Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:48:32.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection: A Hierarchical Expansion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Anthony J. Arnold  and
Kurt Fristrup
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Alleles, individuals, and species are all examples of entities possessing variation in the properties that underlie natural selection: branching (reproduction), persistence (survivorship), and heritability of characters. This suggests that the logic embodied in the theory of natural selection can be abstracted from its usual application to the level of individuals to encompass selection operating among any biological entities for which these essential properties can be meaningfully defined. This approach leads to a unified perspective of adaptation, selection, and fitness at all levels. Expanded versions of the Price covariance selection equations provide a convenient and useful conceptual vehicle for this discussion. The advantages of a hierarchical approach are twofold: it permits exploration of concepts and ideas across levels by analogy, and it focuses attention upon the mechanisms that account for different evolutionary dynamics at each level rather than obscuring these biologically unique properties with argument by extension from a single “special” level.

We point out that the choice of a single measure of evolutionary change restricts the context in which “other level” processes will be perceived. We illustrate the limited forms in which higher and lower level selection can be recognized from the unique perspective provided by any given level through extensions of Price's formula.

An exploration of the implications of such an approach leads us to the assertion that the development of a unified theory of evolution demands the recognition and incorporation of hierarchical structure as a conceptual foundation.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Spring 1982 , pp. 113 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

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.)

References

Literature Cited

Bernal, J. D. 1951. The Physical Basis of Life. Routledge and Kegan Paul; London.Google Scholar
Crow, J. F. and Kimura, M. 1970. An Introduction to Population Genetics Theory. 591 pp. Burgess; Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Crow, J. F. and Nagylaki, T. 1976. The rate of change of a character correlated with fitness. Am. Nat. 110:207–213.Google Scholar
Doolittle, W. Ford and Sapienza, C. 1980. Selfish genes, the phenotype paradigm and genome evolution. Nature. 284:601–603.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. and Gould, S. J. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. Pp. 82–115. In: Schopf, T. J. M., ed. Models in Paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper and Co.; San Francisco, Ca.Google Scholar
Fenner, F. 1965. Myxoma virus and Oryctolagus cuniculus . Pp. 485–501. In: Baker, H. G. and Stebbins, G. L., eds. The Genetics of Colonizing Species. 588 pp. Academic Press; New York.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon; Oxford.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. 1941. Average excess and average effect of a gene substitution. Ann. Eugen. 11:53–63.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. 1958. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. 2nd ed. Dover Press; N.Y. Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. and Eldredge, N. 1977. Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution revisited. Paleobiology. 3:115–151.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. and Lewontin, R. C. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B205:581–598.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. 1977. Innate social aptitudes of man: an approach from evolutionary genetics. Pp. 133–187. In: Fox, Robin, ed. Biosocial Anthropology. Malaby Press; London.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. 1978. Evolution and diversity under bark. Pp. 154–175. In: Mound, L. A. and Waloff, N., eds. Diversity of Insect Communities. Proc. R. Entomol. Soc. no. 9.Google Scholar
Hansen, T. A. 1980. Influence of larval dispersal and geographic distribution on species longevity in neogastropods. Paleobiology. 6:193–207.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. 1978. A matter of individuality. Philos. Sci. 45:335–360.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. 1980. Individuality and selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11:311–332.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. 1965. Selection for colonizing ability. Pp. 77–94. In: Baker, H. and Stebbins, G. L., eds. The Genetics of Colonizing Species. Academic Press; N.Y. Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. 1970. The units of selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1:1–18.Google Scholar
Maynard-Smith, J. 1964. Kin selection and group selection. Nature. 201:1145–1147.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Belknap Press; Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Orgel, L. E. and Crick, F. H. C. 1980. Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite. Nature. 284:604–607.Google Scholar
Price, G. R. 1970. Selection and covariance. Nature. 227:520–521.Google Scholar
Price, G. R. 1972. Extension of covariance selection mathematics. Ann. Hum. Genet., Lond. 35:485–490.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1978. Cohort analysis of generic survivorship. Paleobiology. 4:1–15.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. 1966. A mathematical model of the culling process in dairy cattle. Anim. Production. 8:95–108.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. 1968. The spectrum of genetic variation. Pp. 5–16. In: Lewontin, R. C., ed. Population Biology and Evolution. Syracuse Univ. Press; Syracuse, N.Y. Google Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1970. Arbeitskonzept zur Konstruktions—Morphologie. Lethaia. 3:393–396.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1957. Models of Man: Social and Rational; Human Behaviour in a Social Setting. 297 pp. Wiley; New York.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1963. This View of Life. 308 pp. Harcourt Brace & World, Inc.; New York.Google Scholar
Sober, E. 1981. Holism, individualism, and the units of selection. Pp. 93–121. In: Giere, R. and Asquith, P., eds. Proc. Philos. Sci. vol. 2. Philos. of Sci. Ass., East Lansing, Michigan.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1975. A theory of evolution above the species level. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 72:646–650.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1980. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. 332 pp. W. H. Freeman and Co.; San Francisco, Ca.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1973. A new evolutionary law. Evol. Theory. 1:1–30.Google Scholar
Wade, Michael J. 1976. An experimental study of group selection. Evolution. 31:134–153.Google Scholar
Wade, Michael J. 1978. A critical review of the models of group selection. Q. Rev. Biol. 53:101–114.Google Scholar
Wade, Michael J. 1979. The evolution of social interactions by family selection. Am. Nat. 113:399–417.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. 1966. Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton Univ. Press; Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. 1980. Reductionistic research strategies and their biases in the units of selection controversy. Pp. 213–259. In: Nickles, T., ed. Scientific Discovery: Case Studies. Kluwer; Boston.Google Scholar