Paul Griffiths and John Matthewson argue that selected effects play the key role in determining whether a state is pathological. In response, it is argued that a selected effects account faces a number of difficulties in light of modern genomic research. Firstly, a modern history approach to selection is problematic as a basis for assigning function to human traits in light of the small population sizes in the hominin lineage, which imply that selection has played a limited role in shaping these genomes in the evolutionarily recent past. Secondly, determining both the genetic basis of disease and selective histories of the various alleles involved may be experimentally intractable. Thirdly, the existence of “selected disorders” is well supported, and yet on the other hand many other common diseases may not reduce evolutionary fitness. In summary, the biological ends promoted by natural selection, as best modeled in recent research, do not adequately ground a concept of dysfunction that aligns well with the interests of human health.
Disease Dysfunction Function Genomics Health Human evolution Selected effects
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Garrigan D, Kingan SB, Pilkington MM et al (2007) Inferring human population sizes, divergence times and rates of gene flow from mitochondrial, X and Y chromosome resequencing data. Genetics 177:2195–2207. doi:10.1534/genetics.107.077495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graur D, Zheng Y, Price N et al (2013) On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE. Genome Biol Evol 5:578–590. doi:10.1093/gbe/evt028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melé M, Javed A, Pybus M et al (2012) Recombination gives a new insight in the effective population size and the history of the old world human populations. Mol Biol Evol 29:25–30. doi:10.1093/molbev/msr213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wakefield JC (2015) Biological function and dysfunction: conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychopathology. The handbook of evolutionary psychology, vol 42, pp 1–19. doi:10.1002/9781119125563.evpsych242