A generalised approach to the study and understanding of adaptive evolution.

Evolutionary theory has made large impacts on our understanding and management of the world, in part because it has been able to incorporate new data and new insights successfully. Nonetheless, there is currently a tension between certain biological phenomena and mainstream evolutionary theory. For example, how does the inheritance of molecular epigenetic changes fit into mainstream evolutionary theory? Is niche construction an evolutionary process? Is local adaptation via habitat choice also adaptive evolution? These examples suggest there is scope (and perhaps even a need) to broaden our views on evolution. We identify three aspects whose incorporation into a single framework would enable a more generalised approach to the understanding and study of adaptive evolution: (i) a broadened view of extended phenotypes; (ii) that traits can respond to each other; and (iii) that inheritance can be non-genetic. We use causal modelling to integrate these three aspects with established views on the variables and mechanisms that drive and allow for adaptive evolution. Our causal model identifies natural selection and non-genetic inheritance of adaptive parental responses as two complementary yet distinct and independent drivers of adaptive evolution. Both drivers are compatible with the Price equation; specifically, non-genetic inheritance of parental responses is captured by an often-neglected component of the Price equation. Our causal model is general and simplified, but can be adjusted flexibly in terms of variables and causal connections, depending on the research question and/or biological system. By revisiting the three examples given above, we show how to use it as a heuristic tool to clarify conceptual issues and to help design empirical research. In contrast to a gene-centric view defining evolution only in terms of genetic change, our generalised approach allows us to see evolution as a change in the whole causal structure, consisting not just of genetic but also of phenotypic and environmental variables.

Evolutionary causes as mechanisms: a critical analysis.

In this paper, we address the question whether a mechanistic approach can account for evolutionary causes. The last decade has seen a major attempt to account for natural selection as a mechanism. Nevertheless, we stress the relevance of broadening the debate by including the other evolutionary causes inside the mechanistic approach, in order to be a legitimate conceptual framework on the same footing as other approaches to evolutionary theory. We analyse the current debate on natural selection as a mechanism, and extend it to the rest of the evolutionary causes. We focus on three approaches that we call the stochastic view, the functional view, and the minimalist view. We argue that all of them are unable to account for evolutionary causes as mechanisms. It is concluded that the current mechanistic proposals cannot be accepted as a common framework for evolutionary causes. Finally, we outline some guidelines and requirements that any mechanistic proposal should meet in order to be applied to evolutionary theory.

The Principle of Stasis: Why drift is not a Zero-Cause Law.

This paper analyses the structure of evolutionary theory as a quasi-Newtonian theory and the need to establish a Zero-Cause Law. Several authors have postulated that the special character of drift is because it is the default behaviour or Zero-Cause Law of evolutionary systems, where change and not stasis is the normal state of them. For these authors, drift would be a Zero-Cause Law, the default behaviour and therefore a constituent assumption impossible to change without changing the system. I defend that drift's causal and explanatory power prevents it from being considered as a Zero-Cause Law. Instead, I propose that the default behaviour of evolutionary systems is what I call the Principle of Stasis, which posits that an evolutionary system where there is no selection, drift, mutation, migration, etc., and therefore no difference-maker, will not undergo any change (it will remain in stasis).