Drift sometimes dominates selection, and vice versa: a reply to Clatterbuck, Sober and Lewontin

Abstract

Clatterbuck et al. (Biol Philos 28: 577–592, 2013) argue that there is no fact of the matter whether selection dominates drift or vice versa in any particular case of evolution. Their reasons are not empirically based; rather, they are purely conceptual. We show that their conceptual presuppositions are unmotivated, unnecessary and overly complex. We also show that their conclusion runs contrary to current biological practice. The solution is to recognize that evolution involves a probabilistic sampling process, and that drift is a deviation from probabilistic expectation. We conclude that conceptually, there are no problems with distinguishing drift from selection, and empirically—as modern science illustrates—when drift does occur, there is a quantifiable fact of the matter to be discovered.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Brandon and Nijhout (2006) discuss and visually represent this gray zone in a treatment of the conditions under which we expect selection to dominate drift and vice versa. See especially Fig. 2, p. 285.

  2. 2.

    Chance set-ups are, in our view, causal set-ups. We are unsure of whether Clatterbuck et al. mean something else by this term.

  3. 3.

    One reason one might think that there is a difference in the processes of drift and selection is that the demographic facts that determine N operate on the entire genome while the ecological facts that determine s at a particular genetic locus operate (to a first approximation at least) locally. However, if it is Ns that is the critical parameter for drift, it acts locally just like s. That is, the genome-wide effect of N is filtered through the selective forces acting at a particular locus to produce the value of Ns that applies at that locus.

  4. 4.

    See the hypothetical case on pp. 332–33 in (Brandon and Carson 1996). Also see Figure 1 in (Brandon 2005), which sets out the modalities of selection and drift along a line of all possible probability distributions.

  5. 5.

    There are also some non-comparative methods. For example, Wallace et al. (2013) estimate the strength of selection on codon usage based on experimental data and the genome sequence in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Another (somewhat controversial) example is based on codon “volatility” and applicable to a single genome (see Plotkin et al. 2004).

  6. 6.

    The main difficulties have to do with linkage. For instance, if substitutions in the third position of a codon are synonymous (and so, to a first approximation, neutral) while mutations in the first two positions are not, this sets up the comparison at the heart of the MK method. However, obviously the fate of the third position is not independent of the first two. If directional selection is acting, then the nucleotide that happens to be in the third position is tugged along with the selected nucleotide combination at positions one and two. This is called hitchhiking. But what this means is that when directional selection is acting, the third position is not in fact acting in a way that instantiates the proper null model.

  7. 7.

    The “alternative” to directional selection is not drift. There are multiple alternatives in addition to drift, most importantly, stabilizing selection.

  8. 8.

    Note that hitchhiking is not a problem for this comparison.

References

  1. Alcaide M (2010) On the relative roles of selection and genetic drift in shaping MHC variation. Mol Ecol 19:3842–3844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brandon RN (1978) Adaptation and evolutionary theory. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part A 9(3):181–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brandon RN (2005) The difference between selection and drift: a reply to Millstein. Biol Philos 20:153–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brandon RN, Carson S (1996) The indeterministic character of evolutionary theory: no "no hidden variables proof" but no room for determinism either. Philos Sci 63(3):315–337

  5. Brandon RN, Nijhout F (2006) The empirical nonequivalence of genic and genotypic models of selection: a (decisive) refutation of genic selectionism and pluralistic genic selectionism. Philos Sci 73:277–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Clatterbuck H, Sober E, Lewontin RC (2013) Selection never dominates drift (nor vice versa). Biol Philos 28:577–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Diaconis P, Holmes S, Montgomery R (2007) Dynamical bias in the coin toss. SIAM Rev 49(2):211–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Endler JA (1986) Natural selection in the wild. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  9. Eyre-Walker A (2006) The genomic rate of adaptive evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 10:569–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Grueber CE, Wallis GP, Jamieson IG (2013) Genetic drift outweighs natural selection at toll-like receptor (TLR) immunity loci in a re-introduced population of a threatened species. Mol Ecol 22:4470–4482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. McDonald JH, Kreitman M (1991) Adaptive protein evolution at the Adh locus in Drosophila. Nature 351(6328):652–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Messer PW, Petrov DA (2013) Frequent adaptation and the McDonald-Kreitman test. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(21):8615–8620. doi:10.1073/pnas.1220835110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Miller H, Allendorf F, Daugherty C (2010) Genetic diversity and differentiation at MHC genes in island populations of tuatara (Sphenodon spp.). Mol Ecol 19:3894–3908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Millstein RL (2002) Are random drift and natural selection conceptually distinct? Biol Philos 17:33–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Millstein RL (2005) Selection versus drift: a response to Brandon’s reply. Biol Philos 20:171–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Plotkin JB, Dushoff J, Fraser HB (2004) Detecting selection using a single genome sequence of M. tuberculosis and P. falciparum. Nature 428:942–945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Roughgarden J (1979) Theory of population genetics and evolutionary ecology: an introduction. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wallace EW, Airoldi EM, Drummond DA (2013) Estimating selection on synonymous codon usage from noisy experimental data. Mol Biol Evol 30(6):1438–1453

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the philosophy of biology reading group at Duke University and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments. Special thanks go to David McCandlish for help with some final tweaks.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Brandon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brandon, R., Fleming, L. Drift sometimes dominates selection, and vice versa: a reply to Clatterbuck, Sober and Lewontin. Biol Philos 29, 577–585 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-014-9437-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Drift
  • Selection
  • Probabilistic sampling
  • Chance
  • Causal relevance
  • Evolution