Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 259–270 | Cite as

A commentary on “The Formal Darwinism Project”: there is no grandeur in this view of life

  • Steven Hecht OrzackEmail author
Article

Abstract

The Formal Darwinism Project is an attempt to use mathematical theory to prove the claim that fitness maximization is the outcome of evolution in nature. Grafen’s (2014, p. 12) conclusion from this project is that “….there is a very general expectation of something close to fitness maximisation, which will convert into fitness-maximisation unless there are particular kinds of circumstances—and further, that fitness is the same quantity for all genetic architectures.” Grafen’s claim appears to mean to him that natural populations are expected to contain individuals whose traits are optimal, i.e., any given trait outperforms all reasonable alternatives. I describe why Grafen’s attempt can never provide a meaningful expectation as to the ubiquity of optimal traits in nature. This is so because it is based upon a misconception of the relationship between theory and empirical analysis. Even if one could use theory in the way Grafen proposes, I describe how his theory is causally incomplete. Finally, I describe how Grafen’s conceptual framework is ambiguous. The Formal Darwinism Project has been inspired by “On The Origin of Species” by Darwin. The great lesson of this book was Darwin’s demonstration of the necessary dialog between theory and data, with each influencing and being influenced by the other. Grafen’s Formal Darwinism Project, an attempt to create understanding of nature by removing data from this dialog, reflects a failure to understand Darwin’s great lesson.

Keywords

Evolution Model testing Natural selection Optimality Population biology Sex ratio 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Brian McLoone, Samir Okasha, Sean Rice, Elliott Sober, and Bill Stubblefield for advice and comments.

References

  1. Brandon R, Rausher MD (1996) Testing adaptationism: a comment on Orzack and Sober. Am Nat 148:189–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brockmann HJ, Dawkins R (1979) Joint nesting in a digger wasp as an evolutionarily stable preadaptation to social life. Behaviour 71:203–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brockmann HJ, Grafen A, Dawkins R (1979) Evolutionarily stable nesting strategy in a digger wasp. J Theor Biol 77:473–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cain AJ (1989) The perfection of animals. Biol J Linn Soc Lond 36:3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chamary JV, Parmley JL, Hurst LD (2006) Hearing silence: non-neutral evolution at synonymous sites in mammals. Nat Rev Genet 7:98–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charnov E (1982) The theory of sex allocation. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. Felsenstein J (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 125:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Ginzburg LR (1979) Why are heterozygotes often superior in fitness? Theor Popul Biol 15:264–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Godfrey-Smith P (2001) Three kinds of adaptationism. In: Orzack SH, Sober E (eds) Adaptationism and optimality. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 335–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grafen A (1999) Formal Darwinism, the individual-as-maximising-agent analogy, and bet-hedging. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B 266:799–803Google Scholar
  12. Grafen A (2000) Developments of Price’s Equation and natural selection under uncertainty. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B 267:1223–1227Google Scholar
  13. Grafen A (2002) A first formal link between the Price equation and an optimisation program. J Theor Biol 217:75–91Google Scholar
  14. Grafen A (2006a) Optimisation of inclusive fitness. J Theor Biol 238:541–563Google Scholar
  15. Grafen A (2006b) A theory of Fisher’s reproductive value. J Math Biol 53:15–60Google Scholar
  16. Grafen A (2014) The formal darwinism project in outline. Biol Philos 29(2). doi: 10.1007/s10539-013-9414-y
  17. Hansen TF, Orzack SH (2005) Assessing current adaptation and phylogenetic inertia as explanations of trait evolution: the need for controlled comparisons. Evolution 59:2063–2072Google Scholar
  18. Hansen TF, Pienaar J, Orzack SH (2008) A comparative method for studying adaptation to a randomly evolving environment. Evolution 62:1965–1977Google Scholar
  19. Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Herre EA (1987) Optimality, plasticity and selective regime in fig wasp sex ratios. Nature 329:627–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karlin S, Lieberman U (1975) Random temporal variation in selection intensities: case of large population size. Theor Popul Biol 6:355–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kimura M (1983) The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kolman W (1960) The mechanism of natural selection for the sex ratio. Am Nat 94:373–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leigh EG Jr (1986) Ronald Fisher and the development of evolutionary theory. I. The role of selection. Oxf Surv Evolut Biol 3:187–223Google Scholar
  25. Lewontin RC, Ginzburg L, Tuljapurkar S (1978) Heterosis as an explanation for large amounts of genic polymorphism. Genetics 88:149–170Google Scholar
  26. Lynch M (1989) Phylogenetic hypotheses under the assumption of neutral quantitative-genetic variation. Evolution 43:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. May RM (1973) Stability and complexity in model ecosystems. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  28. Orzack SH (1990) The comparative biology of second sex ratio evolution within a natural population of a parasitic wasp, Nasonia vitripennis. Genetics 124:385–396Google Scholar
  29. Orzack SH, Hines WGS (2005) The evolution of strategy variation: will an ESS evolve? Evolution 59:1183–1193Google Scholar
  30. Orzack SH, Sober E (1993) A critical look at Richard Levins’ ‘‘The strategy of model building in population biology.” Q Rev Biol 68:533–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Orzack SH, Sober E (1994a) Optimality models and the test of adaptationism. Am Nat 143:361–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Orzack SH, Sober E (1994b) How (not) to test an optimality model. Trends Ecol Evol 9:265–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Orzack SH, Sober E (1996) How to formulate and test adaptationism. Am Nat 148:202–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Orzack SH, Sober E (2001) Adaptation, phylogenetic inertia, and the method of controlled comparisons. In: Orzack SH, Sober E (eds) Adaptationism and optimality. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 45–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Orzack SH, Parker ED Jr, Gladstone J (1991) The comparative biology of genetic variation for conditional sex ratio adjustment in a parasitic wasp, Nasonia vitripennis. Genetics 127:583–599Google Scholar
  36. Poethke HJ (1988) Sex ratio polymorphism: the impact of mutation and drift on evolution. Acta Biotheor 37:121–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Price GR (1970) Selection and covariance. Nature 227:520–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rice SH (2008) A stochastic version of the price equation reveals the interplay of deterministic and stochastic processes in evolution. BMC Evol Biol 8:262–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rice SH, Papadopoulos A (2009) Evolution with stochastic fitness and stochastic migration. PLoS ONE 4(10):e7130. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shpak M, Orzack SH, Barany E (2013) The influence of demographic stochasticity on evolutionary dynamics and stability. Theor Popul Biol 88:47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Suzuki Y, Iwasa Y (1980) A sex ratio theory of gregarious parasitoids. Res Popul Ecol 22:366–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thornhill R, Alcock J (1983) The evolution of insect mating behavior. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Trivers R (1985) Social evolution. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., Menlo ParkGoogle Scholar
  44. Waage JK, Lane JA (1984) The reproductive strategy of a parasitic wasp II. Sex allocation and local mate competition in Trichogramma evanescens. J Anim Ecol 53:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Werren JH (1980) Sex ratio adaptations to local mate competition in a parasitic wasp. Science 208:1157–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Werren JH (1983) Sex ratio evolution under local mate competition in a parasitic wasp. Evolution 37:116–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Werren JH (1987) Labile sex ratios in wasps and bees. Bioscience 37:498–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. West SA (2009) Sex allocation. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  49. Wright S (1932) The roles of mutation, inbreeding, cross-breeding and selection in evolution. Proc VI Int Congr Genet 1:356–366Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fresh Pond Research InstituteCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations