IS EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY STRATEGIC SCIENCE?

There is a profound need for the scientific community to be better aware of the policy context in which it operates. To address this need, Evolution has established a new Outlook feature section to include papers that explore the interface between society and evolutionary biology. This first paper in the series considers the strategic relevance of evolutionary biology. Support for scientific research in general is based on governmental or institutional expenditure that is an investment, and such investment is based on strategies designed to achieve particular outcomes, such as advance in particular areas of basic science or application. The scientific community can engage in the development of scientific strategies on a variety of levels, including workshops to explicitly develop research priorities and targeted funding initiatives to help define emerging scientific areas. Better understanding and communication of the scientific achievements of evolutionary biology, emphasizing immediate and potential societal relevance, are effective counters to challenges presented by the creationist agenda. Future papers in the Outlook feature section should assist the evolutionary biology community in achieving a better collective understanding of the societal relevance of their field.     

Chance as an explanatory factor in evolutionary biology.

Darwinian evolutionary biology has often been criticized for appealing to the notion of 'chance' in its explanations. According to some critics, such appeals exhibit the explanatory poverty of evolutionary theory. In response, defenders of Darwinism sometimes downplay the importance of 'chance' in evolution. I believe that both of these approaches are mistaken. The main thesis of this paper is that the term 'chance' encompasses a number of distinct concepts, and that at least some of these concepts serve essential explanatory functions in evolutionary biology. This claim is defended by way of an historical survey of the major concepts of 'chance' in the history of evolutionary biology, especially the concepts used by Jean Baptiste Lamarck, Charles Darwin, and Sewall Wright. An examination of their biologies shows how the concepts of 'chance' used cohere with their major scientific objectives and methods. These concepts survive and continue to function as important explanatory factors in contemporary evolutionary biology. Examples of such usage are given, and the explanatory status of 'chance' assessed.     

The morphogenesis of evolutionary developmental biology

The early studies of evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo) come from several sources. Tributaries flowing into Evo-Devo came from such disciplines as embryology, developmental genetics, evolutionary biology, ecology, paleontology, systematics, medical embryology and mathematical modeling. This essay will trace one of the major pathways, that from evolutionary embryology to Evo-Devo and it will show the interactions of this pathway with two other sources of Evo-Devo: ecological developmental biology and medical developmental biology. Together, these three fields are forming a more inclusive evolutionary developmental biology that is revitalizing and providing answers to old and important questions involving the formation of biodiversity on Earth. The phenotype of Evo-Devo is limited by internal constraints on what could be known given the methods and equipment of the time and it has been framed by external factors that include both academic and global politics.     

Towards a postmodern synthesis of evolutionary biology

In 2009, we are celebrating the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin and the 150th jubilee of his masterpiece, the Origin of Species. Darwin constructed the first coherent and compelling narrative of biological evolution and thus founded evolutionary biology—and modern biology in general, remembering the famous dictum of Dobzhansky. It is, however, counter-productive, and ultimately, a disservice to Darwin’s legacy, to define modern evolutionary biology as neo-Darwinism. The current picture of evolution, informed by results of comparative genomics and systems biology, is by far more complex than that presented in the Origin of Species, so that Darwinian principles, including natural selection, are incorporated into the evolving new synthesis as important but certainly not all-embracing tenets. This expansion of evolutionary biology does not denigrate Darwin in the least but rather emphasizes the fertility of his ideas.     

Evolutionary developmental biology its roots and characteristics

The rise of evolutionary developmental biology was not the progressive isolation and characterization of developmental genes and gene networks. Many obstacles had to be overcome: the idea that all genes were more or less involved in development; the evidence that developmental processes in insects had nothing in common with those of vertebrates.Different lines of research converged toward the creation of evolutionary developmental biology, giving this field of research its present heterogeneity. This does not prevent all those working in the field from sharing the conviction that a precise characterization of evolutionary variations is required to fully understand the evolutionary process.Some evolutionary developmental biologists directly challenge the Modern Synthesis. I propose some ways to reconcile these apparently opposed visions of evolution. The turbulence seen in evolutionary developmental biology reflects the present entry of history into biology.     

Popper, falsifiability, and evolutionary biology

First, a brief history is provided of Popper's views on the status of evolutionary biology as a science. The views of some prominent biologists are then canvassed on the matter of falsifiability and its relation to evolutionary biology. Following that, I argue that Popper's programme of falsifiability does indeed exclude evolutionary biology from within the circumference of genuine science, that Popper's programme is fundamentally incoherent, and that the correction of this incoherence results in a greatly expanded and much more realistic concept of what is empirical, resulting in the inclusion of evolutionary biology. Finally, this expanded concept of empirical is applied to two particular problems in evolutionary biology — viz., the species problem and the debate over the theory of punctuated equilibria — and it is argued that both of them are still mainly metaphysical.     

Dual Causality and the Autonomy of Biology

Ernst Mayr’s concept of dual causality in biology with the two forms of causes (proximate and ultimate) continues to provide an essential foundation for the philosophy of biology. They are equivalent to functional (=proximate) and evolutionary (=ultimate) causes with both required for full biological explanations. The natural sciences can be classified into nomological, historical nomological and historical dual causality, the last including only biology. Because evolutionary causality is unique to biology and must be included for all complete biological explanations, biology is autonomous from the physical sciences.     

Molecular approaches to the study of evolution and phylogeny of the Nemertina

Molecular biological tools currently available to us are revolutionizing the way in which we can address questions in evolutionary biology. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of molecular techniques and applications available to biologists who are interested in evolutionary studies but who have little acquaintance with molecular biology. In evolutionary biology, techniques designed to determine degree of nucleic acid similarity are in common use and will be dealt with first. Another approach, namely gene expression studies, has strong implications for evolutionary biology but generally requires substantial familiarity with molecular biological tools. Expression studies provide powerful tools for discerning processes of speciation, as in the selection of genetic variants, as well as discerning lineages, e.g., expression of specific homeobox genes during segment formation. For investigations where either nucleic acid identity or gene expression are the ultimate goal, detailed information, protocols and appropriate controls are beyond the scope of this work but, where possible, recent review articles are cited.     

花、基因、禾本科

进化发育生物学的一个重要任务就是揭示形态多样性的分子基础,该领域的研究包含形态、形态发育相关基因和形态所属类群等三个要素。花/花序是进化发育生物学研究的首要对象,系统发育重建和个体发育剖析的结合将促进认知花的形态进化。发育相关基因的进化表现为等位基因遗传或表观遗传的突变,基因家族生与死的进化,不同基因组拥有独特的基因。运用形态学或序列分析方法很大程度揭示了禾本科植物花进化过程中的基因进化。试从学科问题、思路方法以及具体例子介绍植物进化发育生物学。     

Mechanistic approaches to the study of evolution: the functional synthesis

An emerging synthesis of evolutionary biology and experimental molecular biology is providing much stronger and deeper inferences about the dynamics and mechanisms of evolution than were possible in the past. The new approach combines statistical analyses of gene sequences with manipulative molecular experiments to reveal how ancient mutations altered biochemical processes and produced novel phenotypes. This functional synthesis has set the stage for major advances in our understanding of fundamental questions in evolutionary biology. Here we describe this emerging approach, highlight important new insights that it has made possible, and suggest future directions for the field.     

In What Sense Does ‘Nothing Make Sense Except in the Light of Evolution’?

Dobzhansky argued that biology only makes sense if life on earth has a shared history. But his dictum is often reinterpreted to mean that biology only makes sense in the light of adaptation. Some philosophers of science have argued in this spirit that all work in 'proximal' biosciences such as anatomy, physiology and molecular biology must be framed, at least implicitly, by the selection histories of the organisms under study. Others have denied this and have proposed non-evolutionary ways in which biologists can frame these investigations. This paper argues that an evolutionary perspective is indeed necessary, but that it must be a forward-looking perspective informed by a general understanding of the evolutionary process, not a backward-looking perspective informed by the specific evolutionary history of the species being studied. Interestingly, it turns out that there are aspects of proximal biology that even a creationist cannot study except in the light of a theory of their effect on future evolution.     

Evolutionary community ecology of plant-associated arthropods in terrestrial ecosystems

In the 21st century, researchers have attempted a synthesis between community ecology and evolutionary biology. This emerging research area, which aims to synthesize community ecology and evolutionary biology, is evolutionary community ecology. Evolutionary community ecology addresses how intraspecific trait variation in community members is essential for predicting community properties and, how community properties are a key component of the selective forces that determine genetic and phenotypic variation in a community member. In this paper, I review recent findings in evolutionary community ecology in plant-associated arthropods in terrestrial ecosystems. I discuss roles of both genetic variation and phenotypic plasticity as a source of trait variation in plants in shaping plant-associated arthropod communities. Also, I discuss effects of genetic variation in herbivores on plant-associated arthropod communities. Furthermore, I highlight community context evolution in which multiple species interactions and community composition affect trait evolution of a community member. Finally, I argue that future studies should investigate a feedback loop between community and evolutionary dynamics beyond unidirectional studies on effects of evolution on a community or vice versa. This approach will provide major insights into mechanistic principles for making predictions of community ecology.     

Evolutionary Novelty and the Evo-Devo Synthesis: Field Notes

Accounting for the evolutionary origins of morphological novelty is one of the core challenges of contemporary evolutionary biology. A successful explanatory framework requires the integration of different biological disciplines, but the relationships between developmental biology and standard evolutionary biology remain contested. There is also disagreement about how to define the concept of evolutionary novelty. These issues were the subjects of a workshop held in November 2009 at the University of Alberta. We report on the discussion and results of this workshop, addressing questions about (i) how to define evolutionary novelty and understand its significance, (ii) how to interpret evolutionary developmental biology as a synthesis and its relation to neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, and (iii) how to integrate disparate biological approaches in general.     

The naturalist in a world of genomics

Functional genomics provides new opportunities to address issues of fundamental interest in evolutionary biology and suggests many new research directions that are ripe for evolutionary investigation. New types of data, and the ability to study biological processes from a whole genome perspective, are likely to have a profound impact on evolutionary biology and ecology. To illustrate, we discuss how genomewide gene expression studies can be used to reformulate questions about trade-offs and pleiotropy. We then touch on some of the new research opportunities that the application of functional genomics affords to evolutionary biologists. We end with some brief notes about how evolutionary biology and comparative approaches will probably have an impact on functional genomics.     

Generating phenotypic variation: prospects from "evo-devo" research on Bicyclus anynana wing patterns

Understanding the generation of phenotypic variation is an important challenge for modern evolutionary biology, and butterfly wing patterns are an exciting system that can shed some light on this issue. Here, we report on recent advances in the genetics of Bicyclus anynana butterflies. This system provides the potential for a fully integrated study of the evolutionary and developmental processes underlying diversity in morphology.     

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.     

An emerging synthesis between community ecology and evolutionary biology

A synthesis between community ecology and evolutionary biology is emerging that identifies how genetic variation and evolution within one species can shape the ecological properties of entire communities and, in turn, how community context can govern evolutionary processes and patterns. This synthesis incorporates research on the ecology and evolution within communities over short timescales (community genetics and diffuse coevolution), as well as macroevolutionary timescales (community phylogenetics and co-diversification of communities). As we discuss here, preliminary evidence supports the hypothesis that there is a dynamic interplay between ecology and evolution within communities, yet researchers have not yet demonstrated convincingly whether, and under what circumstances, it is important for biologists to bridge community ecology and evolutionary biology. Answering this question will have important implications for both basic and applied problems in biology.     

Developing a Curriculum for Evolutionary Medicine: Case Studies of Scurvy and Female Reproductive Tract Cancers

Most early evolutionary thinkers came from medicine, yet evolution has had a checkered history in medical education. It is only in the last few decades that serious efforts have begun to be made to integrate evolutionary biology into the medical curriculum. However, it is not clear when, where (independently or as part of preclinical or clinical teaching courses) and, most importantly, how should medical students learn the basic principles of evolutionary biology applied to medicine, known today as evolutionary or Darwinian medicine. Most clinicians are ill-prepared to teach evolutionary biology and most evolutionary biologists ill-equipped to formulate clinical examples. Yet, if evolutionary science is to have impact on clinical thought, then teaching material that embeds evolution within the clinical framework must be developed. In this paper, we use two clinical case studies to demonstrate how such may be used to teach evolutionary medicine to medical students in a way that is approachable as well as informative and relevant.     

What’s wrong with the modern evolutionary synthesis? A critical reply to Welch (2017)

Welch (Biol Philos 32(2):263–279, 2017) has recently proposed two possible explanations for why the field of evolutionary biology is plagued by a steady stream of claims that it needs urgent reform. It is either seriously deficient and incapable of incorporating ideas that are new, relevant and plausible or it is not seriously deficient at all but is prone to attracting discontent and to the championing of ideas that are not very relevant, plausible and/or not really new. He argues for the second explanation. This paper presents a twofold critique of his analysis: firstly, the main calls for reform do not concern the field of evolutionary biology in general but rather, or more specifically, the modern evolutionary synthesis. Secondly, and most importantly, these calls are not only inspired by the factors, enumerated by Welch, but are also, and even primarily, motivated by four problematic characteristics of the modern synthesis. This point is illustrated through a short analysis of the latest reform challenge to the modern synthesis, the so-called extended evolutionary synthesis. We conclude with the suggestion that the modern synthesis should be amended, rather than replaced.     

Methodological Problems in Evolutionary Biology. XII. Against Evolutionary Ethics

Evolutionary ethics has recently become popular again. Some of its representatives elaborate new attempts to derive ethics from evolutionary biology. The attempts, like previous ones, fail because they commit the naturalistic fallacy. Premises from evolutionary biology together with normative premises also do not justify ethical principles. Other representatives argue that evolutionary considerations imply that ethics cannot be justified at all. Their arguments presuppose an unacceptable form of foundationalism. In principle, evolutionary biology might explain some aspects of morality, but in practice explanations are hard to come by. All this does not imply that evolutionary theory is irrelevant in normative settings. To the contrary, it may help us devise guidelines in environmental policy and health care policy. It is to be hoped that evolutionary ethicists will divert their research efforts to the elaboration of such guidelines.