Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 199–214 | Cite as

Adaptationism and the adaptive landscape

  • Jon F. Wilkins
  • Peter Godfrey-Smith
Article

Abstract

Debates over adaptationism can be clarified and partially resolved by careful consideration of the ‘grain’ at which evolutionary processes are described. The framework of ‘adaptive landscapes’ can be used to illustrate and facilitate this investigation. We argue that natural selection may have special status at an intermediate grain of analysis of evolutionary processes. The cases of sickle-cell disease and genomic imprinting are used as case studies.

Keywords

Natural selection Adaptationism Adaptive landscape Genetics Optimality Imprinting Game theory 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We are grateful to Patrick Forber for helpful comments on an earlier draft.

References

  1. Barkow J, Cosmides L, Tooby J (eds) (1992) The adapted mind: evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Calcott B (2008) Evaluating the fitness landscape revolution. Biol Philos (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  3. Eshel I, Feldman M (1984) Initial increase of new mutants and some continuity properties of ESS in two-locus systems. Am Nat 124:631–640. doi: 10.1086/284303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eshel I, Feldman M (2001) Optimality and evolutionary stability under short-term and long-term selection. In: Orzack S, Sober E (eds) Adaptationism and optimality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 161–190Google Scholar
  5. Fu XY, Li WH (1993) Statistical tests of neutrality of mutations. Genetics 133:693–709Google Scholar
  6. Gavrilets S (2004) Fitness landscapes and the origin of species. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. Gilchrist G, Kingsolver J (2001) Is optimality over the hill? The fitness landscapes of idealized organisms. In: Orzack S, Sober E (eds) Adaptationism and optimality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 219–241Google Scholar
  8. Godfrey-Smith P, Wilkins J (2008) Adaptationism. In: Sarkar S, Plutynski A (eds) A companion to the philosophy of biology. Blackwell, London, pp 186–201Google Scholar
  9. Gould SJ, Lewontin RC (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist program. Proc R Soc Lond 205: 581–598. Reprinted in Sober (1994), pp 73–90Google Scholar
  10. Haig D (2002) Genomic imprinting and kinship. Rutgers University Press, PiscatawayGoogle Scholar
  11. Hammerstein P (1996) Darwinian adaptation, population genetics and the streetcar theory of evolution. J Math Biol 34:511–532. doi: 10.1007/BF02409748 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hore TA, Rapkins RW, Graves JAM (2007) Construction and evolution of imprinted loci in mammals. Trends Genet 23:440–448. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2007.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lewontin RC (1983) The organism as the subject and object of evolution. Reprinted in Levins R, Lewontin RC, The dialectical biologist. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1985, pp 85–106Google Scholar
  14. Maynard Smith J (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. McDonald JH, Kreitman M (1991) Adaptive protein evolution at the ADH locus in Drosophila. Nature 351:652–654. doi: 10.1038/351652a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moran PAP (1964) On the non-existence of adaptive topographies. Ann Hum Genet 27:383–393Google Scholar
  17. Nowak M, Sigmund K (2004) Evolutionary dynamics of biological games. Science 303:793–799. doi: 10.1126/science.1093411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Odling-Smee J, Laland K, Feldman M (2003) Niche construction: the neglected process in evolution. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  19. Orzack S, Sober E (2001) Adaptationism and optimality. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Pigliucci M, Kaplan J (2006) Making sense of evolution: the conceptual foundations of evolutionary biology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. Sha K (2008) A mechanistic view of genomic imprinting. Annu Rev Genom Hum Genet 9:197–216. doi: 10.1146/annurev.genom.122007.110031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Spencer HG, Feldman MW, Clark AG (1998) Genetic conflicts, multiple paternity and the evolution of genomic imprinting. Genetics 148:893–904Google Scholar
  23. Tajima F (1989) Statistical method for testing the neutral mutation hypothesis by DNA polymorphism. Genetics 123:585–595Google Scholar
  24. Tempelton AR (1982) Adaptation and the integration of evolutionary forces. In: Milkman R (ed) Perspectives on evolution. Sinauer, Sunderland, pp 15–31Google Scholar
  25. Wilkins JF, Haig D (2001) Genomic imprinting of two antagonistic loci. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 268:1861–1867. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1651 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wilkins JF, Haig D (2003) What good is genomic imprinting: the function of parent-specific gene expression. Nat Rev Genet 4:359–368. doi: 10.1038/nrg1062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wright S (1932) The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution. In: Proceedings of the sixth international congress of genetics, vol 1, pp 356–366Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Santa Fe InstituteSanta FeUSA
  2. 2.Harvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations