Two questions are raised for Grafen’s formal darwinism project of aligning evolutionary dynamics under natural selection with the optimization of phenotypes for individuals of a population. The first question concerns mean fitness maximization during frequency-dependent selection; in such selection regimes, not only is mean fitness typically not maximized but it is implausible that any parameter closely related to fitness is being maximized. The second question concerns whether natural selection on inclusive fitness differences can be regarded as individual selection or whether it leads to a departure from the central motivation that led to the formal darwinism project, viz., to show that “Darwinian” evolution through individual selection leads to “good design” or phenotypic adaptation through trait optimization.
KeywordsAdaptationism Frequency-dependent selection Inclusive fitness Kin selection Mean fitness Natural selection Optimization
Thanks are due to Mark Kirkpatrick for discussions and Samir Okasha for critical comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.
- Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (2010) Elements of evolutionary genetics. Roberts & Co., Greenwood Village, COGoogle Scholar
- Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Koonin EV (2012) The logic of chance: the nature and origin of biological evolution. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
- Lachmann-Tarkhanov M, Sarkar S (1994) The alternative fitness sets which preserve allele trajectories: a general treatment. Genetics 138(4):1323–1330Google Scholar
- Lynch M (2007) The origins of genome architecture. Sinauer, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
- Sarkar S (2007a) Doubting Darwin? Creationist designs on evolution. Blackwell Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Wright S (1931) Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16:97–159Google Scholar
- Wright S (1949) Adaptation and selection. In: Jepson GL, Simpson GG, Mayr E (eds) Genetics, paleonotoloy, and evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 365–389Google Scholar