The purpose of adaptation

How to make an inclusive-fitness model

Social behaviours are typically modelled using neighbour-modulated fitness, which focuses on individuals having their fitness altered by neighbours. However, these models are either interpreted using inclusive fitness, which focuses on individuals altering the fitness of neighbours, or not interpreted at all. This disconnect leads to interpretational mistakes and obscures the adaptive significance of behaviour. We bridge this gap by presenting a systematic methodology for constructing inclusive-fitness models. We find a behaviour's 'inclusive-fitness effect' by summing primary and secondary deviations in reproductive value. Primary deviations are the immediate result of a social interaction; for example, the cost and benefit of an altruistic act. Secondary deviations are compensatory effects that arise because the total reproductive value of the population is fixed; for example, the increased competition that follows an altruistic act. Compared to neighbour-modulated fitness methodologies, our approach is often simpler and reveals the model's inclusive-fitness narrative clearly. We implement our methodology first in a homogeneous population, with supplementary examples of help under synergy, help in a viscous population and Creel's paradox. We then implement our methodology in a class-structured population, where the advantages of our approach are most evident, with supplementary examples of altruism between age classes, and sex-ratio evolution.

Adaptation in the face of internal conflict: the paradox of the organism revisited

The paradox of the organism refers to the observation that organisms appear to function as coherent purposeful entities, despite the potential for within-organismal components like selfish genetic elements and cancer cells to erode them from within. While it is commonly accepted that organisms may pursue fitness maximisation and can be thought to hold particular agendas, there is a growing recognition that genes and cells do so as well. This can lead to evolutionary conflicts between an organism and the parts that reside within it. Here, we revisit the paradox of the organism. We first outline its conception and relationship to debates about adaptation in evolutionary biology. Second, we review the ways selfish elements may exploit organisms, and the extent to which this threatens organismal integrity. To this end, we introduce a novel classification scheme that distinguishes between selfish elements that seek to distort transmission versus those that seek to distort phenotypic traits. Our classification scheme also highlights how some selfish elements elude a multi-level selection decomposition using the Price equation. Third, we discuss how the organism can retain its status as the primary fitness-maximising agent in the face of selfish elements. The success of selfish elements is often constrained by their strategy and further limited by a combination of fitness alignment and enforcement mechanisms controlled by the organism. Finally, we argue for the need for quantitative measures of both internal conflicts and organismality.

Opportunities to advance the synthesis of ecology and evolution

Despite decades of research on the interactions between ecology and evolution, opportunities still remain to further integrate the two disciplines, especially when considering multispecies systems. Here, we discuss two such opportunities. First, the traditional emphasis on the distinction between evolutionary and ecological processes should be further relaxed as it is particularly unhelpful in the study of microbial communities, where the very notion of species is hard to define. Second, key processes of evolutionary theory such as adaptation should be exported to hierarchical levels higher than populations to make sense of biodiversity dynamics. Together, we argue that broadening our perspective of eco-evolutionary dynamics to be more inclusive of all biodiversity, both phylogenetically and hierarchically, will open up fertile new research directions and help us to address one of the major scientific challenges of our time, that is, to understand and predict changes in biodiversity in the face of rapid environmental change.

Evolutionarily stable strategy analysis and its links to demography and genetics through invasion fitness

Evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) analysis pioneered by Maynard Smith and Price took off in part because it often does not require explicit assumptions about the genetics and demography of a population in contrast to population genetic models. Though this simplicity is useful, it obscures the degree to which ESS analysis applies to populations with more realistic genetics and demography: for example, how does ESS analysis handle complexities such as kin selection, group selection and variable environments when phenotypes are affected by multiple genes? In this paper, I review the history of the ESS concept and show how early uncertainty about the method lead to important mathematical theory linking ESS analysis to general population genetic models. I use this theory to emphasize the link between ESS analysis and the concept of invasion fitness. I give examples of how invasion fitness can measure kin selection, group selection and the evolution of linked modifier genes in response to variable environments. The ESSs in these examples depend crucially on demographic and genetic parameters, which highlights how ESS analysis will continue to be an important tool in understanding evolutionary patterns as new models address the increasing abundance of genetic and long-term demographic data in natural populations. This article is part of the theme issue 'Half a century of evolutionary games: a synthesis of theory, application and future directions'.

A kin-selection model of fairness in heterogeneous populations

Humans and other primates exhibit pro-social preferences for fairness. These preferences are thought to be reinforced by strong reciprocity, a policy that rewards fair actors and punishes unfair ones. Theories of fairness based on strong reciprocity have been criticized for overlooking the importance of individual differences in socially heterogeneous populations. Here, we explore the evolution of fairness in a heterogeneous population. We analyse the Ultimatum Game in cases where players' roles in the game are determined by their status. Importantly, our model allows for non-random pairing of players, and so we also explore the role played by kin selection in shaping fairness. Our kin-selection model shows that, when individuals condition their behaviour on their role in the game, fairness can be understood as either altruistic or spiteful. Altruistic fairness directs resources from less valuable members of a genetic lineage to more valuable members of the same lineage, whereas spiteful fairness keeps resources away from the competitors of the actor's high-value relatives. When individuals express fairness unconditionally it can be understood as altruistic or selfish. When it is altruistic, unconditional fairness again serves to direct resources to high-value members of genetic lineages. When it is selfish, unconditional fairness simply improves an individual's own standing. Overall, we expand kin-selection based explanations for fairness to include motivations other than spite. We show, therefore, that one need not invoke strong reciprocity to explain the advantage of fairness in heterogeneous populations.

How much biology is in the product? Role and relevance of biological evolution and function for bio-inspired design

Bio-inspired design (BID) means the concept of transferring functional principles from biology to technology. The core idea driving BID-related work is that evolution has shaped functional attributes, which are termed “adaptations” in biology, to a high functional performance by relentless selective pressure. For current methods and tools, such as data bases, it is implicitly supposed that the considered biological models are adaptations and their functions already clarified. Often, however, the identification of adaptations and their functional features is a difficult task which is not yet accomplished for numerous biological structures, as happens to be the case also for various organismic features from which successful BID developments were derived. This appears to question the relevance of the much stressed importance of evolution for BID. While it is obviously possible to derive an attractive technical principle from an observed biological effect without knowing its original functionality, this kind of BID (“analog BID”) has no further ties to biology. In contrast, a BID based on an adaptation and its function (“homolog BID”) is deeply embedded in biology. It is suggested that a serious and honest clarification of the functional background of a biological structure is an essential first step in devising a BID project, to recognize possible problems and pitfalls as well as to evaluate the need for further biological analysis.

Structuralism and Adaptationism: Friends? Or foes?

Historically, the empirical study of phenotypic diversification has fallen into two rough camps; (1) "structuralist approaches" focusing on developmental constraint, bias, and innovation (with evo-devo at the core); and (2) "adaptationist approaches" focusing on adaptation, and natural selection. Whilst debates, such as that surrounding the proposed "Extended" Evolutionary Synthesis, often juxtapose these two positions, this review focuses on the grey space in between. Specifically, here I present a novel analysis of structuralism which enables us to take a more nuanced look at the motivations behind the structuralist and adaptationist positions. This makes clear how the two approaches can conflict, and points of potential commensurability. The review clarifies (a) the value of the evo-devo approach to phenotypic diversity, but also (b) how it properly relates to other predominant approaches to the same issues in evolutionary biology more broadly.

Sewall Wright's criticism of the gene's-eye view of evolution

The gene's-eye view of evolution has played a central but contentious role in evolutionary biology for the past half-century. By envisioning evolutionary history as a struggle between competing selfish genes, it accelerated the shift from organism-centric to gene-centric explanations that began with the emergence population genetics a century ago. At the forefront of this shift were George C. Williams and Richard Dawkins, who advocated an approach to thinking about evolution first introduced by R. A. Fisher. In this Perspective, I discuss the criticism of the gene's-eye view developed by another architect of population genetics, Sewall Wright, whose "On genic and organismic selection" was published in Evolution in 1980. I start by outlining the history of the gene's-eye view and then show how some long-standing differences in opinion over its value can be traced back to disagreements between Fisher and Wright, especially over Fisher's concept of genetic variance and the importance of epistasis. I end with some reflections on the role of genes and organisms in evolutionary explanations.

Diminishing returns drive altruists to help extended family

Altruism between close relatives can be easily explained. However, paradoxes arise when organisms divert altruism towards more distantly related recipients. In some social insects, workers drift extensively between colonies and help raise less related foreign brood, seemingly reducing inclusive fitness. Since being highlighted by W. D. Hamilton, three hypotheses (bet hedging, indirect reciprocity and diminishing returns to cooperation) have been proposed for this surprising behaviour. Here, using inclusive fitness theory, we show that bet hedging and indirect reciprocity could only drive cooperative drifting under improbable conditions. However, diminishing returns to cooperation create a simple context in which sharing workers is adaptive. Using a longitudinal dataset comprising over a quarter of a million nest cell observations, we quantify cooperative payoffs in the Neotropical wasp Polistes canadensis, for which drifting occurs at high levels. As the worker-to-brood ratio rises in a worker's home colony, the predicted marginal benefit of a worker for expected colony productivity diminishes. Helping related colonies can allow effort to be focused on related brood that are more in need of care. Finally, we use simulations to show that cooperative drifting evolves under diminishing returns when dispersal is local, allowing altruists to focus their efforts on related recipients. Our results indicate the power of nonlinear fitness effects to shape social organization, and suggest that models of eusocial evolution should be extended to include neglected social interactions within colony networks.

The untwining of immunosenescence and aging

From a holistic point of view, aging results from the cumulative erosion of the various systems. Among these, the immune system is interconnected to the rest as immune cells are present in all organs and recirculate through bloodstream. Immunosenescence is the term used to define the remodelling of immune changes during aging. Because immune cells-and particularly lymphocytes-can further differentiate after their maturation in response to pathogen recognition, it is therefore unclear when senescence is induced in these cells. Additionally, it is also unclear which signals triggers senescence in immune cells (i) aging per se, (ii) specific response to pathogens, (iii) underlying conditions, or (iv) inflammaging. In this review, we will cover the current knowledge and concepts linked to immunosenescence and we focus this review on lymphocytes and T cells, which represent the typical model for replicative senescence. With the evidence presented, we propose to disentangle the senescence of immune cells from chronological aging.

The Role of Mutation Bias in Adaptive Evolution

Mutational input is the ultimate source of genetic variation, but mutations are not thought to affect the direction of adaptive evolution. Recently, critics of standard evolutionary theory have questioned the random and non-directional nature of mutations, claiming that the mutational process can be adaptive in its own right. We discuss here mutation bias in adaptive evolution. We find little support for mutation bias as an independent force in adaptive evolution, although it can interact with selection under conditions of small population size and when standing genetic variation is limited, entirely consistent with standard evolutionary theory. We further emphasize that natural selection can shape the phenotypic effects of mutations, giving the false impression that directed mutations are driving adaptive evolution.

Neo-Paleyan biology

There is a 'Neo-Paleyan' tradition in British evolutionary theorising, which began with Darwin and continues to the present day. This tradition conceives of adaptation in terms of design, and it often puts natural selection in the role of an ersatz designer. There are significant disanalogies between Paleyan conceptions of design and modern conceptions of adaptation and selection, which help to explain why the neo-Paleyan programme is sometimes treated with hostility. These general disanalogies do not suffice to dismiss the most interesting forms of recent neo-Paleyanism, which draw on theoretical principles such as Fisher's Fundamental Theorem to ground a general approach to what we can call (following Grafen) the 'criterion' of evolutionary design. It is important to distinguish between justifications of this 'criterion' and justifications of approaches to nature which presuppose that natural selection produces good designs.

Revisiting darwinian teleology: A case for inclusive fitness as design explanation

This paper elaborates a general framework to make sense of teleological explanations in Darwinian evolutionary biology. It relies on an attempt to tie natural selection to a sense of optimization. First, after assessing the objections made by any attempt to view selection as a maximising process within population genetics, it understands Grafen's Formal Darwinism (FD) as a conceptual link established between population genetics and behavioral ecology's adaptationist framework (without any empirical commitments). Thus I suggest that this provides a way to make sense of teleological explanations in biology under their various modes. Then the paper criticizes two major ways of accounting for teleology: a Darwinian one, the etiological view of biological functions, and a non-Darwinian one, here labeled "intrinsic teleology" view, which covers several subtypes of accounts, including plasticity-oriented conceptions of evolution or organizational views of function. The former is centered on traits while the latter is centered on organisms; this is shown to imply that both accounts are unable to provide a systematic understanding of biological teleology. Finally the paper argues that viewing teleology as maximization of inclusive fitness along the FD lines as understood here allows one to make sense of both the design of organisms and the individual traits as adaptions. Such notion is thereby claimed to be the proper meaning of teleology in evolutionary biology, since it avoids the opposed pitfalls of etiological views and intrinsic-teleology view, while accounting for the same features as they do.

Inclusive fitness as a criterion for improvement

I distinguish two roles for a fitness concept in the context of explaining cumulative adaptive evolution: fitness as a predictor of gene frequency change, and fitness as a criterion for phenotypic improvement. Critics of inclusive fitness argue, correctly, that it is not an ideal fitness concept for the purpose of predicting gene-frequency change, since it relies on assumptions about the causal structure of social interaction that are unlikely to be exactly true in real populations, and that hold as approximations only given a specific type of weak selection. However, Hamilton took this type of weak selection, on independent grounds, to be responsible for cumulative assembly of complex adaptations. In this special context, I argue that inclusive fitness is distinctively valuable as a criterion for improvement and a standard for optimality. Yet to call inclusive fitness a criterion for improvement and a standard for optimality is not to make any claim about the frequency with which inclusive fitness optimization actually occurs in nature. This is an empirical question that cannot be settled by theory alone. I close with some reflections on the place of inclusive fitness in the long running clash between 'causalist' and 'statisticalist' conceptions of fitness.

The strategic reference gene: an organismal theory of inclusive fitness

How to define and use the concept of inclusive fitness is a contentious topic in evolutionary theory. Inclusive fitness can be used to calculate selection on a focal gene, but it is also applied to whole organisms. Individuals are then predicted to appear designed as if to maximize their inclusive fitness, provided that certain conditions are met (formally when interactions between individuals are 'additive'). Here we argue that applying the concept of inclusive fitness to organisms is justified under far broader conditions than previously shown, but only if it is appropriately defined. Specifically, we propose that organisms should maximize the sum of their offspring ( including any accrued due to the behaviour/phenotype of relatives), plus any effects on their relatives' offspring production, weighted by relatedness. By contrast, most theoreticians have argued that a focal individual's inclusive fitness should exclude any offspring accrued due to the behaviour of relatives. Our approach is based on the notion that long-term evolution follows the genome's 'majority interest' of building coherent bodies that are efficient 'vehicles' for gene propagation. A gene favoured by selection that reduces the propagation of unlinked genes at other loci (e.g. meiotic segregation distorters that lower sperm production) is eventually neutralized by counter-selection throughout the rest of the genome. Most phenotypes will therefore appear as if designed to maximize the propagation of any given gene in a focal individual and its relatives.

Inclusive fitness is an indispensable approximation for understanding organismal design

For some decades most biologists interested in design have agreed that natural selection leads to organisms acting as if they are maximizing a quantity known as "inclusive fitness." This maximization principle has been criticized on the (uncontested) grounds that other quantities, such as offspring number, predict gene frequency changes accurately in a wider range of mathematical models. Here, we adopt a resolution offered by Birch, who accepts the technical difficulties of establishing inclusive fitness maximization in a fully general model, while concluding that inclusive fitness is still useful as an organizing framework. We set out in more detail why inclusive fitness is such a practical and powerful framework, and provide verbal and conceptual arguments for why social biology would be more or less impossible without it. We aim to help mathematicians understand why social biologists are content to use inclusive fitness despite its theoretical weaknesses. Here, we also offer biologists practical advice for avoiding potential pitfalls.