Advertisement

Evolutionary Genetics and Cultural Traits in a ‘Body of Theory’ Perspective

  • Emanuele SerrelliEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The chapter explains why evolutionary genetics – a mathematical body of theory developed since the 1910s – eventually got to deal with culture: the frequency dynamics of genes like “the lactase gene” in populations cannot be modeled correctly without including social transmission. The body of theory requires specific justifications, for example meticulous legitimations of describing culture in terms of traits. It is an immensely valuable scientific instrument, not only for its modeling power but also for the amount of work that has been necessary to build, maintain, and expand it. To demonstrate such patrimony, and to emphasize the importance and accumulation of statistical knowledge therein, this paper tells a brief history of evolutionary genetics, explaining also the probabilistic nature of genotypes, phenogenotypes and population phenomena. Although evolutionary genetics is actually composed by distinct and partially independent traditions, the most important mathematical object of evolutionary genetics is the Mendelian space, and evolutionary genetics is mostly the daring study of trajectories of alleles in a population that explores that space. The ‘body’ is scientific wealth that can be invested in studying every situation that happens to turn out suitable to be modeled as a Mendelian population, or as a modified Mendelian population, or as a population of continuously varying individuals with an underlying Mendelian basis. Mathematical tinkering and justification are two halves of the mutual adjustment between the body of theory and the domain of culture. Some works in the current scientific literature overstate justification, misrepresenting the relationship between body of theory and domain, and hindering interdisciplinary dialogue.

Keywords

Evolution Genetics Culture Epistemology Justification Mathematical models 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author kindly acknowledges support from the John Templeton Foundation in the framework of the 2012/2013 project “Implementing the Extended Synthesis in Evolutionary Biology into the Sociocultural Domain” carried out at the Lisbon Applied Evolutionary Epistemology Lab (grant ID 36288).

References

  1. Ankeny, R., & Leonelli, S. (2011). What’s so special about model organisms? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 42, 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aoki, K. (1986). A stochastic model of gene-culture coevolution suggested by the ‘culture historical hypothesis’ for the evolution of adult lactose absorption in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A., 83, 2929–2933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aoki, K. (1987). Gene-culture waves of advance. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 25, 453–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aoki, K., Shida, M., & Shigesada, N. (1996). Travelling wave solutions for the spread of farmers into a region occupied by hunter-gatherers. Theoretical Population Biology, 50(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1982). Cultural transmission and the evolution of cooperative behavior. Human Ecology, 10, 325–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1989). The evolution of indirect reciprocity. Social Networks, 11, 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67(6), 380–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., & Feldman, M. W. (1973). Cultural versus biological inheritance: Phenotypic transmission from parent to children (a theory of the effect of parental phenotypes on children’s phenotype). American Journal of Human Genetics, 25, 618–637.Google Scholar
  10. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., & Feldman, M. W. (1981). Cultural transmission and evolution: A quantitative approach. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Darwin, C. R. (1859). On the origin of species (1st ed.). London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  12. Driscoll, C. (2013). Sociobiology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2013 Edition. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/sociobiology/
  13. Feldman, M. W., & Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (1989). On the theory of evolution under genetic and cultural transmission with application to the lactose absorption problem. In M. W. Feldman (Ed.), Mathematical evolutionary theory (pp. 145–173). Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feldman, M. W., & Laland, K. N. (1996). Gene-culture coevolutionary theory. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 11(11), 453–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisher, R. A. (1918). The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 52, 399–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius. New York: Meridian Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galton, F. (1889). Natural inheritance. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galton, F. (1897). The average contribution of each several ancestor to the total heritage of the offspring. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 61, 401–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gerbault, P., et al. (2011). Evolution of lactase persistence: An example of human niche construction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 366(1566), 863–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hartl, D. L., & Clark, A. G. (2007). Principles of population genetics (4th ed.). Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Keller, E. F. (2002). Making sense of life: Explaining biological development with models, metaphors, and machines. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kendal, J. R., Tehrani, J. J., & Odling-Smee, J. (Eds.) (2011). Theme issue ‘Human niche construction’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 366(1566), 784–934.Google Scholar
  23. Lewontin, R. C. (1980). Theoretical population genetics in the evolutionary synthesis. In E. Mayr & W. B. Provine (Eds.), The evolutionary synthesis (pp. 58–68). Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Mesoudi, A. (2007). A Darwinian theory of cultural evolution can promote an evolutionary synthesis for the social sciences. Biological Theory, 2(3), 263–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mesoudi, A. (2011). Cultural evolution: How darwinian theory can explain human culture and synthesize the social sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mesoudi, A., Whiten, A., & Laland, K. N. (2004). Is human cultural evolution Darwinian? Evidence reviewed from the perspective of the Origin of Species. Evolution, 58(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  27. Mesoudi, A., Whiten, A., & Laland, K. N. (2006). Towards a unified science of cultural evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(4), 329–347. discussion 347–383.Google Scholar
  28. Odling-Smee, F. J., Laland, K. N., & Feldman, M. W. (2003). Niche construction: The neglected process in evolution (Monographs in population biology, Vol. 37). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Pearson, K. (1904). On a generalized theory of alternative inheritance, with special reference to Mendel’s laws. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 203, 53–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Provine, W. B. (1971). The origins of theoretical population genetics. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Weldon, W. F. R. (1893). On certain correlated variations in Carcinus moenas. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 54, 318–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weldon, W. F. R. (1895). Attempt to measure the death-rate due to the selective destruction of Carcinus moenas with respect to a particular dimension. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 58, 360–379.Google Scholar
  34. Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology. Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Yule, G. U. (1903). Professor Johannsen’s experiments in heredity. New Phytologist, 2, 235–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CISEPS – Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Economics, Psychology and Social SciencesUniversity of Milano - BicoccaMilanItaly
  2. 2.“Riccardo Massa” Department of Educational Human SciencesUniversity of Milano - BicoccaMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations