Abstract
James Shapiro’s view of evolution is inspired by looking at the molecular mechanisms of mutation. Finding these systems to be intelligent and the mutations non-gradual, Shapiro concludes that neither the role of DNA in development, nor and the role of natural selection in evolution are what we thought them to be. The cases discussed are interesting and may require some modification of theory in biology, but this reviewer finds many of Shapiro’s conclusions unwarranted.
References
Arjan GJ, de Visser M, Zeyl CW, Gerrish PJ, Blanchard JL, Lenski RE (1999) Diminishing returns from mutation supply rate in asexual populations. Science 283:404–406
Crick F (1970) Central dogma of evolutionary biology. Nature 227:561–563
Edelmann JB, Denton MJ (2007) The uniqueness of biological self-organization: challenging the Darwinian paradigm Biol Philos 22:579–601
Goodman MF (1998) Purposeful mutations. Nature 395:221–223
Goodman MF, Tippin B (2000) Sloppier copier DNA polymerases involved in genome repair. Curr Opin Genet Dev 10:162–168
Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Gould SJ, Eldredge N (1993) Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. Nature 366:223–227
Jacob F (1977) Evolution and tinkering. Science 196:1161–1166
Mayr E (1961) Cause and effect in biology. Science 134:1501–1506
McKenzie GJ, Lee PL, Hastings PJ, Rosenberg SM (2001) SOS mutator DNA polymerase IV functions in adaptive mutation and not adaptive amplification. Mol Cell 7:571–579
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sansom, R. What are the implications of evolvable molecules?. Biol Philos 29, 425–432 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-014-9440-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-014-9440-4