One of the most remarkable aspects of John Maynard Smith’s work was the fact that he devoted time both to doing science and to reflecting philosophically upon its methods and concepts. In this paper I offer a philosophical analysis of Maynard Smith’s approach to modelling phenotypic evolution in relation to three main themes. The first concerns the type of scientific understanding that ESS and optimality models give us. The second concerns the causal–historical aspect of stability analyses of adaptation. The third (...) concerns the concept of evolutionary stability itself. Taken together, these three themes comprise what I call the natural philosophy of adaptation. (shrink)

The Segregation Distorter (SD) system of Drosophila melanogaster is one the best‐characterized meiotic drive complexes known. SD gains an unfair transmission advantage through heterozygous SD/SD+ males by incapacitating SD+‐bearing spermatids so that virtually all progeny inherit SD. Segregation distorter (Sd), the primary distorting locus in the SD complex, is a truncated duplication of the RanGAP gene, a major regulator of the small GTPase Ran, which has several functions including the maintenance of the nucleocytoplasmic RanGTP concentration gradient that mediates nuclear transport. (...) The truncated Sd‐RanGAP protein is enzymatically active but mislocalizes to the nucleus where it somehow causes distortion. Here I present data consistent with the idea that wild‐type RanGAP, and possibly other loci able to influence the RanGTP gradient, has been caught up in an ancient genetic conflict that predates the SD complex. The legacy of this conflict could include the unexpectedly rapid evolution of nuclear transport‐related proteins, the accumulation of chromosomal inversions, the recruitment of gene duplications, and the turnover of repetitive sequences in the centric heterochromatin. BioEssays 29:386–391, 2007. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

This is the second of a two-part essay on the history of debates concerning the creativity of natural selection, from Darwin through the evolutionary synthesis and up to the present. In the first part, I focussed on the mid-late nineteenth century to the early twentieth, with special emphasis on early Darwinism and its critics, the self-styled “mutationists.” The second part focuses on the evolutionary synthesis and some of its critics, especially the “neutralists” and “neo-mutationists.” Like Stephen Gould, I consider the (...) creativity of natural selection to be a key component of what has traditionally counted as “Darwinism.” I argue that the creativity of natural selection is best understood in terms of selection initiating evolutionary change, and selection directing evolutionary change, for example by creating the variation that it subsequently acts upon. I consider the respects in which both of these claims sound non-Darwinian, even though they have long been understood by supporters and critics alike to be virtually constitutive of Darwinism. (shrink)