Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 625–638 | Cite as

The end of the adaptive landscape metaphor?

Article

Abstract

The concepts of adaptive/fitness landscapes and adaptive peaks are a central part of much of contemporary evolutionary biology; the concepts are introduced in introductory texts, developed in more detail in graduate-level treatments, and are used extensively in papers published in the major journals in the field. The appeal of visualizing the process of evolution in terms of the movement of populations on such landscapes is very strong; as one becomes familiar with the metaphor, one often develops the feeling that it is possible to gain deep insights into evolution by thinking about the movement of populations on landscapes consisting of adaptive valleys and peaks. But, since Wright first introduced the metaphor in 1932, the metaphor has been the subject of persistent confusion, from equivocation over just what the features of the landscape are meant to represent to how we ought to expect the landscapes to look. Recent advances—conceptual, empirical, and computational—have pointed towards the inadequacy and indeed incoherence of the landscapes as usually pictured. I argue that attempts to reform the metaphor are misguided; it is time to give up the pictorial metaphor of the landscape entirely and rely instead on the results of formal modeling, however difficult such results are to understand in ‘intuitive’ terms.

Keywords

Adaptive landscape Fitness landscape Wright Gavrilets Holey landscape Peak shift Shifting balance theory Bateson-Dobzhansky-Muller model Speciation Adaptation Metaphor 

References

  1. Cartwright N (1999) The dappled world: a study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Chang H (2004) Inventing temperature: measurement and scientific progress. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Gavrilets S (1997) Evolution and speciation on holey adaptive landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 12(8):307–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gavrilets S (2004) Fitness landscapes and the origin of species. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  5. Johnson M, Stinchcombe J (2007) An emerging synthesis between community ecology and evolutionary biology. Trends Ecol Evol 22(5):250–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lewontin RC (1978) Adaptation. Sci Am 239:213–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Pearson H (2006) Genetics: what is a gene? Nature 441:398–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Provine WB (1986) Sewall Wright and evolutionary biology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  9. Ruse M (1996) Are pictures really necessary? The case of Sewall Wright’s ‘adaptive landscapes’. In: Baigrie BS (ed) Picturing knowledge: historical and philosophical programs concerning the use of art in science. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada, pp 303–337Google Scholar
  10. Skipper RA (2004) The heuristic role of Sewall Wright’s 1932 adaptive landscape diagram. Philos Sci 71:1176–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Stotz K, Griffiths P (2004) Genes: philosophical analyses put to the test. Hist Philos Life Sci 26:5–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Wright S (1988) Surfaces of selective value revisited. Am Nat 131:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wright S (1931) Evolution in mendelian populations. Genetics 16:97–159Google Scholar
  14. Wright S (1932) The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution. In: The sixth international congress of genetics, vol I, pp 356–366Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations