Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:05:14.597Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stochastic Evolutionary Dynamics: Drift versus Draft

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Robert A. Skipper J r.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a small handful of papers in theoretical population genetics, John Gillespie (2000a, 2000b, 2001) argues that a new stochastic process he calls “genetic draft” is evolutionarily more significant than genetic drift. This case study of chance in evolution explores Gillespie's proposed stochastic evolutionary force and sketches the implications of Gillespie's argument for philosophers’ explorations of genetic drift.

Type
Case Studies on Chance in Evolution
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 73 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2004 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers. Edited by Miriam Solomon , December 2006 , pp. 655 - 665
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

‡

This paper was inspired by a talk Will Provine gave at the 2004 Dibner History of Biology Seminar, “Perspective on Molecular Evolution,” at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, MA, in May 2004, in which he argued that genetic drift is a chimera. I almost believed him. Thanks to all the “drifters” in attendance for stimulating conversation. And thanks especially to John Beatty, Mike Dietrich, John Gillespie, and Roberta Millstein, who have helped to clarify my thinking about stochastic evolutionary dynamics. Thanks also to Bob Richardson for organizing the “Four Case Studies of Chance in Evolution” symposium for PSA 2004 and for inviting me to participate. Finally, thanks to the Charles P. Taft Memorial Fund at the University of Cincinnati for grants in support of the research for this paper.

References

Barton, Nicholas H. (1998), “The Effect of Hitch-Hiking on Neutral Genealogies,” Genetical Research 72:123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, Nicholas H. (2000), “Genetic Hitchhiking,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 355:1553–1562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beatty, John (1995), “The Evolutionary Contingency Thesis,” in Wolters, Gereon and Lennox, James G. (eds.), Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 45–81.Google Scholar
Brandon, Robert (2005), “The Difference between Selection and Drift: A Reply to Millstein,” Biology and Philosophy 20:153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Ronald Aylmer (1922), “On the Dominance Ratio,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 42:321–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, John (1991), The Causes of Molecular Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gillespie, John (2000a), “Genetic Drift in an Infinite Population: The Pseudohitchhiking Model,” Genetics 155:909–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, John (2000b), “The Neutral Theory in an Infinite Population,” Gene 261:11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, John (2001), “Is the Population Size of a Species Relevant to Its Evolution?” Evolution 55:2161–2169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillespie, John (2004), Population Genetics: A Concise Guide. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Kojima, Ken-Ichi, and Schaffer, Henry (1967), “Survival Process of Linked Mutant Genes,” Evolution 21:518–531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewontin, Richard C. (1974), The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John, and Haigh, John (1974), “The Hitch-Hiking Effect of a Favourable Gene,” Genetical Research 23:23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millstein, Roberta L. (2002), “Are Random Genetic Drift and Natural Selection Conceptually Distinct?” Biology and Philosophy 17:33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar