adaptation. Perhaps a partial rewrite, instead of an expansion, would accomplish this. Stedil (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, done that. He says bodies get a novel structure; evo-devo says of course, but that structure was formed under the control of genes which are under natural selection.


### Goodwin's Morphogenetic Fields
"effectively denies that natural selection exists" does he? In Beyond the Darwinian Paradigm, page 300: "The viewpoint presented here in no sense challenges the importance of natural selection in evolution." Clarification needed.

See my comments on those words above (did you mean to put them there?) and note that I've changed the 'exists'. Smoke and mirrors. Darwinists definitely think Goodwin's a couple of chromosomes short of a genome, and their opinion is given at the end. Basically, sure, signalling happens, but it's driven by genes which are selected for. Talking about morphogenetic fields as an alternative doesn't actually explain anything. Again, doubt if we can print anything more than is already said. I've cited Held's "kooky" already.
Yeah, I initially was going to put it in "ref check" then decided to put it down here, then forgot to delete it. Looks good. Stedil (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


### Additional Comments
This concludes the initial review. Some further explanation/clarification needed on a few key concepts before it is GA quality. Stedil (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I've added explanations above, all very close to the line. If you think any of that can be worked into the article, let me know and I'll have a go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)