Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 387–403 | Cite as

Does nothing in evolution make sense except in the light of population genetics?

Michael Lynch: Origins of Genome Architecture, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland Mass, 2007, 340 pp, hardback, ISBN-10: 0878934847
Article

Abstract

The Origins of Genome Architecture” by Michael Lynch (2007) may not immediately sound like a book that someone interested in the philosophy of biology would grab off the shelf. But there are three important reasons why you should read this book. Firstly, if you want to understand biological evolution, you should have at least a passing familiarity with evolutionary change at the level of the genome. This is not to say that everyone interested in evolution should be a geneticist or a bioinformatician, but that a working knowledge of genetic change is an essential part of the intellectual toolkit of modern evolutionary biology, even if your primary focus is the evolution of behaviour or the diversity of communities. Secondly, this book provides excellent examples of another important tool in the biologist’s intellectual toolkit, but one that is rarely explained or illustrated to such an extent: null (or neutral) models. The role null models play in testing hypotheses in evolution is a central focus of this book. Thirdly, as an accomplished work of advocacy for a strictly microevolutionary view of evolution, this book provides grist for the mill for the important debate about whether population genetic processes are the sine qua non of evolutionary explanations.

Keywords

Adaptation Complexity DNA Gene duplication Modularity Neutral evolution Null models Population size 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Brett Calcott, Kim Sterelny, Meg Woolfit and Rob Lanfear for helpful comments and discussions.

References

  1. Aguileta G, Bielawski JP, Yang Z (2006) Evolutionary rate variation among vertebrate β-globin genes: implications for dating gene family duplication events. Gene 380:21–29. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2006.04.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arthur W (2000) The concept of developmental reprogramming and the quest for an inclusive theory of evolutionary mechanisms. Evol Dev 2:49–57. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00028.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bromham L (2002) The human zoo: endogenous retroviruses in the human genome. Trends Ecol Evol 17:91–97. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02394-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burbidge AA, McKenzie NL (1989) Patterns in the modern decline of Western Australia’s vertebrate fauna: causes and conservation implications. Biol Conserv 50:143–198. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(89)90009-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burger G, Gray MW, Lang BF (2003) Mitochondrial genomes: anything goes. Trends Genet 19:709–716. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2003.10.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calcott B (2009) Lineage explantions: explanating how biological mechanisms change. Br J Philos Sci (in press)Google Scholar
  7. Caporale LH (2003) Darwin in the genome: molecular strategies in biological evolution. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Cardillo M, Bromham L (2001) Body size and risk of extinction in Australian mammals. Conserv Biol 15:1435–1440. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.00286.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carroll RC (2000) Towards a new evolutionary synthesis. Trends Ecol Evol 15:27–32. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01743-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charlesworth B, Langley CH (1989) The population-genetics of drosophila transposable elements. Annu Rev Genet 23:251–287. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ge.23.120189.001343 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chisholm R, Taylor R (2007) Null-hypothesis significance testing and the critical weight range for Australian mammals. Conserv Biol 21:1641–1645Google Scholar
  12. Darwin CR (1876) The effects of cross and self fertilisation in the vegetable kingdom. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Dobzhansky T (1973) Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Am Biol Teach 35:125–129Google Scholar
  14. Echols H (1981) SOS functions, cancer and inducible evolution. Cell 25:1–2. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(81)90223-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gotelli NJ, Graves GR (1996) Null models in ecology. Smithsonian Institute Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. Gregory T (2001) Coincidence, coevolution, or causation? DNA content, cell size, and the C-value enigma. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 76:65–101. doi: 10.1017/S1464793100005595 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harden JH (2008) Quantitative and evolutionary biology of alternative splicing: how changing the mix of alternative transcripts affects phenotypic plasticity and reaction norms. Heredity 100:111–120. doi: 10.1038/sj.hdy.6800904 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hersh MA, Ponder RG, Hastings PJ, Rosenberg SM (2004) Adaptive mutation and amplification in Escherischia coli: two pathways of genome adaptation under stress. Res Microbiol 155:352–359. doi: 10.1016/j.resmic.2004.01.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hubbell S (2001) The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  20. Kimura M (1983) The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Kohn M (2004) A reason for everything: natural selection and the English imagination. Faber & Faber, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Lynch M (2007) The origins of genome architecture. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland MassGoogle Scholar
  23. McClintock B (1983) The significance of responses of the genome to challenge. In: Federoff N, Botstein D (eds) Nobel prize lecture: reprinted in The dynamic genome: Barbara McClintock’s ideas in the century of genetics. 1992. Cold Spring Laboratory Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Mi S, Lee X et al (2000) Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved in human placental morphogenesis. Nature 403:785–789. doi: 10.1038/35001608 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ohta T (1973) Slightly deleterious mutant substitutions in evolution. Nature 246:96–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shi P, Zhang J, Yang H, Zhang Y-P (2003) Adaptive diversification of bitter tase reecptor genes in mammalian evolution. Mol Biol Evol 20:805–814. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msg083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Villareal LP (1997) On viruses, sex and motherhood. J Virol 71:859–865Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Macroevolution and Macroecology, School of BiologyAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations