Raising Darwin’s consciousness

Sociobiologists and feminists agree that men in patriarchal social systems seek to control females, but sociobiologists go further, using Darwin’s theory of sexual selection and Trivers’s ideas on parental investment to explain why males should attempt to control female sexuality. From this perspective, the stage for the development under some conditions of patriarchal social systems was set over the course of primate evolution. Sexual selection encompasses both competition between males and female choice. But in applying this theory to our “lower origins” (prehominid ancestors), Darwin assumed that choices were made by essentially “coy” females. I argue here that female solicitation of multiple males (either simultaneously or sequentially, depending on the breeding system) characterized prehominid females; this prehominid legacy of cyclical sexual assertiveness, itself possibly a female counter-strategy to male efforts to control the timing of female reproduction, generated further male counter-strategies. This dialectic had important implications for emerging hominid mating systems, human evolution, and the development of patriarchal arrangements in some human societies. For hominid males who will invest in offspring, there would be powerful selection for emotions, behaviors, and customs that ensure them certainty of paternity. The sexual modesty that so struck Darwin can be explained as a recent evolved or learned (perhaps both) adaptation in women to avoid penalties imposed by patrilines on daughters and mates who failed to conform to the patriline’s prevailing norms for their sex. Other supposedly innate universals, such as female preferences for wealthy husbands, are also likely to be facultative accommodations by women to constraints set up when patrilines monopolized resources needed by females to survive and reproduce, and passed on intergenerational control of these resources preferentially to sons.     

Darwin’s Methodological Evolution

A necessary condition for having a revolution named after you is that you are an innovator in your field. I argue that if Charles Darwin meets this condition, it is as a philosopher and methodologist. In 1991, I made the case for Darwins innovative use of thought experiment in the Origin. Here I place this innovative practice in the context of Darwins methodological commitments, trace its origins back into Darwins notebooks, and pursue Darwins suggestion that it owes its inspiration to Charles Lyell.     

Is Chytridiomycosis Driving Darwin’s Frogs to Extinction?

Darwin’s frogs (Rhinoderma darwinii and R. rufum) are two species of mouth brooding frogs from Chile and Argentina that have experienced marked population declines. Rhinoderma rufum has not been found in the wild since 1980. We investigated historical and current evidence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) infection in Rhinoderma spp. to determine whether chytridiomycosis is implicated in the population declines of these species. Archived and live specimens of Rhinoderma spp., sympatric amphibians and amphibians at sites where Rhinoderma sp. had recently gone extinct were examined for Bd infection using quantitative real-time PCR. Six (0.9%) of 662 archived anurans tested positive for Bd (4/289 R. darwinii; 1/266 R. rufum and 1/107 other anurans), all of which had been collected between 1970 and 1978. An overall Bd-infection prevalence of 12.5% was obtained from 797 swabs taken from 369 extant individuals of R. darwinii and 428 individuals representing 18 other species of anurans found at sites with current and recent presence of the two Rhinoderma species. In extant R. darwinii, Bd-infection prevalence (1.9%) was significantly lower than that found in other anurans (7.3%). The prevalence of infection (30%) in other amphibian species was significantly higher in sites where either Rhinoderma spp. had become extinct or was experiencing severe population declines than in sites where there had been no apparent decline (3.0%; x ² = 106.407, P<0.001). This is the first report of widespread Bd presence in Chile and our results are consistent with Rhinoderma spp. declines being due to Bd infection, although additional field and laboratory investigations are required to investigate this further.     

Barrett’s oesophagus: an ideal model to study cancer genetics

Chronic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease can induce a metaplastic change of the distal oesophagus called Barrett’s oesophagus whereby the normal squamous epithelium is substituted by a columnar epithelium. Patients with Barrett’s oesophagus are at increased risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma which occurs through dysplastic stages with increasing degree of cellular and architectural disorganization. Barrett’s oesophagus represents an ideal model to study the genetic events supporting the onset of an invasive tumour since patients with this condition are surveilled with endoscopic tissue sampling until high grade dysplasia or intramucosal carcinoma develop. However, due to the relatively low incidence of this disease compared to other cancers, i.e. colon and breast, it is only recently that researchers have concentrated on understanding the genetic events supporting the onset of Barrett’s and its transformation to cancer. Here, we review the knowledge acquired so far on the genetic and molecular alterations along the oesophageal metaplasia–dysplasia-carcinoma sequence.     

Molecular genetics of Parkinson’s disease

The current views on the role of genetic factors in the pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease are considered. The review is focused on monogenic forms of the disease, for which 11 loci are mapped and seven genes whose mutations cause the disease are identified. In addition, a number of candidate genes for sporadic Parkinson’s disease are described. The further development of studying genetic bases of Parkinson’s disease will follow two main directions: in-depth analysis of genes related to the monogenic form of the disease and more large-scale associative investigation of candidate genes for the sporadic form of Parkinson’s disease.     

Exploration and ecology in Darwin’s finches

One of the main functions of exploratory behaviour is to gain information about the environment. The adaptive value of such behaviour should vary with ecological conditions influencing the diversity and stability of resources, as well as with the costs associated with gathering information. Consequently, predictions can be made about environmental factors influencing the evolution of exploration. We used comparative methods, combining a field experiment with literature data, to study correlated evolution between explorative behaviour and ecology among 13 species of Darwin’s finches. Controlling for phylogenetic influences, we found that exploration (measured as the proportion of individuals responding in the experiment) increased with diet diversity and the amount of fruit in diet, consistent with theories stating that exploration aimed at finding new food types should be more beneficial for generalists than for specialists. However, our study is the first to demonstrate a correlation between neophilia and food diversity. Contrary to our prediction, species with a high percentage of concealed food in their diet were less explorative. A possible explanation for this novel finding is that in our study system concealed food may be a stable resource, and species using such resources should be less dependent on the discovery of new food types.     

Is Beak Morphology in Darwin’s Finches Tuned to Loading Demands?

One of nature''s premier illustrations of adaptive evolution concerns the tight correspondence in birds between beak morphology and feeding behavior. In seed-crushing birds, beaks have been suggested to evolve at least in part to avoid fracture. Yet, we know little about mechanical relationships between beak shape, stress dissipation, and fracture avoidance. This study tests these relationships for Darwin''s finches, a clade of birds renowned for their diversity in beak form and function. We obtained anatomical data from micro-CT scans and dissections, which in turn informed the construction of finite element models of the bony beak and rhamphotheca. Our models offer two new insights. First, engineering safety factors are found to range between 1 and 2.5 under natural loading conditions, with the lowest safety factors being observed in species with the highest bite forces. Second, size-scaled finite element (FE) models reveal a correspondence between inferred beak loading profiles and observed feeding strategies (e.g. edge-crushing versus tip-biting), with safety factors decreasing for base-crushers biting at the beak tip. Additionally, we identify significant correlations between safety factors, keratin thickness at bite locations, and beak aspect ratio (depth versus length). These lines of evidence together suggest that beak shape indeed evolves to resist feeding forces.     

Reconsidering Darwin’s “Several Powers”

Contemporary textbooks often define evolution in terms of the replication, mutation, and selective retention of DNA sequences, ignoring the contribution of the physical processes involved. In the closing line of The Origin of Species, however, Darwin recognized that natural selection depends on prior more basic living functions, which he merely described as life’s “several powers.” For Darwin these involved the organism’s capacity to maintain itself and to reproduce offspring that preserve its critical functional organization. In modern terms we have come to recognize that this involves the continual generation of complex organic molecules in complex configurations accomplished with the aid of persistent far-from-equilibrium chemical self-organizing and self-assembling processes. But reliable persistence and replication of these processes also requires constantly available constraints and boundary conditions. Organism autonomy further requires that these constraints and co-dependent dynamics are reciprocally produced, each by the other. In this paper I argue that the different constraint-amplifying dynamics of two or more self-organizing processes can be coupled so that they reciprocally generate each other’s critical supportive boundary conditions. This coupling is a higher-order constraint (which can be distributed among components or offloaded onto molecular structures) that effectively constitutes a sign vehicle “interpreted” by the synergistic dynamics of these co-dependent self-organizing process so that they reconstitute this same semiotic-dynamic relationship and its self-reconstituting potential in new substrates. This dynamical co-dependence constitutes Darwin’s “several powers” and is the basis of the biosemiosis that enables evolution.     

Darwin’s two theories, 1844 and 1859

Darwin’s first two, relatively complete, explicit articulations of his theorizing on evolution were his Essay of 1844 and On the Origin of Species published in 1859. A comparative analysis concludes that they espoused radically different theories despite exhibiting a continuity of strategy, much common structure and the same key idea. Both were theories of evolution by means of natural selection. In 1844, organic adaptation was confined to occasional intervals initiated and controlled by de-stabilization events. The modified descendants rebalanced the particular “plant and animal forms … unsettled by some alteration in their circumstances.” But by 1859, organic adaptation occurred continuously, potentially modifying the descendants of all organisms. Even natural selection, the persistent core of Darwin’s theorizing, does not prove to be a significant basis for theory similarity. Consequently, Darwin’s Origin theory cannot reasonably be considered as a mature version of the Essay. It is not a modification based on adjustments, further justifications and the integration of a Principle of Divergence. The Origin announced a new “scientific paradigm” while the Essay did little more than seemingly misconfigure the operation of a novel mechanism to extend varieties beyond their accepted bounds, and into the realm of possible new species. Two other collections of Darwin’s theorizing are briefly considered: his extensive notes of the late 1830s and his contributions to the famous meeting of 1 July 1858. For very different reasons, neither constitutes a challenge to the basis for this comparative study. It is concluded that, in addition to the much-debated social pressures, an unacknowledged further reason why Darwin did not publish his theorizing until 1859, could have been down to his perceptive technical judgement: wisely, he held back from rushing to publish demonstrably flawed theorizing.     

The Impact of Lamarck’s Theory of Evolution Before Darwin’s Theory

This paper analyzes the impact that Lamarckian evolutionary theory had in the scientific community during the period between the advent of Zoological Philosophy and the publication Origin of Species. During these 50 years Lamarck’s model was a well known theory and it was discussed by the scientific community as a hypothesis to explain the changing nature of the fossil record throughout the history of Earth. Lamarck’s transmutation theory established the foundation of an evolutionary model introducing a new way to research in nature. Darwin’s selectionist theory was proposed in 1859 to explain the origin of species within this epistemological process. In this context, Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology and Auguste Comte’s Cours de Philosophie Positive appear as two major works for the dissemination of Lamarck’s evolutionary ideology after the death of the French naturalist in 1829.