Evolutionary biology today and the call for an extended synthesis

Evolutionary theory has been extended almost continually since the evolutionary synthesis (ES), but except for the much greater importance afforded genetic drift, the principal tenets of the ES have been strongly supported. Adaptations are attributable to the sorting of genetic variation by natural selection, which remains the only known cause of increase in fitness. Mutations are not adaptively directed, but as principal authors of the ES recognized, the material (structural) bases of biochemistry and development affect the variety of phenotypic variations that arise by mutation and recombination. Against this historical background, I analyse major propositions in the movement for an 'extended evolutionary synthesis'. 'Niche construction' is a new label for a wide variety of well-known phenomena, many of which have been extensively studied, but (as with every topic in evolutionary biology) some aspects may have been understudied. There is no reason to consider it a neglected 'process' of evolution. The proposition that phenotypic plasticity may engender new adaptive phenotypes that are later genetically assimilated or accommodated is theoretically plausible; it may be most likely when the new phenotype is not truly novel, but is instead a slight extension of a reaction norm already shaped by natural selection in similar environments. However, evolution in new environments often compensates for maladaptive plastic phenotypic responses. The union of population genetic theory with mechanistic understanding of developmental processes enables more complete understanding by joining ultimate and proximate causation; but the latter does not replace or invalidate the former. Newly discovered molecular phenomena have been easily accommodated in the past by elaborating orthodox evolutionary theory, and it appears that the same holds today for phenomena such as epigenetic inheritance. In several of these areas, empirical evidence is needed to evaluate enthusiastic speculation. Evolutionary theory will continue to be extended, but there is no sign that it requires emendation.

Darwin's goldmine is still open: variation and selection run the world

The scientific contribution of Darwin, still agonized in many religious circles, has now been recognized and celebrated by scientists from various disciplines. However, in recent years, several evolutionists have criticized Darwin as outdated, arguing that "Darwinism," assimilated to the "tree of life," cannot explain microbial evolution, or else was not operating in early life evolution. These critics either confuse "Darwinism" and old versions of "neo-Darwinism" or misunderstand the role of gene transfers in evolution. The core of Darwin explanation of evolution (variation/selection) remains necessary and sufficient to decipher the history of life. The enormous diversity of mechanisms underlying variations has been successfully interpreted by evolutionists in this framework and has considerably enriched the corpus of evolutionary biology without the necessity to kill the father. However, it remains for evolutionists to acknowledge interactions between cells and viruses (unknown for Darwin) as a major driving force in life evolution.

A generalised approach to the study and understanding of adaptive evolution

Evolutionary theory has made large impacts on our understanding and management of the world, in part because it has been able to incorporate new data and new insights successfully. Nonetheless, there is currently a tension between certain biological phenomena and mainstream evolutionary theory. For example, how does the inheritance of molecular epigenetic changes fit into mainstream evolutionary theory? Is niche construction an evolutionary process? Is local adaptation via habitat choice also adaptive evolution? These examples suggest there is scope (and perhaps even a need) to broaden our views on evolution. We identify three aspects whose incorporation into a single framework would enable a more generalised approach to the understanding and study of adaptive evolution: (i) a broadened view of extended phenotypes; (ii) that traits can respond to each other; and (iii) that inheritance can be non-genetic. We use causal modelling to integrate these three aspects with established views on the variables and mechanisms that drive and allow for adaptive evolution. Our causal model identifies natural selection and non-genetic inheritance of adaptive parental responses as two complementary yet distinct and independent drivers of adaptive evolution. Both drivers are compatible with the Price equation; specifically, non-genetic inheritance of parental responses is captured by an often-neglected component of the Price equation. Our causal model is general and simplified, but can be adjusted flexibly in terms of variables and causal connections, depending on the research question and/or biological system. By revisiting the three examples given above, we show how to use it as a heuristic tool to clarify conceptual issues and to help design empirical research. In contrast to a gene-centric view defining evolution only in terms of genetic change, our generalised approach allows us to see evolution as a change in the whole causal structure, consisting not just of genetic but also of phenotypic and environmental variables.

The Synthesis and the Two Scenarios

On the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Society for the Study of Evolution, I look back at the so-called "evolutionary synthesis," to which many of the Society's founders and prominent founding members were committed. An important plank in the synthesis platform had to do with the importance of selection relative to mutation. Of course, there is no evolutionary change without mutation, and no adaptive evolutionary change without selection. So how could selection be more important than mutation, or vice-versa? At issue was whether adaptive evolutionary change is initiated and directed by selection, or by the appearance of new advantageous variation. Proponents of the synthesis took the position that Darwin himself had defended, namely that adaptive evolutionary change is initiated and directed by natural selection on standing variation, no new variation, no mutation, required. Natural selection is, in this sense, not just "creative," but is the creative agent of evolutionary change. In taking this extreme position, proponents of the synthesis were reacting to the equally extreme position of Mendelian-mutationists, who held that adaptive evolutionary change always commences with, and is directed by, the appearance of new advantageous mutations, and for whom mutation is the creative agent of evolutionary change. I conclude with some comments on "relative significance" issues and controversies, and respects in which the relative significance issues at the heart of the synthesis persist. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.