Medawar and Hamilton on the selective forces in the evolution of ageing

Both Medawar and Hamilton contributed key ideas to the modern evolutionary theory of ageing. In particular, they both suggested that, in populations with overlapping generations, the force with which selection acts on traits declines with the age at which traits are expressed. This decline would eventually cause ageing to evolve. However, the biological literature diverges on the relationship between Medawar’s analysis of the force of selection and Hamilton’s. Some authors appear to believe that Hamilton perfected Medawar’s insightful, yet ultimately erroneous analysis of this force, while others see Hamilton’s analysis as a coherent development of, or the obvious complement to Medawar’s. Here, the relationship between the two analyses is revisited. Two things are argued for. First, most of Medawar’s alleged errors that Hamilton would had rectified seem not to be there. The origin of these perceived errors appears to be in a misinterpretation of Medawar’s writings. Second, the mathematics of Medawar and that of Hamilton show a significant overlap. However, different meanings are attached to the same mathematical expression. Medawar put forth an expression for the selective force on age-specific fitness. Hamilton proposed a full spectrum of selective forces each operating on age-specific fitness components, i.e. mortality and fertility. One of Hamilton’s expressions, possibly his most important, is of the same form as Medawar’s expression. But Hamilton’s selective forces on age-specific fitness components do not add up to yield Medawar’s selective force on age-specific fitness. It is concluded that Hamilton’s analysis should be considered neither as a correction to Medawar’s analysis nor as its obvious complement.

A new fossil mantis shrimp and the convergent evolution of a lobster-like morphotype

Eumalacostracan crustaceans all have a more or less stereotypic body organisation in the sense of tagmosis. Originally, this included a head with six segments (ocular segment plus five appendage-bearing segments), a thorax region with eight segments, and a pleon with six segments. Interestingly, despite these restrictions in variability in terms of tagmosis, the morphological diversity within Eumalacostraca is rather high. A group providing representative examples that are commonly known is Decapoda. Decapodan crustaceans include shrimp-like forms, lobster-like forms and crab-like forms. The stem species of Eucarida, the group including Decapoda and Euphausiacea, presumably possessed a rather shrimp-like morphology, quite similar to the stem species of Eumalacostraca. Also two other lineages within Eumalacostraca, namely Hoplocarida (with the mantis shrimps as modern representatives) and Neocarida (with the sister groups Thermosbaenacea and Peracarida) evolved from the shrimp-like body organisation to include a lobster-like one. In this study, we demonstrate that the stepwise evolution towards a lobster morphotype occurred to a certain extent in similar order in these three lineages, Hoplocarida, Eucarida and Peracarida, leading to similar types of derived body organisation. This evolutionary reconstruction is based not only on observations of modern fauna, but especially on exceptionally preserved Mesozoic fossils, including the description of a new species of mantis shrimps bridging the morphological gap between the more ancestral-appearing Carboniferous forms and the more modern-appearing Jurassic forms. With this, Mesozoic eumalacostracans represent an important (if not unique) ‘experimental set-up’ for research on factors leading to convergent evolution, the understanding of which is still one of the puzzling challenges of modern evolutionary theory.

The Legacy of Parker, Baker and Smith 1972: Gamete Competition, the Evolution of Anisogamy, and Model Robustness

The evolution of anisogamy or gamete size dimorphism is a fundamental transition in evolutionary history, and it is the origin of the female and male sexes. Although mathematical models attempting to explain this transition have been published as early as 1932, the 1972 model of Parker, Baker, and Smith is considered to be the first explanation for the evolution of anisogamy that is consistent with modern evolutionary theory. The central idea of the model is ingenious in its simplicity: selection simultaneously favours large gametes for zygote provisioning, and small gametes for numerical competition, and under certain conditions the outcome is anisogamy. In this article, I derive novel analytical solutions to a 2002 game theoretical update of the 1972 anisogamy model, and use these solutions to examine its robustness to variation in its central assumptions. Combining new results with those from earlier papers, I find that the model is quite robust to variation in its central components. This kind of robustness is crucially important in a model for an early evolutionary transition where we may only have an approximate understanding of constraints that the different parts of the model must obey.

The best of all possible coexistence

The writings of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) provide a window on early evolutionary thinking of a kind interestingly different from the roots of modern evolutionary theory as it emerged in the years following the French Revolution. Here we relate aspects of Leibniz’s thinking to methods of modern palaeoecology and show that, despite a different terminology and a different hierarchic focus, Leibniz emerges as a strikingly modern theoretician, who viewed the living world as dynamic and capable of adaptive change. The coexistence approach of palaeoecological reconstruction, developed by Volker Mosbrugger and collaborators, with its core assumption of harmoniously co-adapted communities with strong historical legacy, represents, in a positive sense, a more Leibnizian view than functionally based and theoretically history-free approaches, such as ecometrics. Recalling Leibniz’s thinking helps to highlight how palaeoecological reconstruction is about much more than reliably establishing the ecological and climatic situation of a given fossil locality. While reliable reconstructions of past conditions are certainly of great value in research, it is arguably the need to think deeply about how the living world really works that keeps palaeoecological reconstruction such a long-running and central aspect of evolutionary science. And while we struggle to understand the coexistence and dynamic interaction of endless levels of living agents of the living world, simultaneously large and small, global and local, the coexistence approach of palaeoecological reconstruction remains both an outstandingly operational method and part of a philosophical tradition reaching back to the very earliest evolutionary thinking.

If ageing is a disease, then life is also a disease

Ageing is distinct from a disease. Sound arguments have been adduced to explain that senescence cannot be understood as a pathological process. Nevertheless, this distinction is believed to be artificial (Holliday 1995), and other eminent researchers argue that the senescence-pathology dichotomy is also misleading. Recently, it has been suggested that ageing should be classified as a complex pathological syndrome or a ‘pre-disease’ that is treatable. Proponents of this new paradigm argue that: (i) modern evolutionary theory predicts that ‘although organismal senescence is not an adaptation, it is genetically programmed’, (ii) ‘insofar as it is genetically determined, organismal senescence is a form of genetic disease’ (Janac et al. 2017) and (iii) ‘ageing is something very much like a genetic disease: it is a set of pathologies resulting from the action of pleiotropic gene mutations’ (Gems 2015). Also new generations of researchers, free of these traditional shackles, come with the belief that it is time to classify ageing as a disease, as the distinction between normal dysfunction and abnormal dysfunction is not completely clear and should be abandoned. Although they marshal their arguments in a convincing manner, persuasive counterarguments can be mounted. Here, the senescence-pathology dichotomy is critically discussed. A deeper analysis of this subject reveals the underlying problem of undefined terminology in science.

Contemporary Teleology

Many contemporary thinkers see a challenge to teleology that accompanied Darwin’s proposal of modern evolutionary theory. This chapter articulates this challenge, and reviews the two primary contemporary approaches to teleology: etiological versus causal role accounts of biological function. Both approaches attempt to naturalize teleology—to analyze teleology in a way consistent with the natural sciences, especially biological science. While this is an enormously productive endeavor, there are some reasons to be skeptical about the ultimate success of this approach to teleology.

Modern Evolutionary Biology and Brazilian Population Genetics: Theodosius Dobzhansky at the University of São Paulo

On the one hand, much has been written on Theodosius Dobzhansky’s central role in the development of the field of population genetics and modern evolutionary theory, as well as on his sociopolitical worldview in the middle of the Twentieth Century. On the other hand, much has also been written on Dobzhansky’s role in the institutionalization of genetics in Brazil, where he spent a considerable amount of time. Unfortunately, these literatures developed without any points of intersection or cross-reference. This article places Dobzhansky’s work in Brazil in the broader contexts of the science and politics of its historical period.

Toward a new comparative musicology

We propose a return to the forgotten agenda of comparative musicology, one that is updated with the paradigms of modern evolutionary theory and scientific methodology. Ever since the field of comparative musicology became redefined as ethnomusicology in the mid-20th century, its original research agenda has been all but abandoned by musicologists, not least the overarching goal of cross-cultural musical comparison. We outline here five major themes that underlie the re-establishment of comparative musicology: (1) classification, (2) cultural evolution, (3) human history, (4) universals, and (5) biological evolution. Throughout the article, we clarify key ideological, methodological and terminological objections that have been levied against musical comparison. Ultimately, we argue for an inclusive, constructive, and multidisciplinary field that analyzes the world’s musical diversity, from the broadest of generalities to the most culture-specific particulars, with the aim of synthesizing the full range of theoretical perspectives and research methodologies available.

Four Theories of the Innovation Commons

This chapter proposes four theories explaining how innovation commons work, in terms of how they pool information, and what specific problems they solve in order to discover entrepreneurial opportunities. The first is the “two commons” theory in which the innovation commons is a screening mechanism by having the truly valuable commons of entrepreneurial information accessed only through the commons of technological knowledge and material innovation resources. The second is the “evolution of cooperation” theory, which draws on modern evolutionary theory (specifically multilevel selection theory and evolutionary game theory). The third is the “defense against enclosure” theory, in which the commons is a preferred institution for first movers because it raises the cost of alternative institutions and minimizes the risk of loss of control of the technology. The fourth is the “institutional uncertainty and real options” theory.

There is no fitness but fitness, and the lineage is its bearer

Inclusive fitness has been the cornerstone of social evolution theory for more than a half-century and has matured as a mathematical theory in the past 20 years. Yet surprisingly for a theory so central to an entire field, some of its connections to evolutionary theory more broadly remain contentious or underappreciated. In this paper, we aim to emphasize the connection between inclusive fitness and modern evolutionary theory through the following fact: inclusive fitness is simply classical Darwinian fitness, averaged over social, environmental and demographic states that members of a gene lineage experience. Therefore, inclusive fitness is neither a generalization of classical fitness, nor does it belong exclusively to the individual. Rather, the lineage perspective emphasizes that evolutionary success is determined by the effect of selection on all biological and environmental contexts that a lineage may experience. We argue that this understanding of inclusive fitness based on gene lineages provides the most illuminating and accurate picture and avoids pitfalls in interpretation and empirical applications of inclusive fitness theory.