Disparate and parallel craniofacial climatic adaptations in native populations of Asia, North America, and South America

Understanding the impact that climate had in shaping cranial variation is critical for inferring the evolutionary mechanisms that played a role in human diversification. Here, we provide a comprehensive study aiming to analyze the association between climate and cranial variation of high latitude populations living in temperate to cold environments of Asia, North America, and South America. For this, we compiled a large morphometric dataset (N = 2633), which was combined with climatic and genomic data. We tested the influence of climate on the facial skeleton, nasal protrusion, and cranial vault and through multiple statistical tests at two geographical scales: intracontinental and intercontinental. We show that populations living in cold areas share a morphological pattern characterized by an increase in nasal height, facial and orbital heights and widths, a decrease in facial protrusion, and larger, longer, and lower cranial vaults. There are also distinctive features; populations from north Asia present the tallest noses, largest faces, and cranial vaults of the whole sample. Nasal breadth dimensions show small values in Asians, large values in South Americans, and non-significant changes in arctic North America. The morphological pattern in populations living at high latitude may be the result of parallel adaptation, as supported by physiological, morphometric, ecological, and genetic explanations, while the differences in magnitude and phenotypic expression could be due to the diverse population histories, severity of climate, and cultural strategies. Overall, our study shows that climate is a relevant factor shaping modern human morphology and it should be considered when studying modern human evolution and diversification.

Learning from disability studies to introduce the role of the individual to naturalistic accounts of disease

Disability studies have been successfully focusing on individuals' lived experiences, the personalization of goals, and the constitution of the individual in defining disease and restructuring public understandings of disability. Although they had a strong influence in the policy making and medical modeling of disease, their framework has not been translated to traditional naturalistic accounts of disease. I will argue that, using new developments in evolutionary biology (Extended Evolutionary Synthesis [EES] about questions of proper function) and behavioral ecology (Niche conformance and construction about the questions of reference classes in biostatistics accounts), the main elements of the framework of disability studies can be used to represent life histories at the conceptual level of the two main "non-normative" accounts of disease. I chose these accounts since they are related to medicine in a more descriptive way. The success of the practical aspects of disability studies this way will be communicated without causing injustice to the individual since they will represent the individuality of the patient in two main naturalistic accounts of disease: the biostatistical account and the evolutionary functional account. Although most accounts criticizing the concept of disease as value-laden do not supply a positive element, disability studies can supply a good point for descriptive extension of the concept through inclusion of epistemic agency.

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.

EvoDevo: An Ongoing Revolution?

Since its appearance, Evolutionary Developmental Biology (EvoDevo) has been called an emerging research program, a new paradigm, a new interdisciplinary field, or even a revolution. Behind these formulas, there is the awareness that something is changing in biology. EvoDevo is characterized by a variety of accounts and by an expanding theoretical framework. From an epistemological point of view, what is the relationship between EvoDevo and previous biological tradition? Is EvoDevo the carrier of a new message about how to conceive evolution and development? Furthermore, is it necessary to rethink the way we look at both of these processes? EvoDevo represents the attempt to synthesize two logics, that of evolution and that of development, and the way we conceive one affects the other. This synthesis is far from being fulfilled, but an adequate theory of development may represent a further step towards this achievement. In this article, an epistemological analysis of EvoDevo is presented, with particular attention paid to the relations to the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) and the Standard Evolutionary Synthesis (SET).