Beyond the DP/DSS controversy

Paul Turke's “Which humans behave adaptively, and why does it matter?” shows, if he we are to take him as being representative of “Darwinian social science” in general, that his school of thought has moved surprisingly close to that of its “Darwinian psychology” critics in accepting the importance if not the primacy of the psychological level of explanation in applying evolutionary theory to human behavior. Disagreements continue over whether the adaptiveness of current behavior should be viewed as an occasionally interesting question because of the light it can shed on evolved psychological mechanisms, or whether, as Turke maintains, it is the central question for human sociobiology. In any event, the “vertically integrated approach,” utterly ignored by Turke, incorporates Darwinian Psychology and is far more powerful than is Turke's approach in explicating the relationship between genes and culture, thereby rendering the current debate pointless.     

Albert Gaudry et l'émergence de la paléontologie darwinienne au xixe siècle

In this paper, paleontologists who, after the publication of “On the Origin of Species”, applied Darwin's research program on genealogy, are labeled Darwinians, not only evolutionists. A special attention is given to two paleontologists, Albert Gaudry and Gaston de Saporta. New data included in this article are Gaudry's notes written on his copy of “De l'origine des espèces” published in French in 1862. If one tries to grasp the impact of Darwin's work in the XIXth century, contrary to the common attitude, the defense of natural selection as the driven concept of evolution is not considered to be crucial. Later, Charles Depéret synthesized the growing knowledge of the second part of the XIX^th century but did not appear to be more Darwinian than his forerunners. From Darwin's writings it is concluded that the reference to biological progress inherent to Gaudry's and Saporta's works does not radically exclude these authors from the Darwinian realm.     

The individuality of the species: A Darwinian theory? — from Buffon to Ghiselin, and back to Darwin

Since the 1970s, there has been a tremendous amount of literature on Ghiselin's proposal that “species are individuals”. After recalling the origins and stakes of this thesis in contemporary evolutionary theory, I show that it can also be found in the writings of the French naturalist Buffon in the 18th Century. Although Buffon did not have the conception that one species could be derived from another, there is an interesting similarity between the modern argument and that of Buffon regarding the “individuality of species’. The analogy is strong enough to force us to recognize that genuine evolutionary (or Darwinian) questions might be of secondary importance in the discussion. In consequence, the third section of the paper proposes an alternative schema for the “logical structure” of the Darwinian concept of species. Darwin distinguished the problem of the designation of a concrete species, and the problem of its signification of species within his theory of descent? The resulting notion of species involves a logical structure based on the fusion of the logical operations of classification and ordering. The difficulty — and interest — is that this interpretation of species does not entail any precise operational definition of species; it can only tell us what the ultimate signification of classification is within the theory of descent with modification through natural selection.     

Towards a General Definition of Life

A new definition of life is proposed and discussed in the present article. It is formulated by modifying and extending NASA’s working definition of life, which postulates that life is a “self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution”. The new definition includes a thermodynamical aspect of life as a far from equilibrium system and considers the flow of information from the environment to the living system. In our derivation of the definition of life we have assumed the hypothesis, that during the emergence of life evolution had to first involve autocatalytic systems that only subsequently acquired the capacity of genetic heredity. The new proposed definition of life is independent of the mode of evolution, regardless of whether Lamarckian or Darwinian evolution operated at the origins of life and throughout evolutionary history. The new definition of life presented herein is formulated in a minimal manner and it is general enough that it does not distinguish between individual (metabolic) network and the collective (ecological) one. The newly proposed definition of life may be of interest for astrobiology, research into the origins of life or for efforts to produce synthetic or artificial life, and it furthermore may also have implications in the cognitive and computer sciences.

     

Reply to dickemann

This paper is a response to Dickemann’s review ofPedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions. Her main criticism of the book is its inappropriate application of ethology to human sexology and its natural variations. She proposes instead the superiority of the “social constructionist” perspective. The “Phylogenetic Fallacy” of which her review speaks results from her erroneously having attributed ethological arguments about the phylogeny of coordinated motor patterns and sensory releasing stimuli to higher levels of behavioral-ecological strategies to which such arguments were never applied. Because no convincingly adaptive function of human pedophilia could be found at this higher level, as a working hypothesis, variant erotic age and gender orientations were both tentatively conceptualized as by-products of Darwinian natural selection for heterosexual “adultophilia.” The social and political implications of this perspective, when compared to social constructionism, are discussed.     

Can tumorigenesis result from in vivo “transfection” of a normal cell with DNA escaped from disintegrating nontransformed cells?

In this paper I present a hypothetical step on the route to turmorigenesis which may be common to many of the tumorogenic events taking place in vivo. According to this hypothesis portions of DNA from normal nontransformed dying cells may escape degradation, “transfect” other cells and under appropriate conditions also induce transformation. When various high risk factors for carcinogenesis are examined this hypothesis may easily fit into each of them. In addition, recent reports of experimental “transfection” indirectly support this hypothesis. It could now be argued that aging, ionizing radiation, immunosuppressive drugs, genetic errors, defects in DNA repair, immunodeficiency states, chronic infections and chronic inflammatory diseases may all increase the availability of free DNA or the readiness of cells to accommodate “transfection” DNA, or both. Thus the risk of cancer associated with these situations may be explained by increased chance for “transfection” with DNA.It is suggested that the minimal requirements for cell transformation consist of a certain sequence of DNA which does not have to be integrated into the nucleus at once, it may instead accumulate piece by piece so that the first “transfection” of a cell may occur long before transformation takes place. If the “transfecting” DNA sequence does not fulfil the minimal requirements for maintaining a state of repetitive uncontrolled mitosis, then this cell may wait silently or remain a benign tumor until “boosted” with an ultimate complementary DNA sequence to develop into a fully fledged cancer.     

Is pre-Darwinian evolution plausible?

Background

This essay highlights critical aspects of the plausibility of pre-Darwinian evolution. It is based on a critical review of some better-known open, far-from-equilibrium system-based scenarios supposed to explain processes that took place before Darwinian evolution had emerged and that resulted in the origin of the first systems capable of Darwinian evolution. The researchers’ responses to eight crucial questions are reviewed. The majority of the researchers claim that there would have been an evolutionary continuity between chemistry and “biology”. A key question is how did this evolution begin before Darwinian evolution had begun? In other words the question is whether pre-Darwinian evolution is plausible.

Results

Strengths and weaknesses of the reviewed scenarios are presented. They are distinguished between metabolism-first, replicator-first and combined metabolism-replicator models. The metabolism-first scenarios show major issues, the worst concerns heredity and chirality. Although the replicator-first scenarios answer the heredity question they have their own problems, notably chirality. Among the reviewed combined metabolism-replicator models, one shows the fewest issues. In particular, it seems to answer the chiral question, and eventually implies Darwinian evolution from the very beginning. Its main hypothesis needs to be validated with experimental data.

Conclusion

From this critical review it is that the concept of “pre-Darwinian evolution” appears questionable, in particular because it is unlikely if not impossible that any evolution in complexity over time may work without multiplication and heritability allowing the emergence of genetically and ecologically diverse lineages on which natural selection may operate. Only Darwinian evolution could have led to such an evolution. Thus, Pre-Darwinian evolution is not plausible according to the author. Surely, the answer to the question posed in the title is a prerequisite to the understanding of the origin of Darwinian evolution.

Reviewers

This article was reviewed by Purificacion Lopez-Garcia, Anthony Poole, Doron Lancet, and Thomas Dandekar.

     

Formal Darwinism

Two questions are raised for Grafen’s formal darwinism project of aligning evolutionary dynamics under natural selection with the optimization of phenotypes for individuals of a population. The first question concerns mean fitness maximization during frequency-dependent selection; in such selection regimes, not only is mean fitness typically not maximized but it is implausible that any parameter closely related to fitness is being maximized. The second question concerns whether natural selection on inclusive fitness differences can be regarded as individual selection or whether it leads to a departure from the central motivation that led to the formal darwinism project, viz., to show that “Darwinian” evolution through individual selection leads to “good design” or phenotypic adaptation through trait optimization.     

Social is Emotional

This is a biological approach to the philosophy of mind that feeds an investigation of the phenomena of “social” and “emotional”, both of which are widespread in nature. I scrutinize the non-dualistic Darwinian concept of the continuity of mind. For practical reasons, I address mind at different levels of organization: The systemic mind are the properties of which a common, coherent evolution works upon. Separated from this is “language-mind”: the crystallization of thought in words, which is a strictly human phenomenon. As the phenomenology of the body is a theory of philosophy that lie beyond language it can—to a certain extent—be extrapolated across a species boundary. In the process the phenomenology of the body comes to resemble biosemiotics and with this tool, I investigate a field study of social play behavior in canids. This leads to a possibility to study the non-human experience of emotion as “locally meaningful phenomena”.     

Mort ou persistance du darwinisme ? Regard d’un épistémologue

The article examines why evolutionary biologists have been haunted by the question whether they are “Darwinian” or “non-Darwinian” ever since Darwin's Origin of species. Modern criticisms addressed to Darwinism are classified into two categories: those concerning Darwin's hypothesis of “descent with modification” and those addressed to the hypothesis of natural selection. In both cases, although the particular models that Darwin proposed for these two hypotheses have been significantly revised and expanded, Darwin's general framework has constrained and canalized evolutionary research, in the sense that it has settled an array of possible theoretical choices. Gould's changing attitudes regarding Darwinism is taken as a striking illustration of this interpretation.     

A Man of His Time: Thorstein Veblen and the University of Chicago Darwinists

The Darwinian economic theory that Thorstein Veblen proposed and refined while he served as a professor of Political Economy at the University of Chicago from 1891 to 1906 should be assessed in the context of the community of Darwinian scientists and social scientists with whom Veblen worked and lived at Chicago. It is important to identify Veblen as a member of this broad community of Darwinian-inclined philosophers, physiologists, geologists, astronomers, and biologists at Chicago because Veblen’s involvement with this circle suggests that the possible sources of his engagement with Darwinism extend beyond the pragmatists and Continental socialists to whom scholars have typically ascribed Veblen’s Darwinian roots. Additionally, that an extensive community continued to use Darwinian evolutionary theory to construct new models of scientific and social scientific analysis at the turn of the twentieth century, a period during which Darwinism was purportedly in decline, suggests that the “eclipse of Darwinism” narrative has been overstated in literature about Darwinism’s intellectual arc.     

Mystery of mysteries: Darwin and the species problem

Darwin offered an intriguing answer to the species problem. He doubted the existence of the species category as a real category in nature, but he did not doubt the existence of those taxa called “species”. And despite his scepticism of the species category, Darwin continued using the word “species”. Many have said that Darwin did not understand the nature of species. Yet his answer to the species problem is both theoretically sound and practical. On the theoretical side, Darwin’s answer is confirmed by contemporary biology, and it offers a more satisfactory answer to the species problem than recent attempts to save the species category. On the practical side, Darwin’s answer frees us from the search for the correct theoretical definition of “species”. But at the same time it does not require that we banish the word “species” from biology as some recent sceptics of the species category advocate. © The Willi Hennig Society 2010.     

Three sensible paradigms for research on evolution and human behavior?

Far from being involved in a fundamental division, the study of evolution and human behavior is fortunate to have three potentially productive paradigms which could usefully coexist. In so far as “Darwinian psychology” (DP) is the study of causal mechanisms, guided by thinking about the tasks the mechanisms must perform, it has a clear place alongside the study of adaptedness. Instead of arguing its right to exist by pointing out problems with “adaptationism,” DP should present its audience with more examples of how DP research can be conducted. Meanwhile, adaptationists might move on from asking whether people behave as if they are maximizing fitness, and decide what to do with their finding that the answer is often “yes.” They might also get actively involved with dual inheritance theory, developing ways to make it yield more predictions.     

How to Rethink Evolutionary Theory: A Plurality of Evolutionary Patterns

Nature has recently depicted the empirical advancements of the theory of evolution as a confrontation between “reformists”, that claim for an urgent rethinking of the standard neo-Darwinian approach including so far neglected factors and processes, and “conservatives” who reply “all is well” about the current evolutionary research programme based on genetic variation and natural selection. The fight is mainly around genetic reductionism, but it seems inconclusive. Reformists stress very important factors, but they are still missing a coherent proposal about the architecture of the future extended evolutionary theory. Conservative react defensively, relying just on non-essential add-ons to the old and stable neo-Darwinian core. We analyze the debate and we propose an interpretation. Evolutionary biology is a rapidly expanding field. The bone of contention is how to update and extend the central core of the Darwinian legacy. We propose here the idea that what is happening in the field today is a development of the evolutionary research programme, whose structure is composed of a set of compatible and integrated evolutionary patterns. Evolutionary biology has been extended over its history by the inclusion of more and more patterns, rather than by revision to core theory. Niles Eldredge’s “Hierarchy Theory” is an example of global structure (meta-theory) aiming at incorporating and unifying the currently observed evolutionary patterns.     

Substance use and mating success

Psychoactive substance use has been typical of most traditional and modern societies and is maintained in the population despite the potential for abuse and related harms, raising the possibility that it (or its underlying causes) confers fitness benefits that offset its costs. Although it seems plausible that psychoactive substances have facilitated survival among ancestral and modern humans, it is not clear that this enhancement has translated into Darwinian fitness through mating and ultimately reproductive success. In the current study, we discuss potential mechanisms by which substance use might make unique contributions to mating success, attend to the possibility that the effects between substance use and mating success are instead confounded, and use structural equations and nationally representative data to determine whether these effects are more likely causal or spurious. Our findings indicate that once we know participants' scores on “third” variables at each round in early young adulthood, their substance use gives us little additional information about their current prospects for acquiring sexual partners and no additional information about of their future prospects. Thus, if adaptations for substance use evolved, their adaptive value does not seem to be found in mating success.     

Concepts of macro- and microevolution as related to the problem of origin and global expansion of the plague pathogen Yersinia pestis

The relationship between macro- and microevolutionary processes is considered with reference to the ecological scenario of the origin of the plague pathogen and its subsequent natural and anthropogenic global expansion. The macroevolutionary transformation of the ancestral pseudotuberculosis microbe clone into the initial plague microbe Yersinia pestis tarbagani occurred in Central Asia at the end of the Late Pleistocene by a “vertical” Darwinian way in an inadaptive heterothermal continual intermediate environment—the Mongolian marmot Marmota sibirica—flea Oropsylla silantiewi system—via a sequence of unstable and currently extinct intermediate forms. Its natural geographic expansion on the “oil spot” principle in the postglacial time led to the microevolutionary formation of 20–30 hostal subspecies circulating in populations of the background species of burrowing rodents and pikas in arid areas of Eurasia. The intercontinental spread of the “marmot” and “rat” pathogen subspecies in the past few centuries has been exclusively anthropogenic, with the involvement of synanthropic (ship) rats.     

The Weight of Evidence Does Not Support the Listing of Styrene as “Reasonably Anticipated to be a Human Carcinogen” in NTP's Twelfth Report on Carcinogens

Styrene was listed as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” in the twelfth edition of the National Toxicology Program's Report on Carcinogens based on what we contend are erroneous findings of limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans, sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, and supporting mechanistic data. The epidemiology studies show no consistent increased incidence of, or mortality from, any type of cancer. In animal studies, increased incidence rates of mostly benign tumors have been observed only in certain strains of one species (mice) and at one tissue site (lung). The lack of concordance of tumor incidence and tumor type among animals (even within the same species) and humans indicates that there has been no particular cancer consistently observed among all available studies. The only plausible mechanism for styrene-induced carcinogenesis—a non-genotoxic mode of action that is specific to the mouse lung—is not relevant to humans. As a whole, the evidence does not support the characterization of styrene as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen,” and styrene should not be listed in the Report on Carcinogens.     

Julius Sachs (1868): The father of plant physiology

The year 2018 marks the 150th anniversary of the first publication of Julius von Sachs' (1832–1897) Lehrbuch der Botanik (Textbook of Botany), which provided a comprehensive summary of what was then known about the plant sciences. Three years earlier, in 1865, Sachs produced the equally impressive Handbuch der Experimental‐Physiologie der Pflanzen (Handbook of Experimental Plant Physiology), which summarized the state of knowledge in all aspects of the discipline known today as plant physiology. Both of these books provided numerous insights based on Sachs' seminal experiments. By virtue of a reliance on detailed empirical observation and the rigorous application of chemical and physical principles, it is fair to say that the publication of these two monumental works marked the beginning of what can be called “modern‐day” plant science. Moreover, Sachs' Lehrbuch der Botanik prefigured the ascendance of plant molecular biology and the systems biology of photoautotrophic organisms. Regrettably, many of the insights of this great scientist have been forgotten by the generations who followed. It is only fitting, therefore, that the anniversary of the publication of the Lehrbuch der Botanik and the career of “the father of plant physiology” should be honored and reviewed, particularly because Sachs established the physiology of green organisms as an integral branch of botany and incorporated a Darwinian perspective into plant biology. Here we highlight key insights, with particular emphasis on Sachs' detailed discussion of sexual reproduction at the cellular level and his endorsement of Darwinian evolution.