Natural selection and complex systems: a complex interaction

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511542275.011

9 - Natural selection and complex systems: a complex interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 December 2009

David Sloan Wilson

Edited by

Charlotte Hemelrijk

Show author details

David Sloan Wilson: Affiliation:
Binghamton University
Charlotte Hemelrijk: Affiliation:
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands

Book contents

Get access

Summary

In their book Darwinism Evolving, Depew and Weber (1995) develop the thesis that evolutionary theory has been reformulated several times to keep pace with advances in knowledge about the physical world. Darwin's Newtonian formulation was replaced by a probabilistic formulation early in the twentieth century. According to Depew and Weber, the new science of complexity will force yet another formulation, which is taking place during our time.

This general thesis may well be correct but Depew and Weber's specific account of the relationship between evolution and complexity leaves much to be desired (Wilson, 1995). They largely accept the polemic view of Gould and Lewontin (1979) at face value, arguing that natural selection is far more constrained and adaptations less common than claimed by proponents of the so-called adaptationist programme. Complexity is viewed as something that stamps its own properties on organisms and resists the modifying effects of natural selection.

Depew and Weber are not alone in this view. Many complexity theorists and writers seem to parade under the banner ‘Darwin is dead! Long live complexity!’ The following passage by Kauffman (1993: 24) provides one example:

In short, if selection is operating on systems with strongly self-organized properties that are typical of the ensemble being explored, then those properties simultaneously are the proper null hypothesis concerning what we would expect to find in the absence of selection and may be good predictors of what we will observe even in the presence of continuing selection. In brief, if selection can only slightly displace evolutionary systems from the generic properties of the underlying ensembles, those properties will be widespread in organisms not because of selection, but despite it.

Type: Chapter
Information: Self-Organisation and Evolution of Biological and Social Systems , pp. 151 - 165

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542275.011 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bell, G. (1982). The Masterpiece of Nature. Berkeley, CA: University of California PressGoogle Scholar

Charlesworth, D. and Charlesworth, B. (1975). Theoretical genetics of Batesian mimicry. I. Single-locus models. J. Theoret. Biol. 55, 283–303CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Depew, D. J. and Weber, B. H. (1995). Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Goodnight, C. J. and Stevens, L. (1997). Experimental studies of group selection: what do they tell us about group selection in nature?Am. Naturalist 150, S59–S79CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Gould, S. J. and Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist program. Proc. Roy. Soc. London B 205, 581–598CrossRef Google Scholar

Johnson, C. R. and Boerlijst, M. C. (2002). Selection at the level of community: the importance of spatial structure. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 83–90CrossRef Google Scholar

Johnson, C. R. and Seinen, I. (2002). Selection for restraint in competitive ability in spatial competition systems. Proc. Roy. Soc. London B 269, 655–663CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The Origins of Order. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Michod, R. E. and Levin, B. R. (eds.) (1988). The Evolution of Sex. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Otte, D. and Endler, J. A. (eds.) (1989). Speciation and its Consequences. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Provine, W. B. (1986). Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Sober, E. and Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Swenson, W., Arendt, J. and Wilson, D. S. (2000a). Artificial selection of microbial ecosystems for 3-chloroaniline biodegradation. Envir. Microbiol. 2, 564–571CrossRef Google Scholar

Swenson, W., Wilson, D. S. and Elias, R. (2000b). Artificial ecosystem selection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 9110–9114CrossRef Google Scholar

Wallace, B. (1991). Fifty Years of Genetic Load: An Odyssey. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. S. (1992).The effect of complex interactions on variation between units of a metacommunity, with implications for biodiversity and higher levels of selection. Ecology 73, 1984–2000CrossRef Google Scholar

Wilson, D. S. (1995).Book review: Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection. Artif. Life 2, 261–267CrossRef Google Scholar

Wilson, D. S. and Kniffin, K. M. (1999). Multilevel selection and the social transmission of behavior. Hum. Nature 10, 291–310CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Wilson, D. S. and Knollenberg, W. G. (1987). Adaptive indirect effects: the fitness of burying beetles with and without their phoretic mites. Evol. Ecol. 1, 139–159CrossRef Google Scholar

Wilson, D. S. and Wells, A. (1994). Radical epistasis and the genotype–phenotype relationship. Artif. Life 2, 117–128CrossRef Google Scholar