scholarly journals A Reframing of Trait–Demographic Rate Analyses for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

2020 ◽  
Vol 181 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan G. Swenson ◽  
Samantha J. Worthy ◽  
Damani Eubanks ◽  
Yoshiko Iida ◽  
Logan Monks ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Demographic Rate

Gene trees: A powerful tool for exploring the evolutionary biology of species and speciation

2000 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan R. Templeton ◽  
Stephanie D. Maskas ◽  
Mitchell B. Cruzan
Keyword(s):  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Gene Trees

Darwin's two competing phylogenetic trees: marsupials as ancestors or sister taxa?

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. David Archibald
Keyword(s):  
Fossil Record ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Phylogenetic Trees ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
The Other ◽  
Charles Lyell ◽  
Single Origin ◽  
Molecular Studies ◽  
Richard Owen ◽  
First Time

Studies of the origin and diversification of major groups of plants and animals are contentious topics in current evolutionary biology. This includes the study of the timing and relationships of the two major clades of extant mammals – marsupials and placentals. Molecular studies concerned with marsupial and placental origin and diversification can be at odds with the fossil record. Such studies are, however, not a recent phenomenon. Over 150 years ago Charles Darwin weighed two alternative views on the origin of marsupials and placentals. Less than a year after the publication of On the origin of species, Darwin outlined these in a letter to Charles Lyell dated 23 September 1860. The letter concluded with two competing phylogenetic diagrams. One showed marsupials as ancestral to both living marsupials and placentals, whereas the other showed a non-marsupial, non-placental as being ancestral to both living marsupials and placentals. These two diagrams are published here for the first time. These are the only such competing phylogenetic diagrams that Darwin is known to have produced. In addition to examining the question of mammalian origins in this letter and in other manuscript notes discussed here, Darwin confronted the broader issue as to whether major groups of animals had a single origin (monophyly) or were the result of “continuous creation” as advocated for some groups by Richard Owen. Charles Lyell had held similar views to those of Owen, but it is clear from correspondence with Darwin that he was beginning to accept the idea of monophyly of major groups.

Homology, Genes, and Evolutionary Innovation

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Günter P. Wagner
Keyword(s):  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Regulatory Networks ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Cell Types ◽  
Origin And Evolution ◽  
Major Transitions ◽  
Form And Function ◽  
Historical Continuity ◽  
Evolutionary Innovation ◽  
Character Identity

Homology—a similar trait shared by different species and derived from common ancestry, such as a seal's fin and a bird's wing—is one of the most fundamental yet challenging concepts in evolutionary biology. This book provides the first mechanistically based theory of what homology is and how it arises in evolution. The book argues that homology, or character identity, can be explained through the historical continuity of character identity networks—that is, the gene regulatory networks that enable differential gene expression. It shows how character identity is independent of the form and function of the character itself because the same network can activate different effector genes and thus control the development of different shapes, sizes, and qualities of the character. Demonstrating how this theoretical model can provide a foundation for understanding the evolutionary origin of novel characters, the book applies it to the origin and evolution of specific systems, such as cell types; skin, hair, and feathers; limbs and digits; and flowers. The first major synthesis of homology to be published in decades, this book reveals how a mechanistically based theory can serve as a unifying concept for any branch of science concerned with the structure and development of organisms, and how it can help explain major transitions in evolution and broad patterns of biological diversity.

Moving Forward

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Ruse
Keyword(s):  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Original Sin ◽  
Human History ◽  
Adam And Eve ◽  
Incarnational Theology ◽  
Constructive Engagement

The Augustinian vision of humankind, on which so much Christian thinking about war is based, is false. Thanks to Darwinian evolutionary biology we know there was no original couple, Adam and Eve; there was no eating of the apple; there is no original sin. We are not innately depraved in this way. Morbid fatalism is inappropriate. The killer-ape vision of humankind, on which so much Darwinian thinking about war is based, is equally false. Thanks to updated Darwinian evolutionary biology, we know that we did not evolve in the violent ways often presumed, and that in major respects we are designed to avoid war. Culture, particularly agriculture, changed much of that and war became common. Changing this is not to go against our nature. Naïve optimism is no more in place. There is hope of more constructive engagement between Christians and Darwinians. On the Christian side, there are alternative theologies to Augustinian Atonement theology, notable Incarnational theology, not dependent on a literal Adam and Eve. On the Darwinian side, there are fresh empirical findings and interpretations, with truer understandings of human history and nature. Perhaps now, together, we can move forward the debate on the nature and causes and possible ending of human warfare.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document