Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Molecular Evolution

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Philosophy of Biology

Part of the book series: History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences ((HPTL,volume 1))

Abstract

Molecular evolution emerged as a new hybrid discipline in the 1960s. Since then the study of the evolution of proteins, RNA, and DNA has profoundly altered the study of evolutionary biology. Any evolutionary biologist who witnessed the rise of molecular evolution can attest to this change. Philosophical analysis, however, allows us to sharpen our understanding of the nature of that change and in doing so appreciate that molecular evolution has split the domain of evolutionary phenomena, diversified the leading causes of evolutionary change, and produced a profound methodological reversal with regard to the testing of evolutionary hypotheses. In a post-genomic era, biology educators face a challenge of explaining evolution at both the molecular and organismal level. Philosophical analysis can clarify what makes these distinct but complementary approaches to evolution, while biologists themselves seek ways to integrate the molecular and organismal in evolutionary biology.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The meanings of panselectionism will be explicated later in this essay. I believe that Kimura understood it to refer to the claim that natural selection is the most important factor in evolution. Panselectionism is broader than adaptationism because it encompasses all forms of selection, not just those that produce adaptations.

References

  • Ayala, F., M. Tracey, L. Barr, J. McDonald, and S. Perez-Salas. 1974. Genetic variation in natural populations of five Drosophila species and the hypothesis of the selective neutrality of protein polymorphisms. Genetics 7: 226–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, J. 1984. Chance and natural selection. Philosophy of Science 51: 183–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, J. 1987a. Weighing the risks: Stalemate in the classical/balance controversy. Journal of the History of Biology 20(1987): 289–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, J. 1987b. Natural selection and the null hypothesis. In The latest on the best, ed. John Dupre. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow, J.F. 1969. Molecular genetics and population genetics. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Genetics 3: 105–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow, J.F. 1987. Neutral models in molecular evolution. In Neutral models in biology, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki and Hoffman Antoni. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, M.R. 1994. The origins of the neutral theory of molecular evolution. Journal of the History of Biology 27: 21–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, M.R. 1998. Paradox and persuasion: Negotiating the place of molecular evolution within evolutionary biology. Journal of the History of Biology 31: 85–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, M.R. 2006. From Mendel to molecules: A brief history of evolutionary genetics. In Evolutionary genetics: Concepts and case studies, ed. Charles W. Fox and Jason B. Wolf, 3–13. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, M.R. 2008. Molecular evolution. In A companion to philosophy of biology, ed. Sohotra Sarkar and Anya Plutynski, 157–168. Cambridge: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, M.R., and R.A. Millstein. 2008. The role of causal processes in the neutral and nearly neutral theories. Philosophy of Science 75: 548–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky, T. 1955. A review of some fundamental concepts and problems in population genetics. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 20: 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dover, G. 1997. There’s more to life than selection and neutrality. Bioessays 19: 91–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma, D.J. 1986. Evolutionary biology, 2nd ed. Sunderland: Sinauer Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma, D.J. 1998. Evolutionary biology, 3rd ed. Sunderland: Sinauer Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma, D.J. 2005. Evolution, 1st ed. Sunderland: Sinauer Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma, D.J. 2009. Evolution, 2nd ed. Sunderland: Sinauer Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S.J. 1983. The hardening of the modern synthesis. In Dimensions of Darwinism, ed. M. Grene. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S.J., and R.C. Lewontin. 1979. The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 205: 581–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, J. 1999. Naturalists, molecular biologists, and the challenges of molecular evolution. Journal of the History of Biology 32: 321–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, R., Kreitman, M., and M. Aquadé. 1987. A test of neutral molecular evolution based on nucleotide data. Genetics 116: 153–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimura, M. 1968. Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217: 624–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimura, Motoo. 1983. The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • King, J.L., and T.H. Jukes. 1969. Non-Darwinian evolution. Science 164: 788–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. 1981. Explanatory unification. Philosophy of Science 48: 507–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kondrashov, A. 2005. Evolutionary biology – Fruitfly genome is not junk. Nature 437: 1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreitman, M. 1983. Nucleotide polymorphism at the alcohol dehydrogenase locus of Drosophila melanogaster. Nature 304: 412–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreitman, M. 2000. Methods to detect selection in populations with application to the human. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 1: 539–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R.C. 1991. Twenty-five years ago in Genetics: Electrophoresis in the development of evolutionary genetics: Milestone or millstone? Genetics 128: 657–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. 1983. How to carry out the adaptationist program. American Naturalist 121: 324–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millstein, R.A. 2002. Are random drift and natural selection conceptually distinct? Biology and Philosophy 17(1): 33–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millstein, R.A. 2005. Selection vs. drift: A response to Brandon’s reply. Biology and Philosophy 20(1): 171–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millstein, R.A. 2008. Distinguishing drift and selection empirically: ‘The Great Snail Debate’ of the 1950s. Journal of the History of Biology 41: 339–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, S., and M.R. Dietrich. 2006. Integration without unification: An argument for pluralism in the biological sciences. The American Naturalist 168: S73–S79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Greg. 1998. Emile Zuckerkandl, Linus Pauling, and the molecular evolutionary clock, 1959–1965. Journal of the History of Biology 31: 155–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohta, T. 1992. The nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23: 263–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohta, T. 2002. Near-neutrality in evolution in genes and gene regulation. PNAS 99: 16134–16137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohta, T., and J. Gillespie. 1996. Development of neutral and nearly neutral theories. Theoretical Population Biology 49: 128–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provine, W.B. 1988. Progress in evolution and the meaning of life. In Evolutionary progress, ed. M. Nitecki, 49–74. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selander, R. 1985. Protein polymorphism and the genetic structure of natural populations of bacteria. In Population genetics and molecular evolution, ed. T. Ohta and K. Aoki, 85–106. Tokyo: Japan Scientific Societies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapere, D. 1977. Scientific theories and their domains. In The structure of scientific theories, ed. F. Suppe, 518–565. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P.G. 2001. Three kinds of adaptationism. In Adaptationism and optimality, ed. S. Hecht and E. Sober, 335–357. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smocovitis, V.B. 1996. Unifying biology: The evolutionary synthesis and evolutionary biology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suarez, E., and A. Barahona. 1996. The experimental roots of the neutral theory of molecular evolution. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 18: 55–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wills, C. 1973. In defense of naïve Pan-selectionism. The American Naturalist 107: 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A. 1971. Albumin evolution in frogs: A test of the evolutionary clock hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 68: 3127–3129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E.O. 1994. Naturalist. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerkandl, E. 1963. Perspectives in molecular anthropology. In Classification and human evolution, ed. S. Washburn. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerkandl, E., and L. Pauling. 1962. Molecular disease, evolution, and genetic heterogeneity. In Horizons in biochemistry, ed. M. Kasha and B. Pullman, 189–225. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerkandl, E., and L. Pauling. 1965. Evolutionary divergence and convergence in proteins. In Evolving genes and proteins, ed. V. Bryson and H. Vogel, 97–166. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

I am grateful for the very useful commentary provided by this collection’s editor and reviewers, as well as, the detailed input and collaboration of Roberta Millstein.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA

    Michael R. Dietrich

Authors
  1. Michael R. Dietrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael R. Dietrich .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Research & Development, Geitonas School, Vari Attikis, Athens, 1234, Attiki, Greece

    Kostas Kampourakis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dietrich, M.R. (2013). Molecular Evolution. In: Kampourakis, K. (eds) The Philosophy of Biology. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6537-5_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation