A rough organization of different topics in evolution aka A roadmap for BIO 422

Variation
How it is generated
Mutation, Recombination,
Gene duplication, Plasticity, Culture etc

How it changes within a group

over generations

Individual do not affect each

others absolute fitness
Allele level: Pop Gen
Trait level: Q Gen

Individual s affect each others absolute fitness

Cooperation and conflict
Parent-offspring conflict
Sexual selection
Evolution of eusociality

Formation of distinctly different groups

Process:
Speciation, Macroevolution

Pattern:
Phylogeny, Phylogeography

Usage of evolutionary theory

Breeding
Antibiotic resistance
Evolutionary Medicine
Algorithm

Todays discussion

What do we mean when we say that evolution happens?

Why do we think evolution happened?

Three alternative theories of species diversity

Creationism
Every species was created in their final form and have remained
unchanged.

Transformism (Lamarck)
Every species were created separately but have changed after that.

Darwinism
Life originated once (or very few times). Descent with modification is
sufficient to explain the species diversity that we see today.

Evidence for origin of species

What is a species???

Morphological species concept (Darwins views)

A species is defined by phenotypic characteristics.
It applies to both sexual and asexual species.

Biological species concept

Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations,
which are reproductively isolated from other such groups (Mayr, 1940).
The biological species concept cannot be applied to fossils or asexual organisms.

Phylogenetic species concept

A species is an irreducible (basal) cluster of organisms, diagnosably distinct from
other such clusters, and within which there is a parental pattern of ancestry and
descent (Cracraft 1989).
It applies to sexual and asexual species, but it can be difficult to determine the
degree of difference required for separate species

Evidently, the concept of change is very different across these three definitions.
Therefore, the kind of evidence needed for each will also be somewhat different.

Change happens.

Therefore, if you define evolution as change and species as

sufficiently different groups, then this amount of difference
suggests strongly that evolution happens. But if you take BSC then it
does not work.
Can variations within species be sufficiently large to produce reproductive isolation?

Ring species of salamanders in California

variations within species can be
sufficiently large to produce reproductive
isolation.

Note that the notion of ring species apparently challenges BSC but not the Darwinian
concept of species.

Fossil evidence for species transformations

Can new species be produced directly from existing species?

Artificial hybridization

Natural hybridization

New species can be produced from old ones.

Ring species and the previous examples indicate

that new species can be produced. If continued
over a long time (uniformitarianism, analogous to
induction), this can lead to observed species
diversity. Thus it is consistent with the Darwinian
thinking.

Does the fact that new species can be produced

from old ones, indicate that the existing species
have evolved the same way?

Evidences for common ancestry

Argument from
unity of type
Difference
between
analogy,
Darwinianhomology
(unity of type)
and evolutionary
homology

Even better example of unity of type: genetic code

Three theories for the (near) universality of genetic code:
1. Chemical constraints:
1. None found. Some mutations can make the UAG t-RNA bind to an amino
acid, indicating that there are no chemical constraints.
2. Anti-codon and amino acids found on opposite ends of t-RNAs.

2. Convergent evolution
3. Common ancestry: seems the best solution

Note that this is an appeal to parsimonious reasoning.

Hierarchical classification of unity of type is possible

Does it show common ancestry by itself?

By itself this is not remarkable, but.

When hierarchical
classifications
constructed out of
many unrelated
traits, lead to very
similar trees, then
that demands an
explanation.
Common ancestry is
again the most
parsimonious one.
In this case, >34
million trees are
possible

Interestingly, at least for major groups, the determined order also

corresponds well with fossil records

Again, ancestry provides the most parsimonious explanation

Existence of vestigial organs, pseudogenes

and primitive forms during development

Primates can not manufacture vitamin C

as the enzyme required for the last step
is present but inactivated.
1. Tough to show that an organ does not have a function.
2. Common ancestry gives a parsimonious explanation for this, but if you are ready to accept
mysterious are the ways of the lord and the notion that there might be slops in the
master plan, then I do not see how this is NOT reconcilable with the other two notions.

Existence of transitional forms

Quadrate
Dentary

Angular

Appeal to parsimony supports common ancestry

Articular

To summarize:
1. The evidence for origin of new species is direct and
uncontroversial.
2. Each strand of evidence for common ancestry, by itself,
has to appeal to parsimony.
3. However, taken together, they make a very strong case
for believing in common ancestry.
4. The last statement (perhaps) is the reason for which
the debate lingers. The other possibilities are political
gains and stupidity, which (perhaps) can not be fully
ignored.

REFERENCES
Chapter 3 of Mark Ridleys Evolution offers the most coherent arguments for the
process of evolution and much of the treatment here is modeled after that book.
Many authors make a case for common ancestry, without showing what the
observations mean for the other competing theories. This chapter avoids that
logical pitfall and is a must-read to understand how to interpret evidences.

I have also used The evidence for evolution by GC Myer (not to be confused
with Ernst Mayr!!) for some diagrams and examples.
A nice treatment of the issue is in Why evolution is true by J.A. Coyne. That
book should be read by anyone who would like to take a less formal look at the
topic.