Maynard Smith, optimization, and evolution
- 196 Downloads
Maynard Smith’s defenses of adaptationism and of the value of optimization theory in evolutionary biology are both criticized. His defense does not adequately respond to the criticism of adaptationism by Gould and Lewontin. It is also argued here that natural selection cannot be interpreted as an optimization process if the objective function to be optimized is either (i) interpretable as a fitness, or (ii) correlated with the mean population fitness. This result holds even if fitnesses are frequency-independent; the problem is further exacerbated in the frequency-dependent context modeled by evolutionary game theory. However, Eshel and Feldman’s new results on “long-term” evolution may provide some hope for the continuing relevance of the game-theoretic framework. These arguments also demonstrate the irrelevance of attempts by Intelligent Design creationists to use computational limits on optimization algorithms as evidence against evolutionary theory. It is pointed out that adaptation, natural selection, and optimization are not equivalent processes in the context of biological evolution.
KeywordsAdaptation Evolution Frequency-dependence Natural selection No free lunch theorems Optimization
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Crow J.F. and Kimura M. (1970). An Introduction to Population Genetics Theory. Minneapolis, BurgessGoogle Scholar
- Dawkins R. (1996). Climbing Mount Improbable. London, Viking/PenguinGoogle Scholar
- de Jong K. (1993). Genetic algorithms are NOT function optimizers. In: Whitley L.D., (eds). Foundations of Genetic Algorithms. San Mateo, CA, Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 5–17Google Scholar
- Dembski W.A. (2002). No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence. Lanham, MD, Rowman and LittlefieldGoogle Scholar
- Eshel I. and Feldman M.W. (2001). Optimality and evolutionary stability under short-term and long-term selection. In: Orzack S.H. and Sober E. (eds), Adaptationism and Optimality. Cambridge UK, Cambridge University Press, pp. 161–190Google Scholar
- Fisher R.A. (1930). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford, Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
- Forster M.R. 1999. Notice: No Free Lunches for Anyone, Bayesians Included. <http://www.no-free-lunch.org/Fors99.pdf>. Accessed: 14 February 2005
- Godfrey-Smith P. (2001). Three kinds of adaptationism. In: Orzack S.H. and Sober E. (eds). Adaptationism and Optimality. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, pp. 335–357Google Scholar
- Haldane J.B.S. (1928). Possible Worlds and Other Papers. New York, HarperGoogle Scholar
- Holland J. (1975). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan PressGoogle Scholar
- Lanczos C. (1959). The Variational Principles of Mechanics. Toronto, University of Toronto PressGoogle Scholar
- Lewontin R.C. (1974). The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. New York, Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
- Lewontin R.C.(1977). “Adaptation”. Encyclopedia Einaudi Turin 1: 198 –214Google Scholar
- Lewontin R.C. (1979). Fitness, survival, and optimality. In: Horn D.J., Mitchell R. and Stairs G.R. (eds) Analysis of Ecological Systems. Columbus, Ohio State University Press, pp. 3–21Google Scholar
- Maynard Smith J. (1982). Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
- Maynard Smith J. and Szathmáry E. (1995). The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
- Michod R.E. (1999). Darwinian Dynamics: Evolutionary Transitions in Fitness and Individuality. Princeton, Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
- Perakh M. 2003. The No Free Lunch Theorems and Their Applications to Evolutionary Algorithms. <http://www.nctimes.net/∼ ∼mark/bibl_science/orr_demb_NFL.htm>. Accessed: 13 February 2005.
- Perakh M. (2004). Why there is a free lunch after all: William Dembski’s wrong answer to irrelevant questions. In: Young M. and Edis T. (eds) Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press, pp. 153–171Google Scholar
- Reeve H.K. and Sherman P.W. 1999. Adaptations: Meanings. In: Nature Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. John Wiley, Chichester. http://www.els.net/ [doi:10.1038/npg.els.0001707].
- Scheuer P.A.G. and Mandel S.P.H. (1959). An inequality in population genetics. Heredity 31: 519–524Google Scholar
- Svirezhev Y.M. (1972). Optimum principles in population genetics. In: Ratner V.A. (ed) Studies on Theoretical Genetics. Novosibirsk, USSR Academy of Science, pp. 86–102Google Scholar
- Shahshahani S. 1979. A new mathematical framework for the study of linkage and selection. Memoirs Am. Math. Soc. 17: 211Google Scholar
- Wright S. (1932). The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution. In: Jones D.F., (ed), Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Genetics. I. Monisha, WI, Brooklyn Botanic Garden, pp. 356–366Google Scholar