Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Creativity of Natural Selection? Part II: The Synthesis and Since

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of the History of Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This is the second of a two-part essay on the history of debates concerning the creativity of natural selection, from Darwin through the evolutionary synthesis and up to the present. In the first part, I focussed on the mid-late nineteenth century to the early twentieth, with special emphasis on early Darwinism and its critics, the self-styled “mutationists.” The second part focuses on the evolutionary synthesis and some of its critics, especially the “neutralists” and “neo-mutationists.” Like Stephen Gould, I consider the creativity of natural selection to be a key component of what has traditionally counted as “Darwinism.” I argue that the creativity of natural selection is best understood in terms of (1) selection initiating evolutionary change, and (2) selection directing evolutionary change, for example by creating the variation that it subsequently acts upon. I consider the respects in which both of these claims sound non-Darwinian, even though they have long been understood by supporters and critics alike to be virtually constitutive of Darwinism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note the importance of temporal order here, and the different evolutionary narratives offered by Darwinians vs. mutationists. Another debate taking place during the time frame covered here—the “Fisher-Wright controversy”—also concerned the timing of evolutionary events. Rosales (2017) stresses the narrative differences between Ronald Fisher’s “mass selection” and Sewall Wright’s “shifting balance” views of evolutionary change.

  2. As I mentioned in Part I, there is another (at least one other) important line of discussion concerning creativity that I am not considering in either essay, even though it is especially dear to me. It has to do with a different (though partially overlapping) set of issues—especially indeterminism and vitalism—and a different (though partially overlapping) group of actors. For example, it would add Henri Bergson and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and would consider viewpoints of Ronald Fisher and Theodosius Dobzhansky that are different from those discussed here. I hope this will someday be the third part of this project. Fortunately, Gayon (2008) left us with a superb analysis of Bergson’s influence in this regard, to go with Hodge’s (1992) as-always thoughtful and provocative account of Fisher and Bergson.

  3. Concerning the classical/balance controversy, see also Lewontin (1974), Beatty (1987), Crow (1987), and Gayon (1998, pp. 378–382).

  4. See also Simpson’s acknowledgment (1953, p. 77).

  5. See also Dobzhansky (1970, pp. 201–209).

  6. Chetverikov does not (here) address the degree of dominance/recessiveness of the genetic variants in question, or how variations that might initially be recessive might subsequently become dominant. If A2 and B2 are both completely recessive, the selection of A2 would have to be preceded by a doubling-up of A2 through sexual crossing. Then as the frequency of A2 increases, it would become more and more likely that A2A2 would occur in combination with a doubled-up B2B2, bringing into existence the combination A2A2/B2B2 that would subsequently be selected over other alternative combinations of genes at those loci.

  7. Interestingly, Muller (1929) offered an account of how otherwise improbable combinations of beneficial variations could be brought about by selection. His account resembled the version that I have associated with the Synthesis. But Muller never presented it as an argument for the creativity of natural selection. Moreover, it is importantly different from the Synthesis version in that it involves new beneficial mutations arising in combination with previously selected alleles. The new combination does not arise until the new mutation occurs; while on the Synthesis version there is no waiting around for new, direction-continuing, or direction-setting mutations. That Muller could be seen as a mutationist is evidenced by the neo-mutationist Masatoshi Nei’s portrayal of him as such, as will be discussed in the next section.

  8. Along these lines, see also Phillips (1996). The title, “Waiting for a Compensatory Mutation: Phase Zero of the Shifting-Balance Process,” says it all. Phillips argues that Wright’s three-phase, shifting-balance theory of evolution ought to be supplemented with an additional “phase zero” at the beginning, corresponding to the mutational production of variation. The shifting-balance theory, as formulated by Wright, had no mutation going on. “A largely untreated aspect of the shifting-balance theory, that of the limiting impact of waiting for the production of new mutations, is analysed here” (Phillips 1996, p. 271).

  9. See also Nei (1987, p. 428, 2005).

References

  • Barrett, Rowan, and Dolph Schluter. 2007. Adaptation from Standing Genetic Variation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23 (1): 38–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, John. 1987. Weighing the Risks: Stalemate in the Classical/Balance Controversy. Journal of the History of Biology 20 (3): 289–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, John. 1997. Why Do Biologists Argue Like They Do? Philosophy of Science S64: 231–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, John. 2010. Reconsidering the Importance of Chance Variation. In Evolution: The Extended Synthesis, ed. Gerd Müller and Massimo Pigliucci, 21–44. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, John. 2016. The Creativity of Natural Selection? Part I: Darwin, Darwinism, and the Mutationists. Journal of the History of Biology 49: 659–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckner, Morton. 1968. The Biological Way of Thought. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chetverikov, Sergei S. [1926] 1961. On Certain Aspects of the Evolutionary Process from the Standpoint of Modern Genetics. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 105 (2): 167–195.

  • Crow, James F. 1987. Muller, Dobzhansky, and Overdominance. Journal of the History of Biology 20 (3): 351–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, Richard. 1996. Climbing Mount Improbable. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Depew, David J., and Bruce H. Weber. 2011. The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution after the Modern Synthesis. Biological Theory 6: 89–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Depew, David J., and Bruce H. Weber. 2017. Developmental Biology, Natural Selection, and the Conceptual Boundaries of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Zygon 52 (2): 468–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, Hugo. 1906. Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, 2nd ed. Chicago: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, Hugo. [1901–1903] 1909–1910. Mutation Theory: Experiments and Observations on the Origin of Species in the Vegetable Kingdom (trans: Farmer, J.B. and Darbishire, A.D.) Chicago: Open Court.

  • Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1954. Evolution as a Creative Process. In Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Genetics (Published as a Supplement to the Journal Caryologia), ed. G. Montalenti, and A. Chiarugi, 435–448. Florence: Florentiae.

  • Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1955. A Review of Some Fundamental Concepts and Problems of Population Genetics. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 20: 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1965. Mendelism, Darwinism, and Evolutionism. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 109 (4): 205–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1970. Genetics of the Evolutionary Process. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1974. Chance and Creativity in Evolution. In Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, ed. Francisco Jose Ayala and Theodosius Dobzhansky, 307–338. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1980. Morgan and his School in the 1930s. In The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology, ed. Ernst Mayr and William B. Provine, 445–451. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky, Theodosius, Francisco Jose Ayala, G. Ledyard Stebbins, and James W. Valentine. 1977. Evolution. San Franciso: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Ronald A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Ronald A. 1958. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, 2nd ed. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gayon, Jean. 1998. Darwinism’s Struggle for Survival: Heredity and the Hypothesis of Natural Selection. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gayon, Jean. 2008. L’Évolution créatrice lue par les fondateurs de la théorie synthétique de l’évolution. In Annales bergsoniennes IV, ed. Anne Fagot-Largeault and Frédéric Worms, 59–84. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, Scott, and David Epel. 2009. Ecological Developmental Biology. Sunderland: Sinauer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodale, H.D. 1942. Further Progress with Artificial Selection. American Naturalist 76: 515–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gossett, William Sealy. 1934. A Calculation of the Minimum Number of Genes in Winter’s Selection Experiment. Annals of Eugenics 6 (1): 77–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goudge, Thomas A. 1961. The Ascent of Life. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, Stephen Jay. 1982. Darwinism and the Expansion of Evolutionary Theory. Science 216: 380–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, Stephen Jay. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haldane, John Burdon Sanderson. 1932. The Causes of Evolution. London: Longmans Green.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartl, Daniel L., and Clifford H. Taubes. 1998. Towards a Theory of Evolutionary Adaptation. Genetica 102 (103): 525–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, H.J.M. 1992. Biology and Philosophy (including Ideology): A Study of Fisher and Wright. In The Founders of Evolutionary Genetics, ed. Sahotra Sarker, 231–293. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubby, Jack L., and Richard C. Lewontin. 1966. A Molecular Approach to the Study of Genic Heterozygosity in Natural Populations. I. The Number of Different Alleles at Different Loci in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics 54: 577–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, David. 1974. Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, Jack Lester. 1972. The Role of Mutation in Evolution. In Proceedings of the Sixth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, vol. 5: Darwinian, Neo-Darwinian, and Non-Darwinian Evolution, 69–100. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

  • King, Jack Lester, and Thomas H. Jukes. 1969. Non-Darwinian Evolution. Science 164 (3881): 788–798.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laland, Kevin, Tobias Uller, Marcus W. Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee. 2014. Does Evolutionary Theory Need a Rethink? Yes, Urgently. Nature 514 (7521): 161–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laland, Kevin, Tobias Uller, Marcus W. Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee. 2015. The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Its Structure, Assumptions and Predictions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 282: 20151019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, Richard C. 1974. The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, Richard C. 1987. Polymorphism and Heterosis: Old Wine in New Bottles and Vice Versa. Journal of the History of Biology 20 (3): 337–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, Richard C., and Jack L. Hubby. 1966. A Molecular Approach to the Study of Genic Heterozygosity in Natural Populations. II. Amount of Variation and Degree of Heterozygosity in Natural Populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics 54: 595–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mather, Kenneth. 1941. Variation and Selection of Polygenic Characters. Journal of Genetics 41: 159–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mather, Kenneth. 1943. Polygenic Inheritance and Natural Selection. Biological Review 18: 32–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mather, Kenneth, and L.G. Wigan. 1942. The Selection of Invisible Mutations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 131 (862): 50–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, Ernst. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, Ernst. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCandlish, David M., and Arlin Stoltzfus. 2014. Modeling Evolution Using the Probability of Fixation: History and Implications. Quarterly Review of Biology 89 (3): 225–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Thomas Hunt. 1925. Evolution and Genetics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Thomas Hunt. 1932. The Scientific Basis of Evolution. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, Hermann Joseph. 1929. The Method of Evolution. Scientific Monthly 29 (6): 481–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, Hermann Joseph. 1947–1948. Evidence of the Precision of Genetic Adaptation. Harvey Lectures 43: 165–229.

  • Muller, Hermann Joseph. 1950. Our Load of Mutations. American Journal of Human Genetics 2: 111–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neander, Karen. 1988. What Does Natural Selection Explain? Correction to Sober. Philosophy of Science 55 (3): 422–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neander, Karen. 1995a. Pruning the Tree of Life. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (1): 59–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neander, Karen. 1995b. Explaining Complex Adaptations: A Reply to Sober’s “Reply to Neander”. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (4): 583–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nei, Masatoshi. 1984. Genetic Polymorphism and Neomutationism. In Lecture Notes in Biomathematics, vol. 53, Evolutionary Dynamics of Genetic Diversity, ed. G.S. Mani, 214–241. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nei, Masatoshi. 1987. Molecular Evolutionary Genetics. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nei, Masatoshi. 2005. Selectionism and Neutralism in Molecular Evolution. Molecular Biology and Evolution 22 (12): 2318–2342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nei, Masatoshi. 2013. Mutation-Driven Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, Daniel J., and Richard Gawne. 2014. Rethinking Woodger’s Legacy in the Philosophy of Biology. Journal of the History of Biology 47: 243–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, Daniel J., and Richard Gawne. 2015. Neither Logical Empiricism Nor Vitalism, But Organicism: What the Philosophy of Biology Was. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 37 (4): 345–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, H.Allen. 2005a. The Genetic Theory of Adaptation: A Brief History. Nature Reviews Genetics 6: 119–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, H.Allen. 2005b. Theories of Adaptation: What They Do and Don’t Say. Genetica 123: 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, H.Allan, and Andrea J. Betancourt. 2001. Haldane’s Sieve and Adaptation from the Standing Genetic Variation. Genetics 157: 875–884.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, F. 1920. Selection for High and Low Bristle Number in the Mutant Strain “Reduced”. Genetics 5: 501–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Patrick C. 1996. Waiting for a Compensatory Mutation: Phase Zero of the Shifting-Balance Process. Genetics Research 67: 271–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Punnett, Reginald. 1930. Genetics, Mathematics, and Natural Selection (Review of R.A. Fisher, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection). Nature 126 (3181): 595–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Razeto-Barry, Pablo, and Ramiro Frick. 2011. Probabilistic Causation and the Explanatory Role of Natural Selection. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42: 344–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosales, Alirio. 2017. Theories that Narrate the World: Ronald A. Fisher’s Mass Selection and Sewall Wright’s Shifting Balance. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 62: 22–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, Michael. 1973. The Philosophy of Biology. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, George G. 1947. The Problem of Plan and Purpose in Nature. Scientific Monthly 64: 481–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, George G. 1949. The Meaning of Evolution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, George Gaylord. 1953. The Major Features of Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, George G. 1964. Organisms and Molecules in Evolution. Science 146 (3651): 1535–1538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, Elliott. 1984. The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Thinking in Philosophical Focus. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, Elliott. 1995. Natural Selection and Distributive Explanation: A Reply to Neander. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46: 384–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stebbins, G.Ledyard. 1950. Variation and Evolution in Plants. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoltzfus, Arlin. 2006. Mutationism and the Dual Causation of Evolutionary Change. Evolution and Development 8: 304–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoltzfus, Arlin. 2012. Constructive Neutral Evolution: Exploring Evolutionary Theory’s Curious Disconnect. Biology Direct 7 (35): 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoltzfus, Arlin. 2017. Why We Don’t Want Another “Synthesis”. Biology Direct 12 (23): 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoltzfus, Arlin, and Kele Cable. 2014. Mendelian-Mutationism: The Forgotten Evolutionary Synthesis. Journal of the History of Biology 47: 501–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, F.L. 1929. The Mean and Variability as Affected by Continuous Selection for Composition in Corn. Journal of Agricultural Research 39: 451–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Sewall. 1945. Tempo and Mode in Evolution: A Critical Review. Ecology 26 (4): 415–419.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is dedicated to the memory of Jean Gayon, who contributed so much to the intellectual and social community of historians and philosophers of science; and whose insights and good will, and smile, were especially appreciated by those of us working on evolutionary biology. Thank you Jean. Many thanks also to Philippe Huneman, the editor of this special issue, and to my fellow contributors for your insights into the evolutionary synthesis and your feedback at our “debuts” in Montpellier and Chicago. Special thanks to Cosima Herter, Arlin Stoltzfus, Alirio Rosales, Michael Dietrich, Kele Cable, Philippe Huneman, Richard Burian, David Depew, Brian McLoone, and my two very thoughtful reviewers. Thanks also to my audiences at the 2014 “Philosophy of Biology at Madison” (POBAM) workshop, organized by Elliott Sober; and the 2014 “Life Sciences in the 20th Century” symposium at Washington University, celebrating Garland Allen’s retirement, organized by Jane Maienschein and Mike Dietrich.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z1, Canada

    John Beatty

Authors
  1. John Beatty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Beatty.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beatty, J. The Creativity of Natural Selection? Part II: The Synthesis and Since. J Hist Biol 52, 705–731 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-019-09583-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-019-09583-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation