Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:11:39.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Paradox of Stasis and the Nature of Explanations in Evolutionary Biology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Jonathan Michael Kaplan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recently, Estes and Arnold claimed to have “solved” the paradox of evolutionary stasis; they claim that stabilizing selection, and only stabilizing selection, can explain the patterns of evolutionary divergence observed over “all timescales.” While Estes and Arnold clearly think that they have identified the processes that produce evolutionary stasis, they have not. Instead, Estes and Arnold identify a particular evolutionary pattern but not the processes that produce that pattern. This mistake is important; the slippage between pattern and process is common in population and quantitative genetics and contributes to a persistent misunderstanding of the nature of explanations in evolutionary biology.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 76 , Issue 5 , December 2009 , pp. 797 - 808
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

‡

Audience members at the International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology conference in Exeter, England, a colloquium at the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at State University of New York at Stony Brook, and the PSA meeting in Pittsburgh provided extensive useful feedback on this material. Kim Sterelny in particular made several useful suggestions, and Massimo Pigliucci provided helpful feedback on various earlier drafts of this paper. All remaining mistakes are of course my own.

References

Carroll, S. P., Hendry, A. P., Reznick, D. N., and Fox, C. W. (2007), “Evolution on Ecological Time-Scales”, Evolution on Ecological Time-Scales 21:387–393.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N., Thompson, J. N., Brakefield, P. M., Gavrilets, S., Jablonski, D., Jackson, J. B. C., Lenski, R. E., Lieberman, B. S., McPeek, M. A., and III, W. Miller (2005), “The Dynamics of Evolutionary Stasis”, The Dynamics of Evolutionary Stasis 31:133–145.Google Scholar
Estes, S., and Arnold, S. J. (2007), “Resolving the Paradox of Stasis: Models with Stabilizing Selection Explain Evolutionary Divergence on All Timescales”, Resolving the Paradox of Stasis: Models with Stabilizing Selection Explain Evolutionary Divergence on All Timescales 169 (2): 227–244..Google ScholarPubMed
Gingerich, P. D. (2001), “Rates of Evolution on the Time Scale of the Evolutionary Process”, Genetica 112/113:127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glymour, B. (2006), “Wayward Modeling: Population Genetics and Natural Selection”, Wayward Modeling: Population Genetics and Natural Selection 73:369–389.Google Scholar
Hendry, A. (2007), “The Elvis Paradox”, The Elvis Paradox 446 (8): 147–150..Google ScholarPubMed
Hunt, G. (2007), “The Relative Importance of Directional Change, Random Walks, and Stasis in the Evolution of Fossil Lineages”, The Relative Importance of Directional Change, Random Walks, and Stasis in the Evolution of Fossil Lineages 104 (47): 18404–18408..Google ScholarPubMed
Lewontin, R. ([1983] 1985), “The Organism as the Subject and Object of Evolution”, in Levins, Richard and Lewontin, Richard (eds.), The Dialectical Biologist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Originally published in Sciencia 118:63–82.Google Scholar
Matthen, M., and Ariew, A. (2002), “Two Ways of Thinking about Fitness and Natural Selection”, Two Ways of Thinking about Fitness and Natural Selection 99:55–83.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (2001), What Evolution Is. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.Google Scholar
Pigliucci, M., and Kaplan, J. (2006), Making Sense of Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roopnarine, P. D. (2003), “Analysis of Rates of Morphologic Evolution”, Analysis of Rates of Morphologic Evolution 34:605–632.Google Scholar
Sterelny, K. (2001), “The Reality of Ecological Assemblages: A Palaeo-ecological Puzzle”, The Reality of Ecological Assemblages: A Palaeo-ecological Puzzle 16:437–461.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W., and Jablonski, D. (1993), “Fossil Communities: Compositional Variation on Many Time Scales”, in Ricklets, R. E. and Schulter, D. (eds.), Species Diversity in Ecological Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 341–349.Google Scholar