Abstract
The encounter between the Darwinian theory of evolution and Mendelism could be resolved only when reductionist tools could be applied to the analysis of complex systems. The instrumental reductionist interpretation of the hereditary basis of continuously varying traits provided mathematical tools which eventually allowed the construction of the ‘Modern Synthesis’ of the theory of evolution.
When genotypic as well as environmental variance allow the isolation of parts of the system, it is possible to apply Mendelian reductionism, that is , to treat the phenotypic trait as if ti causally determined by discrete “genes for” the trait. howeverm such a “beanbag genetics” approach obscures the system's eye-view. The concept of heritability, defined as the proportion of the total phenotypic variance due to (additive) hereditary variation, asserts that genetic elements have discrete effects; but by relating to the genotypic variance, it avoids the trap of reffering to “genes for” characters.
Variation in relative reproductive success is the phenotypic “trait” of significance for Darwinian evolution, and fitness is its genotypic component. Most traits that contribute to reproductive success are due to the effects of many loci that causally contribute to the adaptive value of those traits. by establishing a causal relationship between the heritability of traits and reproductive success the apparent tautology of the definition of fitness through reproductive success is avoided, without the need to turn to simplistic and misleading concepts, such as the “genes for” the traits.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bargiello, T., L. Saez, M. K. Baylies, G. Gasic, M. W. Young and D. C. Spray: 1987, ‘The Drosophila clock gene per affects junctional communication’, Nature 328, 686–691.
Bryant, E. D., S. A. McCommas and L. M. Combs: 1986, ‘The effect of an experimental bottleneck upon quantitative genetic variation in the housefly’, Genetics 114, 1191–1211.
capecchi, M. R.: 1989, ‘The new mouse genetics: Altering the genome by gene targeting‘, Trends in Genetics 5, 70–76.
Dennett, D. C.: 1983, ‘International systems in cognitive ethology: The “Panglossian paradigm” defended‘, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6, 343–390.
Edwards, M. D., C. W. Stuber and J. F. Wendel: 1987, ‘Molecular-markers-facilitated investigations of quantitative-trait loci in maize. I. Numbers, genomic distribution and types of gene action‘, Genetics 116, 113–125.
Eigen, M., W. Gardiner, P. Schuster and R. Winkler-Oswatisch: 1981, ‘The origin of genetic information‘, Scientific American 244, 88–96.
Ettinger, L., E. Jablonka and P. McLaughlin: 1988, ‘On the adaptations of organisms and the fitness of types’, Philosophy of Science (in press).
Falconer, D. S.: 1960, Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.
Falk, R.: 1986, ‘What is a gene?’, Studies is the History and Phiolosophy of Science 17, 133–173.
Falk, R.: 1988, ‘Darwin's theory of evolution as a science’, Poetics Today, 9, 61–94.
Fisher, R. A.: 1958, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Dover, New York.
Franklin, I. and R. C. Lewontin: 1970, ‘Is the gene the unit of selection?’, Genetics 65, 707–734.
Goodnight, C. J.: 1988, ‘Epistasis and the effect of founder events on the additive genetic variance’, Evolution 42, 441–454.
Gould, S. J.: 1977, Ever since Darwin, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.
Harris, H.: 1966, ‘Enzyme polymorphism in man’, Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, Series B 164, 298–310.
Kettlewell, H. B. D.: 1955, ‘Selection experiments on industrial melanism in the Lepidoptera‘, Heredity 9, 323–342.
Kettlewell, H. B. D.: 1956, ‘Further selection experiments on industrial melanism in the Lepidoptera’, Heredity 10, 287–301.
Koehn, R. K. and T. J. Hilbish: 1987. ‘The adaptive importance of genetic variation’, American Scientis 75, 134–141.
Lakatos, I.: 1970, ‘Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes’, in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (ed.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 91–196.
Lerner, I. M.: 1954, Genetic Homeostasis, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.
Lerner, I. M.: 1958, The Genetic Basis of Selection, John Wiley New York.
Levins, R. and R. Lewontin: 1980, ‘The Dialectics and reductionism in ecology’, Synthese 43, 47–78. (Also in 1985, The Dialectical Biologist, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.)
Lewontin, R. C.: 1974, The Genetic Basis od Evolutionary Change, Columbia University Press, New York.
Lewontin,R. C.: 1987, ‘Polymorphism and heterosis: Old wine in new bottles and vice versa’, Journal of the History of Biology 20, 337–349.
Lewontin, R. C. and J. L. Hubby: 1966, ‘A molecular approach to the study of genetic heterozygosity in natural populations. II. Amount variation and degree of heterozygosity in natural populations of Drosphila Pseudoobscura’, Genetics 54, 595–609.
Luria, S. and M. Delbruck: 1943, ‘Mutations of bacteria from virus sensitivity to virus resistance’, Genetics 28, 491–511.
Lush, J. L.: 1941, ‘Methods of measuring the heritability of individual differences among farm animals', Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of Genetics. Journal of Genetics, Supplementary Volume, p. 199.
Mayr, E.: 1982, The Growth of Biological Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, ass.
Michod, R. J.: 1981, ‘Positive heuristics in evolutionary biology’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 32, 1–36.
Motulsky, A. G.: 1982, ‘Genetic approaches to common diseases’, in B. Bonne (ed.), Human genetics. Part B: Medical Genetics. Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Human Genetics, Alan R. Liss New York, pp. 89–95.
Sax,K.: 1923, ‘The association of size differences with seed-coat pattern and pigmentation in Phaseoulus vulgaris’, Genetics 8, 552–560.
Sober, E.: 1984, The Nature of Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Sober, E. and R. C. Lewontin: 1982, ‘Artifact, cause, and genic selection’, Philosophy of Science 49, 157–180.
Thoday,J. M.: 1961, ‘Location of polygenes’, Nature 191, 368–370.
Weller, J. I., M. Soller and T. Brody: 1988, ‘Linkage analysis of quantitative traits in an interspecific cross of tomato (Lycopersiconesculentum Lycopersicon pimpinnelli folium) by means of genetic markers’, Genetics 118, 329–339.
Wright, S.: 1921, ‘Systems of mating. I. The biometric relations between parent and offspring’, Genetics 6, 111–123.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
I wish to thank my colleagues Jackie Beckmann and M. Soller for their thoughtful comments. The stimulating discussions with Lia Ettinger and Eva Jablonka and their contributions to successive drafts of the manuscript were invaluable in the clarification of my thoughts.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Falk, R. Between beanbag genetics and natural selection. Biol Philos 5, 313–325 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00165256
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00165256