The Sociobiology of Genes: The Gene’s Eye View as a Unifying Behavioural-Ecological Framework for Biological Evolution (2017)
De Tiège, Alexis (Author)
Van de Peer, Yves (Author)
Braeckman, Johan (Author)
Tanghe, Koen B. (Author)
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
Volume: 40
Issue: 1
Pages: 6
Although classical evolutionary theory, i.e., population genetics and the Modern Synthesis, was already implicitly ‘gene-centred’, the organism was, in practice, still generally regarded as the individual unit of which a population is composed. The gene-centred approach to evolution only reached a logical conclusion with the advent of the gene-selectionist or gene’s eye view in the 1960s and 1970s. Whereas classical evolutionary theory can only work with (genotypically represented) fitness differences between individual organisms, gene-selectionism is capable of working with fitness differences among genes within the same organism and genome. Here, we explore the explanatory potential of ‘intra-organismic’ and ‘intra-genomic’ gene-selectionism, i.e., of a behavioural-ecological ‘gene’s eye view’ on genetic, genomic and organismal evolution. First, we give a general outline of the framework and how it complements the—to some extent—still ‘organism-centred’ approach of classical evolutionary theory. Secondly, we give a more in-depth assessment of its explanatory potential for biological evolution, i.e., for Darwin’s ‘common descent with modification’ or, more specifically, for ‘historical continuity or homology with modular evolutionary change’ as it has been studied by evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) during the last few decades. In contrast with classical evolutionary theory, evo-devo focuses on ‘within-organism’ developmental processes. Given the capacity of gene-selectionism to adopt an intra-organismal gene’s eye view, we outline the relevance of the latter model for evo-devo. Overall, we aim for the conceptual integration between the gene’s eye view on the one hand, and more organism-centred evolutionary models (both classical evolutionary theory and evo-devo) on the other.
...MoreSimilar Citations
Book
Philippe Huneman;
Denis M. Walsh;
(2017)
Challenging the Modern Synthesis: Adaptation, Development, and Inheritance
(/isis/citation/CBB617122717/)
Book
D. M. Walsh;
(2015)
Organisms, Agency, and Evolution
(/isis/citation/CBB057744056/)
Article
Stotz, Karola;
(2004)
Introduction
(/isis/citation/CBB000600325/)
Essay Review
Wolfe, Audra J.;
(2001)
ELSI's Revenge
(/isis/citation/CBB000100499/)
Book
Tudge, Colin;
(2001)
Impact of the Gene: From Mendel's Peas to Designer Babies
(/isis/citation/CBB000102136/)
Article
Gintis, Herbert;
(2014)
Inclusive Fitness and the Sociobiology of the Genome
(/isis/citation/CBB001421608/)
Chapter
Gissis, Snait B.;
Jablonka, Eva;
(2011)
The Exclusion of Soft (“Lamarckian”) Inheritance from the Modern Synthesis
(/isis/citation/CBB001500089/)
Article
Alan Grafen;
(2019)
Should we ask for more than consistency of Darwinism with Mendelism?
(/isis/citation/CBB453166142/)
Thesis
Green, Lisa Anne;
(2012)
Science for Survival: The Modern Synthesis of Evolution and the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study
(/isis/citation/CBB001567386/)
Book
Jan Baedke;
(2018)
Above the Gene, Beyond Biology: Toward a Philosophy of Epigenetics
(/isis/citation/CBB511514088/)
Article
Jonathan B. L. Bard;
(2017)
C.H. Waddington’s Differences with the Creators of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis: A Tale of Two Genes
(/isis/citation/CBB562199563/)
Article
Erik L. Peterson;
(2017)
‘So Far Like the Present Period’: A Reply to ‘C.H. Waddington’s Differences with the Creators of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis: A Tale of Two Genes’
(/isis/citation/CBB382932086/)
Chapter
Wilkins, Adam;
(2011)
Why Did the Modern Synthesis Give Short Shrift to “Soft Inheritance”?
(/isis/citation/CBB001500092/)
Chapter
Ruse, Michael;
(2005)
Evolutionary Biology and the Question of Trust
(/isis/citation/CBB000651361/)
Book
Milam, Erika Lorraine;
(2010)
Looking for a Few Good Males: Female Choice in Evolutionary Biology
(/isis/citation/CBB001020405/)
Article
Emily Herrington;
Eva Jablonka;
(2020)
Creating a ‘gestalt shift’ in evolutionary science: Roles for metaphor in the conceptual landscape of the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES)
(/isis/citation/CBB255233612/)
Article
Ben Bradley;
(2022)
Natural selection according to Darwin: Cause or effect?
(/isis/citation/CBB830954057/)
Article
Depew, David J.;
(2010)
Darwinian Controversies: An Historiographical Recounting
(/isis/citation/CBB001032812/)
Book
Esha Shah;
(2018)
Who Is the Scientist-Subject?: Affective History of the Gene
(/isis/citation/CBB881962010/)
Book
Graham, Gordon;
(2002)
Genes: A Philosophical Inquiry
(/isis/citation/CBB000301735/)
Be the first to comment!