A multiple-level model of evolution and its implications for sociobiology

Plotkin, Henry; Odling-Smee, F. John

doi:10.1017/s0140525x00008566

Cited by 274 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 89 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The same holds for niche construction, which predictably generates environmental states that are coherent and integrated with the organism's phenotype and its developmental needs, as well as environmental states that are adaptive for the constructor, or its descendants, at least in the short-term [63,73]. Both developmental bias and niche construction impose directionality on evolution, partly because developmental mechanisms have been shaped by prior selection [73], but also because, like other exploratory behaviour within the organism, learning allows organisms to generate and refine novel behavioural variants that are coherent and adaptive [73,118]. Other types of bias may also affect variation and selection, such as systematic biases in mutation [25,116,117,[119][120][121], or other historical contingencies, such as learned traditions [66,73].…”

Section: (B) Reciprocal Causationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific activities take place within the structured sets of ideas and assumptions that define a field and its practices. The conceptual framework of evolutionary biology emerged with the Modern Synthesis in the early twentieth century and has since expanded into a highly successful research program to explore the processes of diversification and adaptation. Nonetheless, the ability of that framework satisfactorily to accommodate the rapid advances in developmental biology, genomics and ecology has been questioned. We review some of these arguments, focusing on literatures (evo-devo, developmental plasticity, inclusive inheritance and niche construction) whose implications for evolution can be interpreted in two ways-one that preserves the internal structure of contemporary evolutionary theory and one that points towards an alternative conceptual framework. The latter, which we label the 'extended evolutionary synthesis' (EES), retains the fundaments of evolutionary theory, but differs in its emphasis on the role of constructive processes in development and evolution, and reciprocal portrayals of causation. In the EES, developmental processes, operating through developmental bias, inclusive inheritance and niche construction, share responsibility for the direction and rate of evolution, the origin of character variation and organism-environment complementarity. We spell out the structure, core assumptions and novel predictions of the EES, and show how it can be deployed to stimulate and advance research in those fields that study or use evolutionary biology.

show abstract

Section: (B) Reciprocal Causationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unlike Simonton, and Campbell (1965) on whom Simonton bases his model, we also believe that the Darwinian process selects only "blind" or random variants at the genetic level. Learned behavior may be broadly Darwinian in character, as Plotkin and Odling-Smee (1981) and Dennett (1995) suggest, but it is not based on the selection of randomly-generated behavior patterns. This is because the perceptual systems, the motivational systems and the behavioral systems in individual organisms are all biased by, but not determined by, their genes.…”

Section: R21 Niche Construction Is Not Genetically Determinedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Niche construction: A pervasive force in evolution?

Steen¹

2000

Behav. Brain Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:We propose a conceptual model that maps the causal pathways relating biological evolution to cultural change. It builds on conventional evolutionary theory by placing emphasis on the capacity of organisms to modify sources of natural selection in their environment (niche construction) and by broadening the evolutionary dynamic to incorporate ontogenetic and cultural processes. In this model, phenotypes have a much more active role in evolution than generally conceived. This sheds light on hominid evolution, on the evolution of culture, and on altruism and cooperation. Culture amplifies the capacity of human beings to modify sources of natural selection in their environments to the point where that capacity raises some new questions about the processes of human adaptation.Keywords: adaptation; altruism; cooperation; evolutionary psychology; gene-culture coevolution; human evolution; human genetics; niche construction; sociobiology by the failure of Lamarkism. The so-called Weismann barrier effectively stops genes from being affected by any of the acquired characteristics of phenotypes, including the culturally acquired characteristics of human beings (Mayr 1982). Modern molecular biologists do interfere with genes directly on the basis of their acquired scientific experiences, but this innovation is too recent to have had any impact on human genetic evolution. The failure of this route therefore left only the second alternative, which encouraged sociobiology's claim that phenotypes of all species, including our own, reduce to "survival machines" or "vehicles" for their genes (Dawkins 1989) and that the only role phenotypes play in evolution is to survive and reproduce differentially in response to natural selection and chance. This subordinate status for phenotypes does not cut off human culture from human genetic evolution entirely, insofar as it still allows culture to contribute to human adaptations (Alexander 1979) and hence to genotypic fitnesses. However, according to this perspective, culture has no power to codirect human genetic evolution through active modification or creation of selection pressures.Other evolutionary biologists maintain that culture frequently does affect the evolutionary process, and some have begun to develop mathematical and conceptual models of gene-culture coevolution that involve descriptions not only of how human genetic evolution influences culture but also of how human culture can drive or codirect at least some genetic changes in human populations (Boyd & Richerson 1985; Cavalli-Sforza & Feldman 1981;Durham 1991;. These models include culturally biased nonrandom mating systems (see, e.g., Aoki & Feldman 1997;Durham 1991;Laland 1994), the treatment of human sociocultural or linguistic environments as sources of natural selection (Aoki & Feldman 1987; Cavalli-Sforza & Feldman 1983), and the impact of different cultural activities on the transmission of certain diseases such as malaria and sickle-cell anaemia (Durham 1991). The common element among these cases is that...

show abstract

“…Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory must be completed in certain respects if it is to provide the basis for constructing models that apply to species with a system of cultural transmission (most prominently, but not only, Homo sapiens). Plotkin modestly omits reference to his own efforts at developing an account of gene-culture coevolution in BBS (Plotkin & Odling-Smee 1981), and expresses his admiration for the recent work of Boyd & Richerson (1985). (He also justly cites the pioneering efforts of Campbell [1965].)…”

Section: Behavioral and Brain Sciences (1987) 101mentioning

confidence: 99%

Précis ofVaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature

Kitcher

1987

Behav Brain Sci

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debate about the credentials of sociobiology has persisted because scholars have failed to distinguish the varieties of sociobiology and because too little attention has been paid to the details of the arguments that are supposed to support the provocative claims about human soeial behavior. I seek to remedy both dcfieieneies. After analysis of the relationships among different kinds of sociobiology and contemporary evolutionary theory, I attempt to show how some of the studies of the behavior of nonhuman animals meet the methodological standards appropriate to evolutionary research. I contend that the efforts of E. O. Wilson, Richard Alexander, Charles Lumsden, and others to generate conclusions about human nature are flawed, both because they apply evolutionary ideas in an un rigorous fashion and because they use dubious assumptions to connect their evolutionary analyses with their conclusions. This contention rests on analyses of many of the major sociobiological proposals about human social behavior, including: differences in sex roles, racial hostility, homosexuality, conflict between parents and adolescent offspring, incest avoidance, the avunculate, alliances in combat, female infanticide, and gene-culture coevolution. Vaulting Ambition thus seeks to identify what is good in sociobiology, to expose the errors of premature speculations about human nature, and to prepare the way for serious study of the evolution of human social behavior.Keywords: behavior; culture; environment; evolution; genes; genetics; heredity; human nature; sociobiology The sociobiology debateThe chiefaim ofVaulting Ambition (henceforth Ambition)is to end a debate that has occupied biologists, social scientists, and humanists for the last decade. I claim that the credentials of sociobiology cannot be properly assessed until we make some important distinctions. First, there are some exciting developments in recent evolutionary thcory that have been used to illuminate some aspects of the behavior of nonhuman animals. Second, there is a potential science that studies the evolution of human social behavior. Third, there are some particular provocative theses about human nature and the inevitability of human social institutions. I hope to explain the success of the first kind of sociobiology, to expose the pretensions of the last, and to prepare the way for the serious pursuit of the second.Human sociobiology has been portrayed by its critics as a doctrine that perpetuates inequities on the basis of sex, class, and race. Although the political import of the conclusions advanced by some sociobiologists has to be acknowledged, the debate is not ultimately a political one. We need to know whether the provocative conclusions are well supported by the available evidence. Politics intrudes on the scene onlv because the costs of error may be grave, so that we a;e ill-advised to lower our epistemological standards.I believe that the sociobiology debate has generated so much heat because the participants have neglected crucial distinc...

show abstract

A multiple-level model of evolution and its implications for sociobiology

Cited by 274 publications

References 89 publications

The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions

The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions

Niche construction: A pervasive force in evolution?

Précis ofVaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About