Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T03:40:19.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fit and Diversity: Explaining Adaptive Evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Denis M. Walsh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to a prominent view of evolutionary theory, natural selection and the processes of development compete for explanatory relevance. Natural selection theory explains the evolution of biological form insofar as it is adaptive. Development is relevant to the explanation of form only insofar as it constrains the adaptation-promoting effects of selection. I argue that this view of evolutionary theory is erroneous. I outline an alternative, according to which natural selection explains adaptive evolution by appeal to the statistical structure of populations, and development explains the causes of adaptive evolution at the level of individuals. Only together can a statistical theory of selection and a mechanical theory of development explain why populations of organisms comprise individuals that are adapted to their conditions of existence.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 70 , Issue 2 , April 2003 , pp. 280 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

This paper grew up in public. I wish to thank audiences at Stirling, IUCN Dubrovnik, BSPS London, Storrs Connecticut, Wisconsin-Madison, ISHPSSB Quinnipiac, and the London-Pitt Philosophy of Science Workshop, London. I would particularly like to express my gratitude to André Ariew, Jessica Bolker, Jon Hodge, Deborah Kohn, Tim Lewens, Richard Lewontin, Elliott Sober, Kurt Schwenk and two extremely generous referees from this journal for discussion, guidance, and valuable help with the literature.

References

Amundson, Ronald (1994), “Two Concepts of Constraint: Adaptationism and the Challenge from Developmental Biology”, Two Concepts of Constraint: Adaptationism and the Challenge from Developmental Biology 61:556–578.Google Scholar
Amundson, Ronald (2001), “Adaptation and Development: On the Lack of a Common Ground”, in Orzack, Steven Hecht and Sober, Elliott (eds.), Adaptation and Optimality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ayala, Francisco (1970), “Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology”, Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology 37:1–15.Google Scholar
Bolker, Jessica (2000), “Modularity in Development and Why It Matters to Evo-Devo”, Modularity in Development and Why It Matters to Evo-Devo 40:770–776.Google Scholar
Burian, Richard M., and Burian, Robert C. (1996), “Form and Order in Evolutionary Biology”, in Boden, Margaret (ed.), The Philosophy of Artificial Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 146–172.Google Scholar
Carroll Sean, Jennifer Grenier, and Weatherbee, Scott (2001), From DNA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Darwin, Charles ([1859] 1996) The Origin of Species. J.W. Burrow (ed.). London: Pelican Classics.Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard (1986), “Universal Darwinism”, in Bendall, David S. (ed.), Evolution from Molecules to Man. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 403–425.Google Scholar
Demetrius, Lloyd (2000) “Thermodynamics and Evolution”, Thermodynamics and Evolution 206: 1.Google ScholarPubMed
Debat, V., and David, P. (2001), “Mapping Phenotypes: Canalization, Plasticity and Developmental Stability”, Mapping Phenotypes: Canalization, Plasticity and Developmental Stability 16(10): 555–561.Google Scholar
Depew, David J., and Weber, Bruce H. (1995), Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1980), “Morgan and His School in the 1930s”, in Mayr, Ernst and Provine, William D. (eds.), The Evolutionary Synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 445–451.10.4159/harvard.9780674865389.c61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Ronald A. (1930), The Genetical Theory of Evolution. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Futuyma, Douglas J. (1997), Evolutionary Biology. London: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Gass, Gillian L., and Bolker, Jessica A. (2003), “Modularity”, in Brian K. Hall and Wendy Olson (eds.), Keywords and Concepts in Evolutionary Developmental Biology (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Gibson, Greg, and Wagner, Gunter (2000), “Canalization in Evolutionary Genetics: A Stabilizing Theory?”, Canalization in Evolutionary Genetics: A Stabilizing Theory? 22:372–380.Google ScholarPubMed
Gilbert, Scott F. (2001), Developmental Biology, 6th ed. London: Sinauer Associates.Google ScholarPubMed
Gillespie, James (1977) “Natural Selection for Variances in Offspring Number—A New Evolutionary Principle”, Natural Selection for Variances in Offspring Number—A New Evolutionary Principle 111:1010–1014.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Brian (1995), How the Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity. New York: Scribner’s.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen J. (1983), “The Hardening of the Modern Synthesis”, in Grene, Marjorie (ed.), Dimensions of Darwinism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 71–93.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen J. (2002), The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge: Harvard Belknap Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grene, Marjorie (1961), “Statistics and Selection”, Statistics and Selection 12:25–42.Google Scholar
Hodge, M.J.S. (1992), “Biology and Philosophy (Including Ideology): A Study of Fisher and Wright”, in Sarkar, S. (ed.), The Founders of Evolutionary Genetics, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 142. New York: Kluwer, 231–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, Stuart (1993), The Origins of Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kauffman, Stuart (1995), At Home in the Universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levins, Richard, and Lewontin, Richard C. (1985), The Dialectical Biologist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewontin, Richard C. (1974), The Genetical Basis of Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lewontin, Richard C. (1978), “Adaptation”, Adaptation 239(3): 156–169.Google ScholarPubMed
Lewontin, Richard C. (1992), “Genotype and Phenotype”, in Keller, Evelyn Fox and Lloyd, Elisabeth A. (eds.), Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. London: Harvard University Press, 137–144.Google Scholar
Matthen, Mohan, and Ariew, André (2002), “Two Ways of Thinking about Fitness”, Two Ways of Thinking about Fitness 99:55–83.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith John, Richard Burian, Kauffman, Stuart, Alberch, Per, Campbell, J., Goodwin, Brian, Lande, Robert, Raup, David, and Wolpert, Lewis (1985), “Developmental Constraints and Evolution”, Developmental Constraints and Evolution 60:265–287.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1976), Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Morrison, Margaret (2002), “Modelling Populations: Pearson and Fisher on Mendelism and Biometry”, Modelling Populations: Pearson and Fisher on Mendelism and Biometry 53:39–68.Google Scholar
Mueller, Gerd, and Wagner, Gunter (1991), “Novelty in Evolution: Restructuring the Concept”, Novelty in Evolution: Restructuring the Concept 22:229–256.Google Scholar
Neander, Karen (1995), “Explaining Complex Adaptation: A Reply to Sober’s ‘Reply to Neander’”, Explaining Complex Adaptation: A Reply to Sober’s ‘Reply to Neander’ 46:583–687.Google Scholar
Newman, Stuart A., and Mueller, Gerd (2002), “Epigenetic Mechanisms of Character Origination”, in Wagner, G. (ed), The Character Concept in Evolutionary Biology. London: Academic Press, 561–581.Google Scholar
Oster George, George Odell, and Alberch, Pere (1980), “Mechanics, Morphogenics, and Evolution”, Lectures on Mathematics in the Life Sciences 13.Google Scholar
Raff, Rudolph A. (1996), The Shape of Life: Genes, Development and the Evolution of Animal Form. London: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226256573.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Michael, and Lauder, George V. (1996), “Post-Spandrel Adaptationism”, in Rose, Michael, and Lauder, George V. (eds.), Adaptation. New York: Academic Press, 1–8.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Alexander (2001), “Discussion Note: Indeterminism, Probability, and Randomness in Evolutionary Theory”, Discussion Note: Indeterminism, Probability, and Randomness in Evolutionary Theory 68:536–544.Google Scholar
Schwenk, Kurt, and Wagner, Gunter (2001), “Function and the Evolution of Phenotypic Stability: Connecting Pattern to Process”, Function and the Evolution of Phenotypic Stability: Connecting Pattern to Process 41:522–563.Google Scholar
Schwenk, Kurt, and Wagner, Gunter (2003a), “Constraint”, in Hall, Brian K., Key Concepts in Evolutionary Developmental Biology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Schwenk, Kurt, and Wagner, Gunter (2003b), “The Relativism of Constraints on Phenotypic Evolution”, in Pigliucci, Mario and Preston, Kevin (eds.), The Evolution of Complex Phenotypes. Oxford: Oxford University Press (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Simpson, George Gaylord (1944), Tempo and Mode in Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1984), The Nature of Selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1993), The Philosophy of Biology. London: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott; (1995), “Natural Selection and Distributive Explanation: A Reply to Neander”, Natural Selection and Distributive Explanation: A Reply to Neander 46:384–397.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (2001), “Two Faces of Fitness”, in Singh, Rama, Krimbas, Costas, Paul, Diane, and Beatty, John (eds.), Thinking about Evolution, vol 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 309–321.Google Scholar
Sterelny, Kim (2000), “Development, Evolution, and Adaptation”, Development, Evolution, and Adaptation 67 (Proceedings): S369–S387.Google Scholar
Stern, David L. (2000), “Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation”, Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation 54:1079–1091.Google ScholarPubMed
Von Dassow, George, and Munro, Ed (1999), “Modularity in Animal Development and Evolution: Elements of a Conceptual Framework for EvoDevo”, Modularity in Animal Development and Evolution: Elements of a Conceptual Framework for EvoDevo 285:307–325.Google ScholarPubMed
Waddington, Conrad Hal (1957), The Strategy of the Genes. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Waddington, Conrad Hal (1960), “Evolutionary Adaptation”, in Tax, S. (ed.), Evolution after Darwin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 381–402.Google Scholar
Wade, Michael J. (1992), “Epistasis”, in Keller, Evelyn Fox and Lloyd, Elisabeth A. (eds.), Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, Gunter (2000), “What Is the Promise of Developmental Evolution? Part I: Why Is Developmental Biology Necessary to Explain Evolutionary Innovations?” Journal of Experimental Zoology (Mol Dev Evol) 288:95–98.3.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner Gunter, Ginger Booth, and Bagheri-Chaihian, Homayoun (1997), “A Population Genetic Theory of Canalization”, A Population Genetic Theory of Canalization 51:329–347.Google Scholar
Wagner, Gunter, and Altenberg, L. (1996), “Complex Adaptations and the Evolution of Evolvability”, Complex Adaptations and the Evolution of Evolvability 50:967–976.Google ScholarPubMed
Walsh, Denis M., Lewens, Tim, and Ariew, André (2002), “The Trials of Life: Natural Selection and Random Drift”, The Trials of Life: Natural Selection and Random Drift 69:429–446.Google Scholar
Williams, George C. (1966), Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, Sewall (1931), “Evolution in Mendelian Populations”, Evolution in Mendelian Populations 16:97–159.Google ScholarPubMed