Biology and Philosophy 23 (3):363-381 (2008)
|Abstract||There have been two different schools of thought on the evolution of dominance. On the one hand, followers of Wright [Wright S. 1929. Am. Nat. 63: 274–279, Evolution: Selected Papers by Sewall Wright, University of Chicago Press, Chicago; 1934. Am. Nat. 68: 25–53, Evolution: Selected Papers by Sewall Wright, University of Chicago Press, Chicago; Haldane J.B.S. 1930. Am. Nat. 64: 87–90; 1939. J. Genet. 37: 365–374; Kacser H. and Burns J.A. 1981. Genetics 97: 639–666] have defended the view that dominance is a product of non-linearities in gene expression. On the other hand, followers of Fisher [Fisher R.A. 1928a. Am. Nat. 62: 15–126; 1928b. Am. Nat. 62: 571–574; Bürger R. 1983a. Math. Biosci. 67: 125–143; 1983b. J. Math. Biol. 16: 269–280; Wagner G. and Burger R. 1985. J. Theor. Biol. 113: 475–500; Mayo O. and Reinhard B. 1997. Biol. Rev. 72: 97–110] have argued that dominance evolved via selection on modifier genes. Some have called these “physiological” versus “selectionist,” or more recently [Falk R. 2001. Biol. Philos. 16: 285–323], “functional,” versus “structural” explanations of dominance. This paper argues, however, that one need not treat these explanations as exclusive. While one can disagree about the most likely evolutionary explanation of dominance, as Wright and Fisher did, offering a “physiological” or developmental explanation of dominance does not render dominance “epiphenomenal,” nor show that evolutionary considerations are irrelevant to the maintenance of dominance, as some [Kacser H. and Burns J.A. 1981. Genetics 97: 639–666] have argued. Recent work [Gilchrist M.A. and Nijhout H.F. 2001. Genetics 159: 423–432] illustrates how biological explanation is a multi-level task, requiring both a “top-down” approach to understanding how a pattern of inheritance or trait might be maintained in populations, as well as “bottom-up” modeling of the dynamics of gene expression.|
|Keywords||dominance Fisher, R. A. Wright, S. evolution|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John N. Constantino (1998). Dominance and Aggression Over the Life Course: Timing and Direction of Causal Influences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (3):369-369.
Bencie Woll & Jechil S. Sieratzki (2003). Why Homolaterality of Language and Hand Dominance May Not Be the Expression of a Specific Evolutionary Link. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (2):241-241.
John Archer (1998). Problems with the Concept of Dominance and Lack of Empirical Support for a Testosterone–Dominance Link. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (3):363-363.
Barbara Applebaum (2001). Raising Awareness of Dominance: Does Recognising Dominance Mean One has to Dismiss the Values of the Dominant Group? Journal of Moral Education 30 (1):55-70.
Charles T. Snowdon (1998). The Nurture of Nature: Social, Developmental, and Environmental Controls of Aggression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (3):384-385.
Denise Dellarosa Cummins (2000). How the Social Environment Shaped the Evolution of Mind. Synthese 122 (1-2):3 - 28.
Sahotra Sarkar (2004). Evolutionary Theory in the 1920s: The Nature of the "Synthesis". Philosophy of Science 71 (5):1215-1226.
James M. Dabbs (1998). Testosterone and the Concept of Dominance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (3):370-371.
Douglas Allchin (2005). The Dilemma of Dominance. Biology and Philosophy 20 (2-3):427-451.
Valerie J. Grant (1998). Dominance Runs Deep. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (3):376-377.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads17 ( #77,993 of 722,745 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,745 )
How can I increase my downloads?