Filtering by
- All Subjects: Evolution & development
- Creators: Schwartz, Gary T
- Creators: Armendt, Brad
- Member of: ASU Electronic Theses and Dissertations
- Member of: Theses and Dissertations
explained by natural selection acting on traits that persisted "for the good of the group" prompted a series of debates about group-level selection and the effectiveness with which natural selection could act at or across multiple levels of biological organization. For some this topic remains contentious, while others consider the debate settled, even while disagreeing about when and how resolution occurred, raising the question: "Why have these debates continued?"
Here I explore the biology, history, and philosophy of the possibility of natural selection operating at levels of biological organization other than the organism by focusing on debates about group-level selection that have occurred since the 1960s. In particular, I use experimental, historical, and synthetic methods to review how the debates have changed, and whether different uses of the same words and concepts can lead to different interpretations of the same experimental data.
I begin with the results of a group-selection experiment I conducted using the parasitoid wasp Nasonia, and discuss how the interpretation depends on how one conceives of and defines a "group." Then I review the history of the group selection controversy and argue that this history is best interpreted as multiple, interrelated debates rather than a single continuous debate. Furthermore, I show how the aspects of these debates that have changed the most are related to theoretical content and empirical data, while disputes related to methods remain largely unchanged. Synthesizing this material, I distinguish four different "approaches" to the study of multilevel selection based on the questions and methods used by researchers, and I use the results of the Nasonia experiment to discuss how each approach can lead to different interpretations of the same experimental data. I argue that this realization can help to explain why debates about group and multilevel selection have persisted for nearly sixty years. Finally, the conclusions of this dissertation apply beyond evolutionary biology by providing an illustration of how key concepts can change over time, and how failing to appreciate this fact can lead to ongoing controversy within a scientific field.
criteria of scientific knowledge are up for grabs. A central issue is the status of evolutionary genetics models, which some argue cannot coherently be used with complex gene regulatory network (GRN) models to explain the same evolutionary phenomena. Despite those claims, many researchers use evolutionary genetics models jointly with GRN models to study evolutionary phenomena.
How do those researchers deploy those two kinds of models so that they are consistent and compatible with each other? To address that question, this dissertation closely examines, dissects, and compares two recent research projects in which researchers jointly use the two kinds of models. To identify, select, reconstruct, describe, and compare those cases, I use methods from the empirical social sciences, such as digital corpus analysis, content analysis, and structured case analysis.
From those analyses, I infer three primary conclusions about projects of the kind studied. First, they employ an implicit concept of gene that enables the joint use of both kinds of models. Second, they pursue more epistemic aims besides mechanistic explanation of phenomena. Third, they don’t work to create and export broad synthesized theories. Rather, they focus on phenomena too complex to be understood by a common general theory, they distinguish parts of the phenomena, and they apply models from different theories to the different parts. For such projects, seemingly incompatible models are synthesized largely through mediated representations of complex phenomena.
The dissertation closes by proposing how developmental evolution, a field traditionally focused on macroevolution, might fruitfully expand its research agenda to include projects that study microevolution.
determination of mammalian protein function. A CNS specific protein, dCORL is a
member of the Sno/Ski family. Sno acts as a switch between Dpp/dActivin signaling.
dCORL is involved in Dpp and dActivin signaling, but the two homologous mCORL
protein functions are unknown. Conducting transgenic experiments in the adult wings,
and third instar larval brains using mCORL1, mCORL2 and dCORL are used to provide
insight into the function of these proteins. These experiments show mCORL1 has a
different function from mCORL2 and dCORL when expressed in Drosophila. mCORL2
and dCORL have functional similarities that are likely conserved. Six amino acid
substitutions between mCORL1 and mCORL2/dCORL may be the reason for the
functional difference. The evolutionary implications of this research suggest the
conservation of a switch between Dpp/dActivin signaling that predates the divergence of
arthropods and vertebrates.
Differences in the postcanine dentition of primates likely represent dietary adaptations given that the teeth interact directly with foods during mastication. Among early hominins, changes to both molar and premolar morphology are purported to indicate consumption of foods differing in their material properties. Some early hominins, such as the robust australopiths, possess premolars that resemble molars with enhancements to the distal part of the tooth (i.e., the talonid), including additional cusps and/or expanded basins. Such molarized premolars are thought to indicate that these hominins were processing mechanically challenging foods; that is, food items that were either hard or tough. Hypotheses tested in this study evaluated the link between the degree of premolar molarization and consumption of mechanically challenging foods in extant primates. Surface anatomy of the distal-most mandibular premolar (the P4) was quantified using a combination of 3D scans of postcanine dental casts and craniodental landmark data collected from 541 individuals, representing 22 extant primate taxa with well-studied diets and known food material properties. Taxa with more mechanically challenging diets were expected to have premolars with expanded talonids and enlarged P4s (and/or molar rows) relative to several mechanically-relevant size proxies. Taxa consuming high proportions of structural carbohydrates were also expected to have postcanine teeth with high occlusal relief (RFI), sharpness (DNE), and complexity (OPCR). Taxa consuming harder food items were expected to have lower relief and higher complexity, with sharpness determined by the proportion of structural carbohydrates included in their diet. The work presented in this dissertation supports most of these expectations, though talonid expansion per se was not clearly linked to the consumption of any particular diet. Overall, taxa with more mechanically challenging diets generally had relatively enlarged premolars when compared to taxa with softer diets and also differed predictably in their occlusal topography. The results of this dissertation support the functional significance of P4 crown size and measures of dental topography as they relate to diet and have implications for improving dietary inferences from the fossil record.