Evolutionary Psychology��s Place in Evolutionary Studies: a Tale of Promise and Challenge

The Evolutionary Studies (EvoS) Consortium and the academic programs born from its creation have been wildly successful in their initial ventures. These achievements are marked by feedback from across the EvoS campuses, the resultant scholarly work produced by participating students, and faculty collaborations spurred by exposure to the organization. The success of EvoS is probably best marked by the recent National Science Foundation grant (CCLI Award #0817337), awarded jointly to SUNY New Paltz and Binghamton University, with the purpose of expanding EvoS beyond the bounds of these two institutions. A particularly noteworthy element of many EvoS programs is the role of Evolutionary Psychology (EP), a perspective in the behavioral sciences that addresses questions of human behavior from the perspective of evolution. In light of several forms of data, including analyses of a variety of disciplines drawn on from evolutionary psychologists in their work, we argue that evolutionary psychologists may well be the most naturally interdisciplinary scholars within the behavioral sciences, making them highly appropriate for inclusion in EvoS. But our research shows not only promise regarding the relationship between EP and EvoS—challenges are raised as well. We present additional data showing that EP is currently represented disproportionately within the EvoS world—a fact that clearly shows that there are currently limitations to the potential impact of EvoS in modern academia. Scholars from other disciplines, particularly within the humanities and social sciences, seem to be missing the evolution revolution. Implications regarding how EvoS can broaden its scope to be even more powerful in its integrative scope are discussed.     

So what is a species anyway? A primatological perspective

Since Darwin's time, the question “what a species” has provoked fierce disputes and a tremendous number of publications, from short opinion papers to thick volumes. 1 The debates covered fundamental philosophical questions, such as: Do species exist at all independently of a human observer or are they just a construct of the human mind to categorize nature's organismic diversity and serve as a semantic tool in human communication about biodiversity? 2 - 4 or: Are species natural kinds (classes) or individuals that are “born” by speciation, change in course of time, and finally “die” when they go extinct or diverge into new species? 5 - 8 Also included was the problem of species as taxa (taxonomic) versus species as products of the speciation process (evolutionary). 9 More pragmatic issues arose, such as: How can we reliably delineate and delimitate species? 10 , 11 The great interest in what a species is reflects the importance of “species” as fundamental units in most fields of biology, especially evolutionary biology, ecology, and conservation. 2 , 12 - 14     

Adaptiveness and adaptation

This essay is structured as follows. First, I describe the adaptationist program, or teleonomy, in biology. Second, I review the methodologies of this program. Third, I discuss the role that the environment of evolutionary adaptedness plays in the adaptationist program. Fourth, I argue that studies of the “adaptiveness” of human behavior have not been conceptually anchored in the adaptationist program. Fifth, I analyze two studies of adaptiveness and show why they neither test nor inspire novel hypotheses about the design of the human brain/mind. Finally, I conclude that the “adaptivist” approach to human behavior does not begin with well formed hypotheses about the design of human brain/mind mechanisms and that it consists of procedures that could not test such hypotheses if they were proposed.     

Evolution at the system level: the natural history of protein interaction networks

Recent work leading to new insights into the molecular architecture underlying complex cellular phenotypes enables researchers to investigate evolutionary processes in unprecedented detail. Protein interaction network data, which are now available for an increasing number of species, promise new insights and there have been many recent studies investigating evolutionary aspects of these interaction networks, from mathematical studies of growing networks to detailed phylogenetic surveys of proteins in their interaction network context. Here, we review the spectrum of such approaches, and assess issues associated with analyzing such data from an evolutionary perspective. Currently, such analyses are statistically challenging, but could link present initiatives in systems biology with results and methodologies that have developed in evolutionary biology over the past 60 years.     

Medical validity in Eastern and Western traditions

When comparing biomedical treatments and traditional treatments from China and India, validity is established by a randomized placebo-controlled trial (RPCT). While the advantages of RPCT are uncontestable, its requirements handicap validation of treatments from Eastern traditions, which are integrated within a worldview that encompasses natural philosophy, theology, empirically based clinical experience, and spiritual and moral tenets. RPCT evolved during a time when comparatively little was known about Eastern medical traditions; about the effects of emotional, cognitive, and cultural factors on healing; or about the evolutionary biology and psychology of innate mind/body mechanisms, such as those producing placebo responses, which may constitute evolved adaptations naturally selected during human evolution. A fair way of both securing the advantages provided by RPCT and balancing them with a methodology that ensures safe and efficacious treatments from other traditions can be facilitated by examining medical validity in light of generalizations from evolutionary psychology and the cultural study of medicine.     

What will result from the interaction between functional and evolutionary biology?

The modern synthesis has been considered to be wrongly called a "synthesis", since it had completely excluded embryology, and many other disciplines. The recent developments of Evo-Devo have been seen as a step in the right direction, as complementing the modern synthesis, and probably leading to a "new synthesis". My argument is that the absence of embryology from the modern synthesis was the visible sign of a more profound lack: the absence of functional biology in the evolutionary synthesis. I will consider the reasons for this absence, as well as the recent transformations which favoured a closer interaction between these two branches of biology. Then I will describe two examples of recent work in which functional and evolutionary questioning were tightly linked. The most significant part of the paper will be devoted to the transformation of evolutionary theory that can be expected from this encounter: a deep transformation, or simply an experimental confirmation of this theory? I will not choose between these two different possibilities, but will discuss some of the difficulties which make the choice problematic.     

Limits to length asymmetry detection in starlings: implications for biological signalling

Fluctuating asymmetry has received considerable recent attention in evolutionary biology as these small developmental asymmetries can be related to biological fitness and, hence, could be used as a visual cue (or signal) of quality among individuals. The ability of signal receivers to detect and respond to small asymmetries is a fundamental assumption of the symmetry-signalling hypothesis, but has not been experimentally investigated. In this study I have investigated the perceptual threshold to detect and respond to paired-bar length asymmetry in a common bird, the European starling Sturnus vulgaris, by means of operant-learning techniques. The threshold indicates how large the length asymmetry must be to be reliably discriminated from symmetry; birds could not detect an asymmetry of 1.25%. In nature, many asymmetries can be smaller than 1.25%, hence this initial study suggests that caution should be used when trying to invoke symmetry-signalling in natural populations.     

New thinking: the evolution of human cognition

Humans are animals that specialize in thinking and knowing, and our extraordinary cognitive abilities have transformed every aspect of our lives. In contrast to our chimpanzee cousins and Stone Age ancestors, we are complex political, economic, scientific and artistic creatures, living in a vast range of habitats, many of which are our own creation. Research on the evolution of human cognition asks what types of thinking make us such peculiar animals, and how they have been generated by evolutionary processes. New research in this field looks deeper into the evolutionary history of human cognition, and adopts a more multi-disciplinary approach than earlier 'Evolutionary Psychology'. It is informed by comparisons between humans and a range of primate and non-primate species, and integrates findings from anthropology, archaeology, economics, evolutionary biology, neuroscience, philosophy and psychology. Using these methods, recent research reveals profound commonalities, as well striking differences, between human and non-human minds, and suggests that the evolution of human cognition has been much more gradual and incremental than previously assumed. It accords crucial roles to cultural evolution, techno-social co-evolution and gene-culture co-evolution. These have produced domain-general developmental processes with extraordinary power-power that makes human cognition, and human lives, unique.     

Chimpanzee social intelligence: selfishness,altruism, and the mother–infant bond

To better understand the human mind from an evolutionary perspective, a great deal of research has focused on the closest living relative of humans, the chimpanzee, using various approaches, including studies of social intelligence. Here, I review recent research related to several aspects of social intelligence, including deception, understanding of perception and intention, social learning, trading, cooperation, and regard for others. Many studies have demonstrated that chimpanzees are proficient in using their social intelligence for selfish motives to benefit from their interactions with others. In contrast, it is not yet clear whether chimpanzees engage in prosocial behaviors that benefit others; however, chimpanzee mother–infant interactions indicate the possibility of such behaviors. Therefore, I propose that chimpanzees possess rudimentary traits of human mental competence not only in terms of theory of mind in a broader sense but also in terms of prosociality involving regard for others. Mother–infant interactions appear to be particularly important to understanding the manifestation of social intelligence from an evolutionary perspective.     

Resolving the Anti-Antievolutionism Dilemma: A Brief for Relational Evolutionary Thinking in Anthropology

ABSTRACT   Anthropologists often disagree about whether, or in what ways, anthropology is "evolutionary." Anthropologists defending accounts of primate or human biological development and evolution that conflict with mainstream "neo-Darwinian" thinking have sometimes been called "creationists" or have been accused of being "antiscience." As a result, many cultural anthropologists struggle with an "anti-antievolutionism" dilemma: they are more comfortable opposing the critics of evolutionary biology, broadly conceived, than they are defending mainstream evolutionary views with which they disagree. Evolutionary theory, however, comes in many forms. Relational evolutionary approaches such as Developmental Systems Theory, niche construction, and autopoiesis–natural drift augment mainstream evolutionary thinking in ways that should prove attractive to many anthropologists who wish to affirm evolution but are dissatisfied with current "neo-Darwinian" hegemony. Relational evolutionary thinking moves evolutionary discussion away from reductionism and sterile nature–nurture debates and promises to enable fresh approaches to a range of problems across the subfields of anthropology. [Keywords: evolutionary anthropology, Developmental Systems Theory, niche construction, autopoeisis, natural drift]     

Evolutionary neurobiology

The chasm that formerly separated evolutionary biology from the research of physiologists and developmental biologists has been partially bridged in recent years. An increasing amount of research in the neurosciences makes explicit reference to issues in evolutionary biology. Much of this research is an attempt to understand structures and functions of the brain as adaptations to an animal's physical and social environment. In addition, however, some of this research at the interface of evolutionary biology and neurobiology provides information on internal evolutionary factors and the way they may constrain evolution by natural selection.     

How to Identify and Interpret Evolutionary Tree Diagrams

Evolutionary trees are key tools for modern biology and are commonly portrayed in textbooks to promote learning about biological evolution. However, many people have difficulty in understanding what evolutionary trees are meant to portray. In fact, some ideas that current professional biologists depict with evolutionary trees are neither clearly defined nor conveyed to students. To help biology teachers and students learn how to more deeply interpret, understand and gain knowledge from diagrams that represent ancestor–descendant relationships and evolutionary lineages, we describe the different rooted and unrooted evolutionary tree visualisations and explain how they are best read. Examples from a study of tree-shaped diagrams in the journal Science are used to illustrate how to distinguish evolutionary trees from other tree-shaped representations that are easily misunderstood as visualising evolutionary relationships. We end by making recommendations for how our findings may be implemented in teaching practice in this important area of biology education.     

Discussion: Three Ways to Misunderstand Developmental Systems Theory

Developmental systems theory (DST) is a general theoretical perspective on development, heredity and evolution. It is intended to facilitate the study of interactions between the many factors that influence development without reviving `dichotomous' debates over nature or nurture, gene or environment, biology or culture. Several recent papers have addressed the relationship between DST and the thriving new discipline of evolutionary developmental biology (EDB). The contributions to this literature by evolutionary developmental biologists contain three important misunderstandings of DST.     

Darwinism after Mendelism: the case of Sewall Wright's intellectual synthesis in his shifting balance theory of evolution (1931)

Historians of science have long been agreeing: what many textbooks of evolutionary biology say, about the histories of Darwinism and the New Synthesis, is just too simple to do justice to the complexities revealed to critical scholarship and historiography. There is no current consensus, however, on what grand narratives should replace those textbook histories. The present paper does not offer to contribute directly to any grand, consensual, narrational goals; but it does seek to do so indirectly by showing how, in just one individual case, details of intellectual biography connect with big picture issues. To this end, I examine here how very diverse scientific and metaphysical commitments were integrated in Sewall Wright's own personal synthesis of biology and philosophy. Taking as the decisive text the short final section of Wright's long 1931 paper on 'Evolution in Mendelian populations,' I examine how his shifting balance theory (SBT) related to his optimum breeding strategy research, his physiological genetics, his general theory of homogenising and heterogenesing causation and his panpsychist view of mind and matter; and I discuss how understanding these relations can clarify Wright's place in the longue durée of evolutionary thought.     

A Clinical Perspective in Evolutionary Medicine: What We Wish We Had Learned in Medical School

Medical students have much to gain by understanding how evolutionary principles affect human health and disease. Many theoretical and experimental studies have applied lessons from evolutionary biology to issues of critical importance to medical science. A firm grasp of evolution and natural selection is required to understand why the human body remains vulnerable to many diseases. Although we often integrate evolutionary concepts when we teach medical students and residents, the vast majority of medical students never receive any instruction on evolution. As a result, many trainees lack the tools to understand key advances and miss valuable opportunities for education and research. Here, we outline some of the evolutionary principles that we wished we had learned during our medical training.     

Book review of evolutionary genetics: Concepts,analysis, and practice

Recent technological advances have expanded and increased the resolution of studies in evolutionary biology, creating a need for a modern textbook that highlights the latest developments in the field. Evolutionary Genetics: Concepts, Analysis, and Practice, by Glenn‐Peter Sætre and Mark Ravinet (2019), as well as the book's accompanying online tutorials, provide a clear, up‐to‐date, and enjoyable introduction to evolutionary biology and genetics that explains fundamental evolutionary concepts, illustrates recent exciting findings, and offers hands‐on experience in analysing and interpreting genomic data. The book's accessible nature and emphasis on developing practical skills make it a valuable resource for undergraduate courses on evolutionary biology.     

The evolution of theory of mind on welfare tradeoff ratios

People seem to attribute beliefs and desires to another person when interacting with them. Such a “theory of mind” capacity is essential for complex and uniquely human behavior such as language, but its evolutionary origin remains elusive. Using the formal tools of evolutionary game theory, we asked what environmental properties are necessary to select for a basic form of theory of mind—the ability to infer the prosociality, quantified by the welfare tradeoff ratio, of another person toward oneself. We found that none of the environments studied in classical or evolutionary game theory give an advantage to this form of theory of mind capacities; theory of mind is advantageous only in a new class of environments with stable opponents and variable payoff structures. In two behavioral experiments (n = 91) we verified that people can, and do use theory of mind in such an environment. These results suggest that some features of early humans’ social environment that were previously neglected in evolutionary game theory may be responsible for the evolution of people’s complex social capacities.     

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY IN BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE,CONSERVATION, AND POLICY: A CALL TO ACTION

Evolutionary biologists have long endeavored to document how many species exist on Earth, to understand the processes by which biodiversity waxes and wanes, to document and interpret spatial patterns of biodiversity, and to infer evolutionary relationships. Despite the great potential of this knowledge to improve biodiversity science, conservation, and policy, evolutionary biologists have generally devoted limited attention to these broader implications. Likewise, many workers in biodiversity science have underappreciated the fundamental relevance of evolutionary biology. The aim of this article is to summarize and illustrate some ways in which evolutionary biology is directly relevant. We do so in the context of four broad areas: (1) discovering and documenting biodiversity, (2) understanding the causes of diversification, (3) evaluating evolutionary responses to human disturbances, and (4) implications for ecological communities, ecosystems, and humans. We also introduce bioGENESIS, a new project within DIVERSITAS launched to explore the potential practical contributions of evolutionary biology. In addition to fostering the integration of evolutionary thinking into biodiversity science, bioGENESIS provides practical recommendations to policy makers for incorporating evolutionary perspectives into biodiversity agendas and conservation. We solicit your involvement in developing innovative ways of using evolutionary biology to better comprehend and stem the loss of biodiversity.     

Small heat shock proteins and α-crystallins: dynamic proteins with flexible functions

The small heat shock proteins (sHSPs) and the related α-crystallins (αCs) are virtually ubiquitous proteins that are strongly induced by a variety of stresses, but that also function constitutively in multiple cell types in many organisms. Extensive research has demonstrated that a majority of sHSPs and αCs can act as ATP-independent molecular chaperones by binding denaturing proteins and thereby protecting cells from damage due to irreversible protein aggregation. As a result of their diverse evolutionary history, their connection to inherited human diseases, and their novel protein dynamics, sHSPs and αCs are of significant interest to many areas of biology and biochemistry. However, it is increasingly clear that no single model is sufficient to describe the structure, function or mechanism of action of sHSPs and αCs. In this review, we discuss recent data that provide insight into the variety of structures of these proteins, their dynamic behavior, how they recognize substrates, and their many possible cellular roles.     

The Tragedy of a priori Selectionism: Dennett and Gould on Adaptationism

In his recent book on Darwinism, Daniel Dennett has offered up a species of a priori selectionism that he calls algorithmic. He used this view to challenge a number of positions advocated by Stephen J. Gould. I examine his algorithmic conception, review his unqualified enthusiasm for the a priori selectionist position, challenge Dennett's main metaphors (cranes vs. skyhooks and a design space), examine ways in which his position has lead him to misunderstand or misrepresent Gould (spandrels, exaptation, punctuated equilibrium, contingency and disparity), and discuss recent results in developmental biology that suggest that an a priori position does not fill the demands of an evolutionary biology. I conclude by insisting that evolutionary biology is many leveled, complicated, and is carried on an ever shifting and expanding empirical base that when disregarded results in caricature.