Relaxed risk of predation drives parallel evolution of stickleback behaviour

The occurrence of similar phenotypes in multiple independent populations (viz. parallel evolution) is a testimony of evolution by natural selection. Parallel evolution implies that populations share a common phenotypic response to a common selection pressure associated with habitat similarity. Examples of parallel evolution at the genetic and phenotypic levels are fairly common, but the driving selective agents often remain elusive. Similarly, the role of phenotypic plasticity in facilitating early stages of parallel evolution is unclear. We investigated whether the relaxation of predation pressure associated with the colonization of freshwater ponds by nine-spined sticklebacks (Pungitius pungitius) likely explains the divergence in complex behaviours between marine and pond populations, and whether this divergence is parallel. Using laboratory-raised individuals exposed to different levels of perceived predation risk, we calculated vectors of phenotypic divergence for four behavioural traits between habitats and predation risk treatments. We found a significant correlation between the directions of evolutionary divergence and phenotypic plasticity, suggesting that habitat divergence in behaviour is aligned with the response to relaxation of predation pressure. Finally, we show that this alignment is found across multiple pairs of populations, and that the relaxation of predation pressure has likely driven parallel evolution of behaviour in this species.

Evolution by Sexual Selection

Charles Darwin published his second book “Sexual selection and the descent of man” in 1871 150 years ago, to try to explain, amongst other things, the evolution of the peacock’s train, something that he famously thought was problematic for his theory of evolution by natural selection. He proposed that the peacock’s train had evolved because females preferred to mate with males with more elaborate trains. This idea was very controversial at the time and it wasn’t until 1991 that a manuscript testing Darwin’s hypothesis was published. The idea that a character could arise as a result of a female preference is still controversial. Some argue that there is no need to distinguish sexual from natural selection and that natural selection can adequately explain the evolution of extravagant characteristics that are characteristic of sexually selected species. Here, I outline the reasons why I think that this is not the case and that Darwin was right to distinguish sexual selection as a distinct process. I present a simple verbal and mathematical model to expound the view that sexual selection is profoundly different from natural selection because, uniquely, it can simultaneously promote and maintain the genetic variation which fuels evolutionary change. Viewed in this way, sexual selection can help resolve other evolutionary conundrums, such as the evolution of sexual reproduction, that are characterised by having impossibly large costs and no obvious immediate benefits and which have baffled evolutionary biologists for a very long time. If sexual selection does indeed facilitate rapid adaptation to a changing environment as I have outlined, then it is very important that we understand the fundamentals of adaptive mate choice and guard against any disruption to this natural process.

Natural Selection beyond Life? A Workshop Report

Natural selection is commonly seen not just as an explanation for adaptive evolution, but as the inevitable consequence of “heritable variation in fitness among individuals”. Although it remains embedded in biological concepts, such a formalisation makes it tempting to explore whether this precondition may be met not only in life as we know it, but also in other physical systems. This would imply that these systems are subject to natural selection and may perhaps be investigated in a biological framework, where properties are typically examined in light of their putative functions. Here we relate the major questions that were debated during a three-day workshop devoted to discussing whether natural selection may take place in non-living physical systems. We start this report with a brief overview of research fields dealing with “life-like” or “proto-biotic” systems, where mimicking evolution by natural selection in test tubes stands as a major objective. We contend the challenge may be as much conceptual as technical. Taking the problem from a physical angle, we then discuss the framework of dissipative structures. Although life is viewed in this context as a particular case within a larger ensemble of physical phenomena, this approach does not provide general principles from which natural selection can be derived. Turning back to evolutionary biology, we ask to what extent the most general formulations of the necessary conditions or signatures of natural selection may be applicable beyond biology. In our view, such a cross-disciplinary jump is impeded by reliance on individuality as a central yet implicit and loosely defined concept. Overall, these discussions thus lead us to conjecture that understanding, in physico-chemical terms, how individuality emerges and how it can be recognised, will be essential in the search for instances of evolution by natural selection outside of living systems.

How Biological Concepts and Evolutionary Theories Are Inspiring Advances in Machine Intelligence

Since its advent in the mid-twentieth century, the field of artificial intelligence (AI) has been heavily influenced by biology. From the structure of the brain to evolution by natural selection, core biological concepts underpin many of the fundamental breakthroughs in modern AI. Here, focusing specifically on artificial neural networks (ANNs) that have become commonplace in machine learning, we show the numerous connections between theories based on coevolution, multi-level selection, modularity and competition and related developments in ANNs. Our aim is to illuminate the valuable but often overlooked inspiration biologists have provided AI research and to spark future contributions at this intersection of biology and computer science. Although recent advances in AI have been swift, many significant challenges remain requiring innovative solutions. Thankfully, biology in all its forms still has a lot to teach us, especially when trying to create truly intelligent machines.

Natural Selection beyond Life? A Workshop Report

Natural selection is commonly seen not just as an explanation for adaptive evolution, but as the inevitable consequence of “heritable variation in fitness among individuals”. Although it remains embedded in biological concepts, such a formalisation makes it tempting to explore whether this precondition may be met not only in life as we know it, but also in other physical systems. This would imply that these systems are subject to natural selection and may perhaps be investigated in a biological framework, where properties are typically examined in light of their putative functions. Here we relate the major questions that were debated during a three-day workshop[1] devoted to discussing whether natural selection may take place in non-living physical systems. We start this report with a brief overview of research fields dealing with “life-like” or “proto-biotic” systems, where mimicking evolution by natural selection in test tubes stands as a major objective. We contend the challenge may be as much conceptual as technical. Taking the problem from a physical angle, we then discuss the framework of dissipative structures. Although life is viewed in this context as a particular case within a larger ensemble of physical phenomena, this approach does not provide general principles from which natural selection could be derived. Turning back to evolutionary biology, we ask to what extent the most general formulations of the necessary conditions or signatures of natural selection may be applicable beyond biology. In our view, such a cross-disciplinary jump is in large part impeded by reliance on individuality as a central yet implicit and loosely defined concept. Overall, these discussions thus lead us to conjecture that understanding, in physico-chemical terms, how individuality emerges and how it can be recognised, will be essential in the search for instances of evolution by natural selection outside of living systems. [1] Natural Selection Beyond Life? Observing the physico-chemical world through Darwinian glasses; 12-15 November 2019 - Institut d'Etudes Scientifiques, Cargèse, France

On inferring evolutionary stability in finite populations using infinite population models

Models of evolution by natural selection often make the simplifying assumption that populations are infinitely large. In this infinite population limit, rare mutations that are selected against always go extinct, whereas in finite populations they can persist and even reach fixation. Nevertheless, for mutations of arbitrarily small phenotypic effect, it is widely believed that in sufficiently large populations, if selection opposes the invasion of rare mutants, then it also opposes their fixation. Here, we identify circumstances under which infinite-population models do or do not accurately predict evolutionary outcomes in large, finite populations. We show that there is no population size above which considering only invasion generally suffices: for any finite population size, there are situations in which selection opposes the invasion of mutations of arbitrarily small effect, but favours their fixation. This is not an unlikely limiting case; it can occur when fitness is a smooth function of the evolving trait, and when the selection process is biologically sensible. Nevertheless, there are circumstances under which opposition of invasion does imply opposition of fixation: in fact, for the $$n$$ n -player snowdrift game (a common model of cooperation) we identify sufficient conditions under which selection against rare mutants of small effect precludes their fixation—in sufficiently large populations—for any selection process. We also find conditions under which—no matter how large the population—the trait that fixes depends on the selection process, which is important because any particular selection process is only an approximation of reality.

A mechanism that realizes strong emergence

The causal efficacy of a material system is usually thought to be produced by the law-like actions and interactions of its constituents. Here, a specific system is constructed and explained that produces a cause that cannot be understood in this way, but instead has novel and autonomous efficacy. The construction establishes a proof-of-feasibility of strong emergence. The system works by utilizing randomness in a targeted and cyclical way, and by relying on sustained evolution by natural selection. It is not vulnerable to standard arguments against strong emergence, in particular ones that assume that the physical realm is causally closed. Moreover, it does not suffer from epiphenomenalism or causal overdetermination. The system uses only standard material components and processes, and is fully consistent with naturalism. It is discussed whether the emergent cause can still be viewed as ‘material’ in the way that term is commonly understood.

From the Modern Synthesis to the Molecular Synthesis: updating how we teach and assess evolution by natural selection

Evolution by natural selection is recognized as both the most important concept in undergraduate biology and the most difficult to teach. Unfortunately, teaching and assessment of evolution have been impaired by legacy approaches that focus on Darwin's original insights and the Modern Synthesis' integration of Mendelian genetics, but ignore or downplay advances from what we term the Molecular Synthesis. To create better alignment between instructional approaches and contemporary research in the biosciences, we propose that the primary learning goal in teaching evolution should be for students to connect genotypes, phenotypes, and fitness. To support this approach, we developed and tested assessment questions and scoring rubrics called the Extended Assessing Conceptual Reasoning of Natural Selection (E-ACORNS) instrument. Initial E-ACORNS data suggest that after traditional instruction, few students recognize the molecular synthesis, prompting us to propose that introductory course sequences be re-organized with the molecular synthesis as their central theme.

The Gene's-Eye View of Evolution

To many evolutionary biologists, the central challenge of their discipline is to explain adaptation, the appearance of design in the living world. With the theory of evolution by natural selection, Charles Darwin elegantly showed how a purely mechanistic process can achieve this striking feature of nature. Since Darwin, the way many biologists think about evolution and natural selection is as a theory about individual organisms. Over a century later, a subtle but radical shift in perspective emerged with the gene’s-eye view of evolution in which natural selection was conceptualized as a struggle between genes for replication and transmission to the next generation. This viewpoint culminated with the publication of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins (Oxford University Press, 1976) and is now commonly referred to as selfish gene thinking. The gene’s-eye view has subsequently played a central role in evolutionary biology, although it continues to attract controversy. The central aim of this accessible book is to show how the gene’s-eye view differs from the traditional organismal account of evolution, trace its historical origins, clarify typical misunderstandings and, by using examples from contemporary experimental work, show why so many evolutionary biologists still consider it an indispensable heuristic. The book concludes by discussing how selfish gene thinking fits into ongoing debates in evolutionary biology, and what they tell us about the future of the gene’s-eye view of evolution. The Gene’s-Eye View of Evolution is suitable for graduate-level students taking courses in evolutionary biology, behavioural ecology, and evolutionary genetics, as well as professional researchers in these fields. It will also appeal to a broader, interdisciplinary audience from the social sciences and humanities including philosophers and historians of science

Getting Beyond the Apemen

This introductory chapter explains why a new story of human evolution is needed, and also lays the foundations of the story told in this book. One of the reasons we need a new story is that previous stories have concentrated on what our male ancestors were doing. Since survival is most at risk in the first years of life, it makes much more sense to concentrate on children and their mothers than on adult males. A brief account of the history of ideas in evolution by natural selection and human evolution provides readers with a background in evolutionary processes. Humans are a product of evolution, but we are not like other animals, because we are connected and readily share complex information. We are unique and our evolution was the result of a unique evolutionary process. To understand ourselves in evolutionary terms, it’s necessary to consider two intertwined evolutionary processes—genes and culture.