Wikia

Psychology Wiki

Changes: Gene-centered view of evolution

Edit

Back to page

(See also)
(update wp)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Merge|Gene-centric view of evolution}}
+
   
 
{{BioPsy}}
 
{{BioPsy}}
The '''gene-centric view of evolution''', '''gene selection theory''' or '''selfish gene theory''' holds that [[natural selection]] acts through differential survival of competing [[genes]], increasing the frequency of those [[allele]]s whose [[Phenotype|phenotypic]] effects successfully promote their own propagation. According to this theory, [[Adaptation|adaptations]] are the phenotypic effects through which genes achieve their propagation.
+
The '''gene-centered view of evolution''', '''gene selection theory''' or '''selfish gene theory''' holds that [[natural selection]] acts through differential survival of competing [[gene]]s, increasing the frequency of those [[allele]]s whose [[Phenotype|phenotypic]] effects successfully promote their own propagation. According to this theory, [[adaptation]]s are the phenotypic effects through which genes achieve their propagation.
   
==Improbable Functional Organization==
+
==Evolution by natural selection==
  +
The scientific explanation for the adaptation of living beings was initially tailored by [[Charles Darwin]] and [[Alfred Russel Wallace]], who proposed the [[theory]] of [[evolution]] by [[natural selection]] (Darwin & Wallace, 1858). According to this theory, a [[population]] of [[reproduction|reproductive]] individuals is subject to natural selection if the following are present: (1) [[variation]] in the reproductive performance of individuals within the population; (2) [[heredity]], meaning "like begets like"; and (3) [[competition]] for the resources required for reproduction, be it fertile mates or food. So, those characteristics that augment reproductive performance tend to be represented at a greater proportion than their competing alternative.
   
The fundamental characteristic of all biological systems, in contrast to those non-biologicals, is their improbable functional [[organization]]. [[Organism]]s are composed of different parts organized in such a way that their interaction produce a highly improbable functional result. This organization is amazing because the appropriateness of the means to the end transmits a powerful illusion of intentional [[design]] (Williams, 1966). In fact, [[William Paley]] stated that the perfection of living beings, exemplified by the human eye, could only come about through the action of a creator with superior intelligence (Dawkins, 1986).
+
==Improved theory of heredity==
   
The problem comes down to the improbability of finding, in the giant mathematical space of all possible arrangements of matter, that tiny minority of functional arrangements capable of performing those feats accomplished by actual living beings (Dawkins, 1986). The astronomer [[Fred Hoyle]] illustrated this argument stating that the likelihood of a functional [[molecule]] like [[hemoglobin]] emerge by chance is similar to that of a "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
+
The [[theory]] of [[evolution]] by [[natural selection]] was initially based on a vague concept of [[heredity]]. Darwin endorsed the [[blending inheritance]] [[hypothesis]] due to the absence, at that time, of a rigorous theory of heredity. Subsequently, significant discoveries about both the mechanisms of [[Biological inheritance|inheritance]] and those of [[Morphogenesis|development]] have revolutionised this area of biology.
   
==Evolution by Natural Selection==
+
==Discoveries in heredity==
The scientific explanation to this mistery began to be tailored by [[Charles Darwin]] and [[Alfred Russell Wallace]], who proposed the [[theory]] of [[evolution]] by [[natural selection]] (Darwin & Wallace, 1858). According to this theory, a [[population]] of [[reproduction|reproductive]] individuals is subject to natural selection if presents: (1) [[variation]] in the reproductive performance of individuals within the population; (2) [[heredity]], meaning "like begets like"; and (3) [[competition]] for the resources required for reproduction, be it fertile females or food. So, those characters that augments reproductive performance tend to be represented at a greater proportion than its competing alternatives.
 
   
The [[theory]] of [[evolution]] by [[natural selection]] was initially based on a vague concept of [[heredity]]. Even Darwin endorsed the [[blending inheritance]] [[hypothesis]] due to the lack on an appropriate theory of heredity. But, new discoveries about the mechanisms of [[Biological inheritance|inheritance]] and [[Morphogenesis|development]] were made in the following decades and clarified the issue.
+
=== Gregor Mendel ===
   
==Discoveries in Heredity==
+
In the mid-[[19th century]], the [[Czech people|Czech]] [[Augustinian]] monk [[Gregor Mendel]] proposed the particulate inheritance theory, which states that genes are preserved during development and are passed on unchanged (Fisher, 1930). According to this theory, genes can and usually do mix their phenotypic effects in an [[organism]], but themselves are not mixed and are transmitted in an "all-or-nothing" mode to the next generation.
The monk [[Gregor Mendel]] proposed the particulate inheritance theory, which states that genes are preserved during development and are passed on unchanged (Fisher,1930). According to this theory, genes can and usually do mix their phenotypic effects in an [[organism]], but themselves are not mixed and are transmitted in an all-or-nothing mode to the next generation.
 
   
The biologist [[August Weismann]] proposed the continuity of the germ plasm, where phenotypic changes enviromentally caused in the [[soma]] are not converted into changes in the [[genotype]] (Weismann, 1893). The classic illustration of this principle is that even if you cut the tail of thousands of [[generation]]s of rats, they will always produce tailed [[offspring]].
+
=== August Weismann ===
   
This principle was reflected at molecular level by [[Francis Crick]] when he formulated the [[central dogma of molecular biology]]: informations flows only from [[nucleic acid]] to nucleic acid or protein, and never from [[protein]] to nucleic acid or protein.
+
The biologist [[August Weismann]] proposed the continuity of the germ plasm, where phenotypic changes environmentally caused in the [[Somatic|soma]] are not converted into changes in the [[genotype]] (Weismann, 1893). The classic illustration of this principle is that even if you cut off the tails of thousands of [[generation]]s of rats, they will always produce tailed [[offspring]]. Similarly [[puppies]] of breeds of [[dog]]s which consistently over generations have had their [[Docking (dog)|tales or ears docked]] are born with tales and ears.
   
This discoveries completely ruled out the [[inheritance of acquired characters]] as an evolutionary factor, and also identified genes as the lasting entities that survives through many generations. In conjunction to the [[mathematic]]al evolutionary [[biology]] developed by [[Ronald Fisher]] (particularly in his [[1930]] book, ''[[The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection]]''), [[J. B. S. Haldane]] and [[Sewall Wright]], they paved the way to the formulation of the '''selfish gene theory'''.
+
=== Francis Crick ===
   
==The Gene as the Unit of Selection==
+
This principle was reflected at molecular level by [[Francis Crick]] when he formulated the [[central dogma of molecular biology]] in [[1958]]: information flows only from [[nucleic acid]] to nucleic acid or protein, and never from [[protein]] to nucleic acid or protein.
The view of the gene as the unit of selection was mainly developed in the books ''[[Adaptation and Natural Selection]]'', by [[George C. Williams]], and also in ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'' and ''[[The Extended Phenotype]]'', both by [[Richard Dawkins]]. Even though, it was already present in the article of [[1958]] ''Adaptation, natural selection, and behavior'' by [[Colin Pittendrigh]], and in the classic papers about altruism of 1963 and 1964 by [[W. D. Hamilton|William Hamilton]].
+
  +
===Acquired characteristics are not inherited ===
  +
  +
These discoveries made it clear that the [[inheritance of acquired characters]] was not an evolutionary factor and identified genes as lasting entities that survive through many generations. Maynard Smith summarized the issue:
  +
  +
{{cquote|If the central dogma is true, and if it is also true that nucleic acids are the only means whereby information is transmitted between generations, this has crucial implications for evolution. It would imply that all evolutionary novelty requires changes in nucleic acids, and that these changes - mutations - are essentially accidental and non-adaptive in nature. Changes elsewhere - in the egg cytoplasm, in materials transmitted through the placenta, in the mother's milk - might alter the development of the child, but, unless the changes were in nucleic acids, they would have no long-term evolutionary effects. (Maynard Smith, 1998, p.10)}}
  +
  +
The rejection of the inheritance of acquired characters combined with the classical [[mathematic]]al evolutionary [[biology]] developed by [[Ronald Fisher]] (particularly in his [[1930]] book, ''[[The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection]]''), [[J. B. S. Haldane]] and [[Sewall Wright]], they paved the way to the formulation of the '''selfish gene theory'''. For cases when environment can influence heredity see:- [[Epigenetics]].
  +
  +
==The gene as the unit of selection==
  +
  +
The view of the gene as the [[unit of selection]] was developed mainly in the books ''[[Adaptation and Natural Selection]]'', by [[George C. Williams]], and in ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'' and ''[[The Extended Phenotype]]'', both by [[Richard Dawkins]]. It had earlier been proposed by [[Colin Pittendrigh]] in his [[1958]] article, ''Adaptation, natural selection, and behavior'', and in the classic papers about altruism of 1963 and 1964 by [[W. D. Hamilton|William Hamilton]].
   
 
According to Williams' 1966 book:
 
According to Williams' 1966 book:
   
<blockquote>The essence of the genetical theory of natural selection is a statistical bias in the relative rates of survival of alternatives (genes, individuals, etc.). The effectiveness of such bias in producing adaptation is contingent on the maintenance of certains quantitative relationships among the operative factors. One necessary condition is that the selected entity must have '''a high degree of permanence and a low rate of endogenous change''', relative to the degree of bias (differences in selection coefficients). (Williams, 1966, p.22-23) </blockquote>
+
{{cquote|The essence of the genetical theory of natural selection is a statistical bias in the relative rates of survival of alternatives (genes, individuals, etc.). The effectiveness of such bias in producing adaptation is contingent on the maintenance of certain quantitative relationships among the operative factors. One necessary condition is that the selected entity must have '''a high degree of permanence and a low rate of endogenous change''', relative to the degree of bias (differences in selection coefficients). (Williams, 1966, p.22-23)}}
   
So, "The natural selection of [[phenotype]]s cannot in itself produce cumulative change, because phenotypes are extremely temporary manifestations." (Williams, 1966) Each phenotype is the unique product of the interaction between genome and environment. It doesn't matter how fit and fertile a phenotype is, it will eventually be destroyed and will never be duplicated.
+
Williams argued that "The natural selection of [[phenotype]]s cannot in itself produce cumulative change, because phenotypes are extremely temporary manifestations." (Williams, 1966) Each phenotype is the unique product of the interaction between genome and environment. It doesn't matter how fit and fertile a phenotype is, it will eventually be destroyed and will never be duplicated.
   
Since [[1954]], it is known that [[DNA]] is the physical substrate to genetic information, and it is capable of high fidelity [[replication]] through many generations. So, a particular sequence of DNA can have a high permanence and a low rate of endogenous change. The question that remains is "How long the segment must be?"
+
Since [[1954]], it has been known that [[DNA]] is the main physical substrate to genetic information, and it is capable of high fidelity [[DNA replication|replication]] through many generations. So, a particular sequence of DNA can have a high permanence and a low rate of endogenous change. The question that remains is how long the segment must be.
   
An entire sexual [[genome]] is the unique combination of father's and mother's chromosomes produced at the moment of fertilization. It will be destroyed with its organism, because "[[meiosis]] and [[recombination]] destroy genotypes as surely as death." (Williams, 1966) Only half of it is transmitted to each descendant due to the [[Mendelian inheritance#Mendel.27s law of segregation|independent segregation]], and only fragments of it are transmitted because of [[recombination]].
+
In normal sexual reproduction, an entire [[genome]] is the unique combination of father's and mother's chromosomes produced at the moment of fertilization. It is generally destroyed with its organism, because "[[meiosis]] and [[recombination]] destroy genotypes as surely as death." (Williams, 1966) Only half of it is transmitted to each descendant due to the [[Mendelian inheritance#Mendel.27s law of segregation|independent segregation]], and only fragments of it are transmitted because of [[recombination]].
   
The gene, defined as "that which segregates and recombines with appreciable frequency", is the only entity that fulfills the requisite of high degree of permanence and a low rate of endogenous change. The gene as an informational entity persists for an evolutionary significant span of time through a lineage of many physical copies.
+
If the gene is defined as "that which segregates and recombines with appreciable frequency", it will generally fulfill the requisite of high degree of permanence and a low rate of endogenous change. The gene as an informational entity persists for an evolutionary significant span of time through a lineage of many physical copies.
   
==Genic Selection==
+
In his book ''[[River out of Eden]]'', Dawkins coins the phrase ''[[God's utility function]]'' to further expound his view on genes as units of selection. He uses this phrase as a synonym of the "[[meaning of life]]" or the "purpose of life". By rephrasing the word ''purpose'' in terms of what [[economists]] call a [[utility function]], meaning "that which is maximized", Dawkins [[reverse engineering|reverse-engineers]] the purpose in the mind of the Divine Engineer of Nature, or the ''Utility Function of God''. In the end, Dawkins shows that it is a mistake to assume that an [[ecosystem]] or a [[species]] as a whole exists for a purpose. In fact, it is wrong to suppose that individual organisms lead a meaningful life either. In nature, only genes have a utility function – to perpetuate their own existence with indifference to great sufferings inflicted upon the organisms they build, exploit and discard.
The theory of natural selection can be restated as follows:
 
   
<blockquote>Genes do not present themselves naked to the scrutiny of natural selection, instead they present their phenotypic effects. (..) Differences in genes give rise to difference in these phenotypic differences. Natural selection acts on the phenotypic differences and thereby on genes. Thus genes come to be represented in successive generations in proportion to the selective value of their phenotypic effects. (Cronin, 1991, p.60) </blockquote>
+
==Genic selection==
  +
The selfish gene theory of natural selection can be restated as follows:
   
The result is that "the prevalent genes in a sexual population must be those that, as a mean condition, through a large number of genotypes in a large number of situations, have had the most favourable phenotypic effects for their own replication." (Williams, 1985) In other words, we expect selfish genes to survive and neutral or altruistic genes to be eliminated. This theory implicates that [[adaptation]]s are the phenotypic effects of genes to maximize their representation in the future generations. An adaptation is maintained by selection if promotes genetic survival directly or some subordinate goal that ultimately contributes to successful reproduction.
+
{{cquote|Genes do not present themselves naked to the scrutiny of natural selection, instead they present their phenotypic effects. (...) Differences in genes give rise to difference in these phenotypic differences. Natural selection acts on the phenotypic differences and thereby on genes. Thus genes come to be represented in successive generations in proportion to the selective value of their phenotypic effects. (Cronin, 1991, p.60)}}
  +
  +
The result is that "the prevalent genes in a sexual population must be those that, as a mean condition, through a large number of genotypes in a large number of situations, have had the most favourable phenotypic effects for their own replication." (Williams, 1985) In other words, we expect selfish genes, "selfish" meaning that promotes its own survival without necessarily promoting the survival of the organism, group or even species. This theory implicates that [[adaptation]]s are the phenotypic effects of genes to maximize their representation in the future generations. An adaptation is maintained by selection if it promotes genetic survival directly or some subordinate goal that ultimately contributes to successful reproduction.
   
 
==Vehicles==
 
==Vehicles==
As said above, genes are not naked in the world. They usually are packed together inside a genome, which itself is contained inside an organism. Genes group together into genomes because "genetic replication makes use of energy and substrates that are supplied by the metabolic economy in much greater quantities than would be possible without a genetic division of labour" (Haig, 1997) They build vehicles to promote their mutual interests of jumping into the next generation of vehicles. As Dawkins put it, we are the "survival machines" of genes.
+
As stated above, genes are not naked in the world. They are usually packed together inside a genome, which is itself contained inside an organism. Genes group together into genomes because "genetic replication makes use of energy and substrates that are supplied by the metabolic economy in much greater quantities than would be possible without a genetic division of labour" (Haig, 1997). They build vehicles to promote their mutual interests of jumping into the next generation of vehicles. As Dawkins put it, organisms are the "[[survival machine]]s" of genes.
   
The phenotypic effect of a particular gene is contingent to its environment, including the other fellow genes that constitutes with it the total genome. A gene almost never have a fixed effect, so how is possible to speak of gene for long legs? It is due to the fact that you can talk about phenotypic '''differences''' between alleles. One can say that one allele, everything alse constant or varying among certains limits, causes greater legs than its alternative. This difference is enough to the allow the scrutiny of natural selection .
+
The phenotypic effect of a particular gene is contingent on its environment, including the fellow genes constituting with it the total genome. A gene never has a fixed effect, so how is it possible to speak of a gene for long legs? It is because of the phenotypic ''differences'' between alleles. One may say that one allele, all other things being equal or varying within certain limits, causes greater legs than its alternative. This difference may be enough to enable the scrutiny of natural selection.
   
"A gene can have multiple phenotypic effects, each of which may be of positive, negative or neutral value. It is the net selective value of a gene's phenotypic effect that determines the fate of the gene." (Cronin, 1991) For instance, a gene can cause its bearer to have greater reproductive succes at a young age, but also cause a greater likelihood of death at a later age. If the benefit is greater than the harm, the gene shall be positively selected.
+
"A gene can have multiple phenotypic effects, each of which may be of positive, negative or neutral value. It is the net selective value of a gene's phenotypic effect that determines the fate of the gene" (Cronin, 1991). For instance, a gene can cause its bearer to have greater reproductive success at a young age, but also cause a greater likelihood of death at a later age. If the benefit outweighs the harm, averaged out over the individuals and environments in which the gene happens to occur, then phenotypes containing the gene will generally be positively selected and thus the abundance of that gene in the population will increase.
   
==Individual Altruism, Genetic Egoism==
+
==Individual altruism, genetic egoism==
The gene is an unit of hereditary information that exist in many physical copies in the world, and which particular physical copy will be replicated and originate new copies doesn't matter from the gene's point of view. (Williams, 1992) A selfish gene can be favored by selection by producing altruism among organisms containing it. The idea is summarized as follows:
+
The gene is a unit of hereditary information that exists in many physical copies in the world, and which particular physical copy will be replicated and originate new copies doesn't matter from the gene's point of view. (Williams, 1992) A selfish gene could be favoured by selection by producing altruism among organisms containing it. The idea is summarized as follows:
   
<blockquote>If a gene copy confers a benefit ''B'' on another vehicle at cost ''C'' to its own vehicle, its costly action is strategically beneficial if
+
{{quote|If a gene copy confers a benefit ''B'' on another vehicle at cost ''C'' to its own vehicle, its costly action is strategically beneficial if
''pB > C'', where p is the probability that a copy of the gene is present in the vehicle that benefits. Actions with substantial costs therefore require significant values of ''p''. Two kinds of factors ensure high values of p: relatedness (kinship) and recognition (green beards). (Haig, 1997, p. 288) </blockquote>
+
''pB > C'', where p is the probability that a copy of the gene is present in the vehicle that benefits. Actions with substantial costs therefore require significant values of ''p''. Two kinds of factors ensure high values of ''p'': relatedness (kinship) and recognition (green beards). (Haig, 1997, p. 288)}}
   
A gene in a [[soma]]tic cell of an individual may forgoes replication to promote the transmission of its copies in the germ line cells. It ensures the high value of ''p = 1'' due to their constant contact and their common origin from the [[zygote]].
+
A gene in a [[somatic]] cell of an individual may forego replication to promote the transmission of its copies in the germ line cells. It ensures the high value of ''p = 1'' due to their constant contact and their common origin from the [[zygote]].
   
The [[kin selection]] theory pedicts that a gene may recognize kinship by historical continuity: a mammalian mother learns to identify her own offspring in the act of giving birth; a male preferentially directs resources to the offspring of mothers with whom he has copulated; the other chicks in a nest are siblings; and so on. The expected altruism between kin is calibrated by the value of ''p'', also known as the [[coefficient of relatedness]]. For instance, an individual have a ''p = 1/2'' in relation to his brother, and ''p = 1/8'' to his cousin, so we would expect, everything else constant, greater altruism among brothers than among cousins.
+
The [[kin selection]] theory predicts that a gene may promote the recognition of kinship by historical continuity: a mammalian mother learns to identify her own offspring in the act of giving birth; a male preferentially directs resources to the offspring of mothers with whom he has copulated; the other chicks in a nest are siblings; and so on. The expected altruism between kin is calibrated by the value of ''p'', also known as the [[coefficient of relationship|coefficient of relatedness]]. For instance, an individual have a ''p = 1/2'' in relation to his brother, and ''p = 1/8'' to his cousin, so we would expect, ''[[ceteris paribus]]'', greater altruism among brothers than among cousins.
   
[[Green-beard effect]]s gained their name from a thought-experiment of Dawkins (1976), who considered the possibility of a gene that caused its possessors to develop a green beard and to be nice to other green-bearded individuals. Since then, a 'green beard effect' has come to refer to forms of genetic self-recognition in which a gene in one individual directs benefits to other individuals that possess the gene.
+
[[Green-beard effect]]s gained their name from a thought-experiment of [[Richard Dawkins]] (1976), who considered the possibility of a gene that caused its possessors to develop a green beard and to be nice to other green-bearded individuals. Since then, a 'green beard effect' has come to refer to forms of genetic self-recognition in which a gene in one individual might direct benefits to other individuals that possess the gene.
   
 
==Intragenomic conflict==
 
==Intragenomic conflict==
As genes are capable of producing individual altruism, they are capable of producing conflict among genes inside the genome of one individual. This phenomenon was called [[intragenomic conflict]] and arises when one gene promote its own replication in detriment to other genes in the genome. The classic example is [[segregation distorter]] genes that cheats during [[meiosis]] or [[gametogenesis]] and ends up in more than half of the functional [[gamete]]s. These genes persist even resulting in reduced [[fertility]]. Egbert Leigh (1971) compared the genome to "a parliament of genes: each acts in its own self-interest, but if its acts hurt the others, they will combine together to suppress it" to explain the relative low occurrence of intragenomic conflict.
+
As genes are capable of producing individual altruism, they are capable of producing conflict among genes inside the genome of one individual. This phenomenon was called [[intragenomic conflict]] and arises when one gene promotes its own replication in detriment to other genes in the genome. The classic example is segregation distorter genes that cheats during [[meiosis]] or [[gametogenesis]] and ends up in more than half of the functional [[gamete]]s. These genes persist even resulting in reduced [[fertility]]. Egbert Leigh (1971) compared the genome to "a parliament of genes: each acts in its own self-interest, but if its acts hurt the others, they will combine together to suppress it" to explain the relative low occurrence of intragenomic conflict.
  +
  +
==Challenges to the "Selfish Gene"==
  +
Those prominent among the opponents of this gene-centric view of evolution include [[paleontologist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] (September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) and [[philosopher]] [[Elliot Sober]], who have disputed the theory's applicability and fruitfulness. Gould has characterized this perspective as confusing book-keeping with [[causality]]. Gould views selection working on many levels, and has called attention for a hierarchical perspective of selection. Gould has also called the position "strict [[adaptationism]]," "ultra-Darwinism," and "[[fundamentalist|Darwinian fundamentalism]]," describing it as "[[reductionist]]." He saw it as leading to a simplistic "algorithmic" theory of evolution, or even to the re-introduction of a [[teleology|teleological principle]].[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1151]
  +
  +
Such challenges may be [[phenomenology|phenomenological]] in character, derived, in part, from [[common-sense]] analysis of the "experience" of evolution. Interestingly, Dawkins has further extended the selfish gene concept to psycho-[[sociology]] with the notion of "[[meme]]s"--which might be described as a bid to make sociology as "fundamental" a [[science]] as [[particle physics]] or [[genetics]].
   
 
==Summary==
 
==Summary==
The selfish gene theory is the synthesis between the theory of evolution by natural selection, the particulate inheritance theory and the non-transmission of acquired characters. It states that those genes whose phenotypic effects promotes successfully their own propagation will be favorably selected in detriment to their competitors. This process produces adaptations to the benefit of genes, which promotes the reproductive success of the organism, or of others organisms containing the same gene (kin altruism and green-beard effects), or even only of its own propagation in detriment to the other genes of the genome (intragenomic conflict).
+
The [[selfish gene theory]] is a synthesis of the theory of [[evolution]] by [[natural selection]], the [[particulate inheritance theory]] and the [[non-transmission of acquired characters]]. It states that those genes whose phenotypic effects successfully promote their own propagation will be favourably selected in detriment to their competitors. This process produces adaptations to the benefit of [[genes]], which promotes the reproductive success of the [[organism]], or of others organisms containing the same gene (kin altruism and green-beard effects), or even only its own propagation in detriment to the other genes of the genome (intragenomic conflict).{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
   
==Other Main Figures==
+
==Other main figures==
 
Besides [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[George C. Williams]], other [[biologist]]s and [[philosopher]]s have expanded and refined the selfish gene theory, such as [[John Maynard Smith]], [[Robert Trivers]], [[David Haig (biologist)|David Haig]], [[Helena Cronin]], [[David Hull]], [[Philip Kitcher]] and [[Daniel C. Dennett]].
 
Besides [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[George C. Williams]], other [[biologist]]s and [[philosopher]]s have expanded and refined the selfish gene theory, such as [[John Maynard Smith]], [[Robert Trivers]], [[David Haig (biologist)|David Haig]], [[Helena Cronin]], [[David Hull]], [[Philip Kitcher]] and [[Daniel C. Dennett]].
   
 
==Bibliography==
 
==Bibliography==
* '''[[Francis Crick|Crick, F.]]''' (1970) ''Central Dogma of Molecular Biology.'' Nature, 227, 561-563.
+
* [[Francis Crick|Crick, F.]] (1970) [http://www.euchromatin.org/Crick01.htm Central dogma of molecular biology] ''Nature'' '''227''' (August 8): 561-563.
* '''[[Helena Cronin|Cronin, H.]]''' (1991) ''The Ant and the Peacock.'' Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 052132937X
+
* [[Helena Cronin|Cronin, H.]] (1991) ''The Ant and the Peacock.'' Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 0-521-32937-X
* '''[[Charles Darwin|Darwin, C.]]''' & '''[[Alfred Russell Wallace|Wallace, A.]]''' (1858) ''On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection.'' Proceedings of Linnean Society, 3, 45-62.
+
* [[Charles Darwin|Darwin, C.]] & [[Alfred Russel Wallace|Wallace, A.]] (1858) [http://www.life.umd.edu/emeritus/reveal/pbio/darwin/darwindex.html On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection.] ''Proceedings of Linnean Society'' '''3''' (July): 45-62.
* '''[[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins, R.]]''' (1976) ''The Selfish Gene.'' Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN 0192860925
+
* [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins, R.]] (1976) ''[[The Selfish Gene]].'' Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN 0-19-286092-5
* '''[[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins, R.]]''' (1982) ''The Extended Phenotype.'' Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN 0192880519
+
* [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins, R.]] (1982) ''[[The Extended Phenotype]].'' Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN 0-19-288051-9
* '''[[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins, R.]]''' (1986) ''The Blind Watchmaker.'' Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN 0393315703
+
* [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins, R.]] (1982) [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/dawkins_replicators.html "Replicators and Vehicles"] King's College Sociobiology Group, eds., ''Current Problems in Sociobiology'', Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 45-64.
* '''[[Ronald Fisher|Fisher, R. A.]]''' (1930) ''The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection.'' Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN 0198504403.
+
<!-- not cited in article; kept for now in case they are later * [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins, R.]] (1986) ''[[The Blind Watchmaker]].'' Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN 0-393-31570-3
* '''[[David Haig (biologist)|Haig, D.]]''' (1997) ''The Social Gene.'' in J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (editors), ''Behavioural Ecology'', Fourth Edition, pp 284-304. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.
+
* [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins, R.]] (1995) ''[[River Out of Eden]].'' Basic Books, New York. ISBN 0-465-06990-8 -->
* '''[[W. D. Hamilton|Hamilton, W. D.]]''' (1963) ''The evolution of altruistic behavior.'' The American Naturalist, 97(896), 354-356.
+
* [[Ronald Fisher|Fisher, R. A.]] (1930) ''The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection.'' Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN 0-19-850440-3.
* '''[[W. D. Hamilton|Hamilton, W. D.]]''' (1964) ''The genetical evolution of social behaviour.'' Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1-52.
+
* [[David Haig (biologist)|Haig, D.]] (1997) ''The Social Gene.'' In J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies, eds., ''Behavioural Ecology'', Oxford: Blackwell Scientific, pp. 284-304.
* '''[[Egbert Leigh|Leigh, E.]]''' (1971) ''Adaptation and Diversity.''' Cooper, San Francisco.
+
* [[W. D. Hamilton|Hamilton, W. D.]] (1963) The evolution of altruistic behavior. ''The American Naturalist'' '''97''' (896): 354-356.
* '''[[Colin Pittendrigh|Pittendrigh, C.]]''' (1958) '' Adaptation, natural selection, and behavior.'' in A. Roe & G. G. Simpson (editors), '' Behavior and Evolution'', pp 390-416. Yale University Press, New Haven.
+
* [[W. D. Hamilton|Hamilton, W. D.]] (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour. ''Journal of Theoretical Biology'' '''7''': 1-52.
* '''[[George C. Williams|Williams, G. C.]]''' (1966) ''Adaptation and Natural Selection''. Princeton University Press, Princeton. ISBN 0691026157
+
* [[Egbert Leigh|Leigh, E.]] (1971) ''Adaptation and Diversity.'' Cooper, San Francisco.
* '''[[George C. Williams|Williams, G. C.]]''' (1985) ''A defense of reductionism in evolutionary biology.'' Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, 2, 1-27.
+
* [[John Maynard Smith|Maynard Smith, J.]] (1998) ''Evolutionary Genetics: 2nd Edition.'' Oxford University Press, Oxford.
* '''[[George C. Williams|Williams, G. C.]]''' (1992) ''Natural Selection: Domains, Levels and Challenges.'' Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN 0195069323
+
* [[Ernst Mayr|Mayr, E.]] (1997) [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/6/2091 The objects of selection] ''Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA'' '''94''' (March): 2091-2094.
+
* [[Colin Pittendrigh|Pittendrigh, C.]] (1958) Adaptation, natural selection, and behavior. In A. Roe and [[George Gaylord Simpson|G. G. Simpson]], eds., ''Behavior and Evolution'', New Haven: Yale University Press, pp 390-416.
==See also==
+
* [[George C. Williams|Williams, G. C.]] (1966) ''Adaptation and Natural Selection''. Princeton University Press, Princeton. ISBN 0-691-02615-7
+
* [[George C. Williams|Williams, G. C.]] (1985) ''A defense of reductionism in evolutionary biology.'' Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, '''2''': 1-27.
* [[Evolution]]
+
* [[George C. Williams|Williams, G. C.]] (1992) ''Natural Selection: Domains, Levels and Challenges.'' Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN 0-19-506932-3
** [[Natural selection]]
 
** [[Sexual selection]]
 
** [[Kin selection]]
 
* [[Unit of selection]]
 
* [[Group selection]]
 
* [[Gene-centered view of evolution]]
 
* [[Inclusive fitness]]
 
** [[Parental investment]]
 
** [[Parent-offspring conflict]]
 
** [[Trivers-Willard hypothesis]]
 
** [[Reciprocal altruism]]
 
* [[Life-history theory]]
 
 
Also, applications to the study of human behavior:
 
 
* [[Dual inheritance theory]]
 
* [[Evolutionary psychology]]
 
** [[Evolutionary developmental psychology]]
 
** [[Evolutionary educational psychology]]
 
* [[Human behavioral ecology]]
 
* [[List of publications on evolution and human behavior]]
 
   
 
[[Category:Evolution]]
 
[[Category:Evolution]]
 
[[Category:Evolutionary biology]]
 
[[Category:Evolutionary biology]]
 
[[Category:Selection]]
 
[[Category:Selection]]
  +
  +
:fi:Geenikeskeinen evoluutionäkemys
 
{{enWP|Gene-centered view of evolution}}
 
{{enWP|Gene-centered view of evolution}}

Latest revision as of 07:36, December 21, 2007


Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences | Personality | Philosophy | Social |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |

Biological: Behavioural genetics · Evolutionary psychology · Neuroanatomy · Neurochemistry · Neuroendocrinology · Neuroscience · Psychoneuroimmunology · Physiological Psychology · Psychopharmacology (Index, Outline)


The gene-centered view of evolution, gene selection theory or selfish gene theory holds that natural selection acts through differential survival of competing genes, increasing the frequency of those alleles whose phenotypic effects successfully promote their own propagation. According to this theory, adaptations are the phenotypic effects through which genes achieve their propagation.

Evolution by natural selectionEdit

The scientific explanation for the adaptation of living beings was initially tailored by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, who proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection (Darwin & Wallace, 1858). According to this theory, a population of reproductive individuals is subject to natural selection if the following are present: (1) variation in the reproductive performance of individuals within the population; (2) heredity, meaning "like begets like"; and (3) competition for the resources required for reproduction, be it fertile mates or food. So, those characteristics that augment reproductive performance tend to be represented at a greater proportion than their competing alternative.

Improved theory of heredityEdit

The theory of evolution by natural selection was initially based on a vague concept of heredity. Darwin endorsed the blending inheritance hypothesis due to the absence, at that time, of a rigorous theory of heredity. Subsequently, significant discoveries about both the mechanisms of inheritance and those of development have revolutionised this area of biology.

Discoveries in heredityEdit

Gregor Mendel Edit

In the mid-19th century, the Czech Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel proposed the particulate inheritance theory, which states that genes are preserved during development and are passed on unchanged (Fisher, 1930). According to this theory, genes can and usually do mix their phenotypic effects in an organism, but themselves are not mixed and are transmitted in an "all-or-nothing" mode to the next generation.

August Weismann Edit

The biologist August Weismann proposed the continuity of the germ plasm, where phenotypic changes environmentally caused in the soma are not converted into changes in the genotype (Weismann, 1893). The classic illustration of this principle is that even if you cut off the tails of thousands of generations of rats, they will always produce tailed offspring. Similarly puppies of breeds of dogs which consistently over generations have had their tales or ears docked are born with tales and ears.

Francis Crick Edit

This principle was reflected at molecular level by Francis Crick when he formulated the central dogma of molecular biology in 1958: information flows only from nucleic acid to nucleic acid or protein, and never from protein to nucleic acid or protein.

Acquired characteristics are not inherited Edit

These discoveries made it clear that the inheritance of acquired characters was not an evolutionary factor and identified genes as lasting entities that survive through many generations. Maynard Smith summarized the issue:

If the central dogma is true, and if it is also true that nucleic acids are the only means whereby information is transmitted between generations, this has crucial implications for evolution. It would imply that all evolutionary novelty requires changes in nucleic acids, and that these changes - mutations - are essentially accidental and non-adaptive in nature. Changes elsewhere - in the egg cytoplasm, in materials transmitted through the placenta, in the mother's milk - might alter the development of the child, but, unless the changes were in nucleic acids, they would have no long-term evolutionary effects. (Maynard Smith, 1998, p.10)

The rejection of the inheritance of acquired characters combined with the classical mathematical evolutionary biology developed by Ronald Fisher (particularly in his 1930 book, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection), J. B. S. Haldane and Sewall Wright, they paved the way to the formulation of the selfish gene theory. For cases when environment can influence heredity see:- Epigenetics.

The gene as the unit of selectionEdit

The view of the gene as the unit of selection was developed mainly in the books Adaptation and Natural Selection, by George C. Williams, and in The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype, both by Richard Dawkins. It had earlier been proposed by Colin Pittendrigh in his 1958 article, Adaptation, natural selection, and behavior, and in the classic papers about altruism of 1963 and 1964 by William Hamilton.

According to Williams' 1966 book:

The essence of the genetical theory of natural selection is a statistical bias in the relative rates of survival of alternatives (genes, individuals, etc.). The effectiveness of such bias in producing adaptation is contingent on the maintenance of certain quantitative relationships among the operative factors. One necessary condition is that the selected entity must have a high degree of permanence and a low rate of endogenous change, relative to the degree of bias (differences in selection coefficients). (Williams, 1966, p.22-23)

Williams argued that "The natural selection of phenotypes cannot in itself produce cumulative change, because phenotypes are extremely temporary manifestations." (Williams, 1966) Each phenotype is the unique product of the interaction between genome and environment. It doesn't matter how fit and fertile a phenotype is, it will eventually be destroyed and will never be duplicated.

Since 1954, it has been known that DNA is the main physical substrate to genetic information, and it is capable of high fidelity replication through many generations. So, a particular sequence of DNA can have a high permanence and a low rate of endogenous change. The question that remains is how long the segment must be.

In normal sexual reproduction, an entire genome is the unique combination of father's and mother's chromosomes produced at the moment of fertilization. It is generally destroyed with its organism, because "meiosis and recombination destroy genotypes as surely as death." (Williams, 1966) Only half of it is transmitted to each descendant due to the independent segregation, and only fragments of it are transmitted because of recombination.

If the gene is defined as "that which segregates and recombines with appreciable frequency", it will generally fulfill the requisite of high degree of permanence and a low rate of endogenous change. The gene as an informational entity persists for an evolutionary significant span of time through a lineage of many physical copies.

In his book River out of Eden, Dawkins coins the phrase God's utility function to further expound his view on genes as units of selection. He uses this phrase as a synonym of the "meaning of life" or the "purpose of life". By rephrasing the word purpose in terms of what economists call a utility function, meaning "that which is maximized", Dawkins reverse-engineers the purpose in the mind of the Divine Engineer of Nature, or the Utility Function of God. In the end, Dawkins shows that it is a mistake to assume that an ecosystem or a species as a whole exists for a purpose. In fact, it is wrong to suppose that individual organisms lead a meaningful life either. In nature, only genes have a utility function – to perpetuate their own existence with indifference to great sufferings inflicted upon the organisms they build, exploit and discard.

Genic selectionEdit

The selfish gene theory of natural selection can be restated as follows:

Genes do not present themselves naked to the scrutiny of natural selection, instead they present their phenotypic effects. (...) Differences in genes give rise to difference in these phenotypic differences. Natural selection acts on the phenotypic differences and thereby on genes. Thus genes come to be represented in successive generations in proportion to the selective value of their phenotypic effects. (Cronin, 1991, p.60)

The result is that "the prevalent genes in a sexual population must be those that, as a mean condition, through a large number of genotypes in a large number of situations, have had the most favourable phenotypic effects for their own replication." (Williams, 1985) In other words, we expect selfish genes, "selfish" meaning that promotes its own survival without necessarily promoting the survival of the organism, group or even species. This theory implicates that adaptations are the phenotypic effects of genes to maximize their representation in the future generations. An adaptation is maintained by selection if it promotes genetic survival directly or some subordinate goal that ultimately contributes to successful reproduction.

VehiclesEdit

As stated above, genes are not naked in the world. They are usually packed together inside a genome, which is itself contained inside an organism. Genes group together into genomes because "genetic replication makes use of energy and substrates that are supplied by the metabolic economy in much greater quantities than would be possible without a genetic division of labour" (Haig, 1997). They build vehicles to promote their mutual interests of jumping into the next generation of vehicles. As Dawkins put it, organisms are the "survival machines" of genes.

The phenotypic effect of a particular gene is contingent on its environment, including the fellow genes constituting with it the total genome. A gene never has a fixed effect, so how is it possible to speak of a gene for long legs? It is because of the phenotypic differences between alleles. One may say that one allele, all other things being equal or varying within certain limits, causes greater legs than its alternative. This difference may be enough to enable the scrutiny of natural selection.

"A gene can have multiple phenotypic effects, each of which may be of positive, negative or neutral value. It is the net selective value of a gene's phenotypic effect that determines the fate of the gene" (Cronin, 1991). For instance, a gene can cause its bearer to have greater reproductive success at a young age, but also cause a greater likelihood of death at a later age. If the benefit outweighs the harm, averaged out over the individuals and environments in which the gene happens to occur, then phenotypes containing the gene will generally be positively selected and thus the abundance of that gene in the population will increase.

Individual altruism, genetic egoismEdit

The gene is a unit of hereditary information that exists in many physical copies in the world, and which particular physical copy will be replicated and originate new copies doesn't matter from the gene's point of view. (Williams, 1992) A selfish gene could be favoured by selection by producing altruism among organisms containing it. The idea is summarized as follows:

If a gene copy confers a benefit B on another vehicle at cost C to its own vehicle, its costly action is strategically beneficial if pB > C, where p is the probability that a copy of the gene is present in the vehicle that benefits. Actions with substantial costs therefore require significant values of p. Two kinds of factors ensure high values of p: relatedness (kinship) and recognition (green beards). (Haig, 1997, p. 288)

A gene in a somatic cell of an individual may forego replication to promote the transmission of its copies in the germ line cells. It ensures the high value of p = 1 due to their constant contact and their common origin from the zygote.

The kin selection theory predicts that a gene may promote the recognition of kinship by historical continuity: a mammalian mother learns to identify her own offspring in the act of giving birth; a male preferentially directs resources to the offspring of mothers with whom he has copulated; the other chicks in a nest are siblings; and so on. The expected altruism between kin is calibrated by the value of p, also known as the coefficient of relatedness. For instance, an individual have a p = 1/2 in relation to his brother, and p = 1/8 to his cousin, so we would expect, ceteris paribus, greater altruism among brothers than among cousins.

Green-beard effects gained their name from a thought-experiment of Richard Dawkins (1976), who considered the possibility of a gene that caused its possessors to develop a green beard and to be nice to other green-bearded individuals. Since then, a 'green beard effect' has come to refer to forms of genetic self-recognition in which a gene in one individual might direct benefits to other individuals that possess the gene.

Intragenomic conflictEdit

As genes are capable of producing individual altruism, they are capable of producing conflict among genes inside the genome of one individual. This phenomenon was called intragenomic conflict and arises when one gene promotes its own replication in detriment to other genes in the genome. The classic example is segregation distorter genes that cheats during meiosis or gametogenesis and ends up in more than half of the functional gametes. These genes persist even resulting in reduced fertility. Egbert Leigh (1971) compared the genome to "a parliament of genes: each acts in its own self-interest, but if its acts hurt the others, they will combine together to suppress it" to explain the relative low occurrence of intragenomic conflict.

Challenges to the "Selfish Gene"Edit

Those prominent among the opponents of this gene-centric view of evolution include paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) and philosopher Elliot Sober, who have disputed the theory's applicability and fruitfulness. Gould has characterized this perspective as confusing book-keeping with causality. Gould views selection working on many levels, and has called attention for a hierarchical perspective of selection. Gould has also called the position "strict adaptationism," "ultra-Darwinism," and "Darwinian fundamentalism," describing it as "reductionist." He saw it as leading to a simplistic "algorithmic" theory of evolution, or even to the re-introduction of a teleological principle.[1]

Such challenges may be phenomenological in character, derived, in part, from common-sense analysis of the "experience" of evolution. Interestingly, Dawkins has further extended the selfish gene concept to psycho-sociology with the notion of "memes"--which might be described as a bid to make sociology as "fundamental" a science as particle physics or genetics.

SummaryEdit

The selfish gene theory is a synthesis of the theory of evolution by natural selection, the particulate inheritance theory and the non-transmission of acquired characters. It states that those genes whose phenotypic effects successfully promote their own propagation will be favourably selected in detriment to their competitors. This process produces adaptations to the benefit of genes, which promotes the reproductive success of the organism, or of others organisms containing the same gene (kin altruism and green-beard effects), or even only its own propagation in detriment to the other genes of the genome (intragenomic conflict).[How to reference and link to summary or text]

Other main figuresEdit

Besides Richard Dawkins and George C. Williams, other biologists and philosophers have expanded and refined the selfish gene theory, such as John Maynard Smith, Robert Trivers, David Haig, Helena Cronin, David Hull, Philip Kitcher and Daniel C. Dennett.

BibliographyEdit

fi:Geenikeskeinen evoluutionäkemys
This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki