Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evolution by means of natural selection without reproduction: revamping Lewontin’s account

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper analyzes recent attempts to reject reproduction with lineage formation as a necessary condition for evolution by means of natural selection (Bouchard in Philos Sci 75(5):560–570, 2008; Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 42(1):106–114, 2011; Bourrat in Biol Philos 29(4):517–538, 2014; Br J Philos Sci 66(4):883–903, 2015; Charbonneau in Philos Sci 81(5):727–740, 2014; Doolittle and Inkpen in Proc Natl Acad Sci 115(16):4006–4014, 2018). Building on the strengths of these attempts and avoiding their pitfalls, it is argued that a robust formulation of evolution by natural selection without reproduction can be established. The main contribution of this paper is a reformulation of Lewontin’s three principles (Lewontin in Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1:1–18, 1970) stating that minimal evolution by natural selection occurs when two conditions are met in a population: fitness-related variation and memory (population-level inheritance). Paradigmatic evolution by natural selection, which can generate adaptations, takes place when an additional condition is present, namely regeneration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. I provide only a superficial analysis of Godfrey-Smith’s very rich and insightful treatment of the concept of reproduction. This overview should suffice to fulfill the aim of this section, that is, to highlight the consensus according to which reproduction is necessary for ENS to obtain and to identify an abstract definition of reproduction that can apply despite the variety of ways in which it has been defined.

  2. While the expression “origin explanation” has indeed been coined by Godfrey-Smith, it should be noted that Neander (1995a, b) similarly highlighted the creative power of natural selection, in cases of cumulative (rather than single-step) selection. Her claim sparked a debate with Sober (1995), who famously emphasized the negative power of selection (Sober 1984).

  3. As it is shown shortly, I reject Bouchard’s claim that the notion of population needs to be replaced by the concept of ensemble. I keep using the concept of population even when discussing his work in order to simplify the analysis.

  4. In a recent paper (Bourrat 2019), Bourrat further theorizes heritability by developing a causation (interventionist) account of it. While the paper is extremely interesting and has great practical value, the issue tackled therein is orthogonal to the more abstract and conceptual debate broached in this paper.

  5. Charbonneau explicitly acknowledges that the resulting analysis is not a comprehensive in regard to the complexity of reproduction and the role it plays in the biological world. However, he claims that focusing on those two aspects allows for sufficient precision relative to its role as a necessary condition for ENS. This nuance is completely endorsed and reiterated in the context of this paper.

  6. Given the aim of the paper, one might think I am suggesting that the evolutionary success of an entity should only be calculated in regard to its persisting capacities. It is not the case. Calculating fitness in regard to reproduction and survivability is an extremely powerful way to make evolutionary predictions. This is true even if reproduction is but one evolutionary strategy among others that generate success. In the thought experiment now being discussed, reproduction could be taken into account in the evolutionary success as calculated by the machine before a new event of creation. Hence, there will sometimes be causal input by parent on the offspring, and sometimes not. This is coherent with the claim that reproduction is neither a defining trait of units of selection nor necessary for ENS to occur.

  7. As this paper is focused on the notion of reproduction and hence on those of memory and regeneration, it leaves the notion of fitness somewhat unspecified. Nonetheless, building on the work of Bouchard and Bourrat, the abstract definition provided here fulfills the needs of a general account of ENS. Further specifications of parameters can be added to fulfill the needs of specific empirical inquiries, when required (e.g. Roughgarden et al. 2018).

References

  • Ariew, A. (2008). Population thinking. In M. Ruse (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of biology (pp. 64–86). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bapteste, E., & Huneman, P. (2018). Towards a Dynamic Interaction Network of Life to unify and expand the evolutionary theory. BMC Biology, 16, 56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bapteste, E., O’Malley, M. A., Beiko, R. G., Ereshefsky, M., Gogarten, J. P., Franklin-Hall, L., et al. (2009). Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things. Biology Direct, 4(1), 34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, A. (2014a). Symbiosis, selection, and individuality. Biology and Philosophy, 29(5), 657–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, A. (2014b). Populations and individuals in heterokaryotic fungi: A multilevel perspective. Philosophy of Science, 81(4), 612–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard, F. (2004). Evolution, fitness and the struggle for persistence. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305180238/.

  • Bouchard, F. (2008). Causal processes, fitness, and the differential persistence of lineages. Philosophy of Science, 75(5), 560–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard, F. (2010). Symbiosis, lateral function transfer and the (many) saplings of life. Biology and Philosophy, 25(4), 623–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard, F. (2011). Darwinism without populations: A more inclusive understanding of the “Survival of the Fittest”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 42(1), 106–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard, F., & Rosenberg, A. (2004). Fitness, probability and the principles of natural selection. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55(4), 693–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourrat, P. (2014). From survivors to replicators: Evolution by natural selection revisited. Biology and Philosophy, 29(4), 517–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourrat, P. (2015). How to read ‘heritability’in the recipe approach to natural selection. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 66(4), 883–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourrat, P. (2019). Heritability, causal influence and locality. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02484-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charbonneau, M. (2014). Populations without reproduction. Philosophy of Science, 81(5), 727–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, L., & Gilbert, S. F. (2015). The birth of the holobiont: multi-species birthing through mutual scaffolding and niche construction. Biosemiotics, 8(2), 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corel, E., Meheust, R., Watson, A. K., McInerney, J. O., Lopez, P., & Bapteste, E. (2018). Bipartite network analysis of gene sharings in the microbial world. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 35(4), 899–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky, T. (1970). Genetics of the evolutionary process (Vol. 139). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doolittle, W. F. (2000). Uprooting the tree of life. Scientific American, 282(2), 90–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doolittle, W. F. (2019). Making evolutionary sense of Gaia. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doolittle, W. F., & Booth, A. (2017). It’s the song, not the singer: an exploration of holobiosis and evolutionary theory. Biology and Philosophy, 32(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doolittle, W. F., & Inkpen, S. A. (2018). Processes and patterns of interaction as units of selection: An introduction to ITSNTS thinking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(16), 4006–4014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, A. E., & Werren, J. H. (2016). Holes in the hologenome: Why host-microbe symbioses are not holobionts. mBio, 7(2), e02099-15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupré, J. (2017). The metaphysics of evolution. Interface Focus, 7(5), 20160148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupré, J., & O’Malley, M. (2009). Varieties of living things: Life at the intersection of lineage and metabolism. Philosophy et Theory in Biology, 1, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dussault, A. C., & Bouchard, F. (2017). A persistence enhancing propensity account of ecological function to explain ecosystem evolution. Synthese, 194(4), 1115–1145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earnshaw-Whyte, E. (2012). Increasingly radical claims about heredity and fitness. Philosophy of Science, 79(3), 396–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endler, J. A. (1986). Natural selection in the wild. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ereshefsky, M., & Pedroso, M. (2013). Biological individuality: The case of biofilms. Biology and Philosophy, 28(2), 331–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ereshefsky, M., & Pedroso, M. (2015). Rethinking evolutionary individuality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(33), 10126–10132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ereshefsky, M., & Pedroso, M. (2016). What biofilms can teach us about individuality. In Alexandre Guay & Thomas Pradeu (Eds.), Individiuals across the sciences (pp. 103–121). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gannett, L. (2003). Making populations: Bounding genes in space and in time. Philosophy of Science, 70(5), 989–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith, P. (2007). Conditions for evolution by natural selection. The Journal of Philosophy, 104(10), 489–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith, P. (2009). Darwinian populations and natural selection. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith, P. (2011). Darwinian Populations and Transitions in Individuality. In B. Calcott & K. Sterelny (Eds.), The major transitions in evolution revisited (pp. 65–82). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith, P. (2012). Darwinism and cultural change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367, 2160–2170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith, P. (2013). Darwinian Individuals. In F. Bouchard & P. Huneman (Eds.), From groups to individuals: Evolution and emerging individuality (pp. 17–36). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith, P. (2015). Reproduction, symbiosis, and the eukaryotic cell. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(33), 10120–10125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griesemer, J. R. (2000a). Development, culture and the units of inheritance. Philosophy of Science, 67, S348–S368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griesemer, J. R. (2000b). The units of evolutionary transition. Selection, 1(1–3), 67–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griesemer, J. R. (2005). The informational gene and the substantial body: On the generalization of evolutionary theory by abstraction. In M. R. Jones & N. Cartwright (Eds.), Idealization XII: Correcting the model (pp. 59–115). Brill: Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halfon, M. S. (2017). Perspectives on gene regulatory network evolution. Trends in Genetics, 33(7), 436–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. L. (1978). A matter of individuality. Philosophy of Science, 45(3), 335–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. L. (1980). Individuality and selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 11, 311–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F. (1987). Reproduction and the central project of evolutionary theory. Biology and Philosophy, 2, 383–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F. (2014). From gene action to reactive genomes. The Journal of Physiology, 592(11), 2423–2429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koonin, E. V., & Wolf, Y. I. (2009). Is evolution Darwinian or/and Lamarckian? Biology Direct, 4(1), 42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Lenton, T. M. (2019). extending the domain of freedom, or why Gaia is so hard to understand. Critical Inquiry, 45(3), 659–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R. C. (1970). The units of selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R. C. (1985). Adaptation. In R. Levins & R. C. Lewontin (Eds.), The dialectical biologist (pp. 65–84). Cambridge, Massachussets: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E. A. (2018). Holobionts as units of selection: Holobionts as interactors, reproducers, and manifestors of adaptation. In S. B. Gissis, E. Lamm, & A. Shavit (Eds.), Landscapes of collectivity in the life sciences (pp. 351–368). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margulis, L. (1991). Symbiosis as a source of evolutionary innovation: Speciation and morphogenesis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Méheust, R., Watson, A. K., Lapointe, F. J., Papke, R. T., Lopez, P., & Bapteste, E. (2018). Hundreds of novel composite genes and chimeric genes with bacterial origins contributed to haloarchaeal evolution. Genome Biology, 19(1), 75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millstein, R. L. (2006). Natural selection as a population-level causal process. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57(4), 627–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millstein, R. L. (2009). Populations as individuals. Biological Theory, 4(3), 267–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millstein, R. L. (2010). The concepts of population and metapopulation in evolutionary biology and ecology. In M. A. Bell, D. J. Futuyma, W. F. Eanes, & J. S. Levinton (Eds.), Evolution since Darwin: The first 150 years (pp. 61–86). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, N. A., & Sloan, D. B. (2015). The hologenome concept: Helpful or hollow? PLoS Biology, 13(12), e1002311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G. J., & Pitts, W. B. (2008). Evolution without species: The case of mosaic bacteriophages. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59(4), 745–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neander, K. (1995a). Explaining complex adaptations: A reply to Sober’s ‘reply to Neander’. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 46(4), 583–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neander, K. (1995b). Pruning the tree of life. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 46(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/46.1.59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, M. A. (2014). Philosophy of microbiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, M. A. (2015). Reproduction expanded: Multigenerational and multilineal units of evolution. Philosophy of Science, 83(5), 835–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, M. A., & Dupré, J. (2007). Size doesn’t matter: Towards a more inclusive philosophy of biology. Biology and Philosophy, 22(2), 155–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odling-Smee, J., Laland, K., & Feldman, M. (2003). Niche construction: The neglected process in evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okasha, S. (2006). Evolution and the levels of selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Papale, F., Saget, J., & Bapteste, É. (2019). Networks consolidate the core concepts of evolution. Trends in Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2019.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci, M., & Müller, G. B. (Eds.). (2010). Evolution—The extended synthesis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reydon, T. A. C., & Scholz, M. (2015). Searching for Darwinism in generalized Darwinism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 66(3), 561–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridley, M. (1996). Evolution (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, E., Sharon, G., & Zilber-Rosenberg, I. (2009). The hologenome theory of evolution contains Lamarckian aspects within a Darwinian framework. Environmental Microbiology, 11(12), 2959–2962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roughgarden, J. (2019). Holobiont evolution: Model with vertical vs. horizontal microbiome transmission. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/465310.

  • Roughgarden, J., Gilbert, S. F., Rosenberg, E., Zilber-Rosenberg, I., & Lloyd, E. A. (2018). Holobionts as units of selection and a model of their population dynamics and evolution. Biological Theory, 13(1), 44–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skillings, D. (2016). Holobionts and the ecology of organisms: Multi-species communities or integrated individuals? Biology and Philosophy, 31(6), 875–892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (1984). The nature of selection. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press/A Bradford Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (1995). Natural selection and distributive explanation: A reply to Neander. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 46(3), 384–397. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/46.3.384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, H. T. P., & Lenton, T. J. (2008). Environmental regulation in a network of simulated microbial ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(30), 10432–10435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. S., & Sober, E. (1989). Reviving the superorganism. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 136(3), 337–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woese, C. (1998). The universal ancestor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95(12), 6854–6859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xavier, J. B., & Foster, K. R. (2007). Cooperation and conflict in microbial biofilms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(3), 876–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zilber-Rosenberg, I., & Rosenberg, E. (2008). Role of microorganisms in the evolution of animals and plants: the hologenome theory of evolution. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 32(5), 723–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Mathieu Charbonneau, Pierrick Bourrat, Frédéric Bouchard, Éric Bapteste and Cassandre Ville for their unwavering support and for their help with the paper. I am also grateful to a few anonymous referees for their great insights and comments.

Funding

The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada provided financial support for this research (file number: 767-2018-1113).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Montréal, 2910 Édouart-Monpetit blvd, Montréal, QC, H3T 1J7, Canada

    François Papale

Authors
  1. François Papale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to François Papale.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Papale, F. Evolution by means of natural selection without reproduction: revamping Lewontin’s account. Synthese 198, 10429–10455 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02729-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02729-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation