Search This Blog

Sunday, April 21, 2019

Ronald Fisher (modern evolutionary synthesis)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ronald Fisher

Youngronaldfisher2.JPG
Fisher in 1913
Born
Ronald Aylmer Fisher

17 February 1890
East Finchley, London, England, United Kingdom
Died29 July 1962 (aged 72)
ResidenceUnited Kingdom and Australia
NationalityBritish
EducationHarrow School
Alma materUniversity of Cambridge
Known forFisher's principle
Fisher information
Awards
Scientific career
FieldsStatistics, Genetics, and Evolutionary biology
Institutions
Academic advisorsJames Hopwood Jeans
F. J. M. Stratton[citation needed]
Doctoral students

Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher FRS (17 February 1890 – 29 July 1962) was a British statistician and geneticist. For his work in statistics, he has been described as "a genius who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science" and "the single most important figure in 20th century statistics". In genetics, his work used mathematics to combine Mendelian genetics and natural selection; this contributed to the revival of Darwinism in the early 20th-century revision of the theory of evolution known as the modern synthesis. For his contributions to biology, Fisher has been called "the greatest of Darwin’s successors".

From 1919 onward, he worked at the Rothamsted Experimental Station for 14 years; there, he analysed its immense data from crop experiments since the 1840s, and developed the analysis of variance (ANOVA). He established his reputation there in the following years as a biostatistician.

He is known as one of the three principal founders of population genetics. He outlined Fisher's principle, the Fisherian runaway and sexy son hypothesis theories of sexual selection. His contributions to statistics include the maximum likelihood, fiducial inference, the derivation of various sampling distributions, founding principles of the design of experiments, and much more.

Fisher held strong views on race. Throughout his life, he was a prominent supporter of eugenics, an interest which led to his work on statistics and genetics. Notably, he was a dissenting voice in UNESCO's statement The Race Question, insisting on racial differences.

Early life and education

As a child
 
Inverforth House North End Way NW3, where Fisher lived from 1896 to 1904
 
Fisher was born in East Finchley in London, England, into a middle-class household; his father, George, was a successful partner in Robinson & Fisher, auctioneers and fine art dealers. He was one of twins, with the other twin being still-born and grew up the youngest, with three sisters and one brother. From 1896 until 1904 they lived at Inverforth House in London, where English Heritage installed a blue plaque in 2002, before moving to Streatham. His mother, Kate, died from acute peritonitis when he was 14, and his father lost his business 18 months later.

Lifelong poor eyesight caused his rejection by the British Army for World War I, but also developed his ability to visualize problems in geometrical terms, not in writing mathematical solutions, or proofs. He entered Harrow School age 14 and won the school's Neeld Medal in mathematics. In 1909, he won a scholarship to study Mathematics at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. In 1912, he gained a First in Astronomy. In 1915 he published a paper The evolution of sexual preference on sexual selection and mate choice.

Career

During 1913–1919, Fisher worked for six years as a statistician in the City of London and taught physics and maths at a sequence of public schools, at the Thames Nautical Training College, and at Bradfield College. There he settled with his new bride, Eileen Guinness, with whom he had two sons and six daughters.

In 1918 he published "The Correlation Between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance", in which he introduced the term variance and proposed its formal analysis. He put forward a genetics conceptual model showing that continuous variation amongst phenotypic traits measured by biostatisticians could be produced by the combined action of many discrete genes and thus be the result of Mendelian inheritance. This was the first step towards establishing population genetics and quantitative genetics, which demonstrated that natural selection could change allele frequencies in a population, resulting in reconciling its discontinuous nature with gradual evolution. Joan Box, Fisher's biographer and daughter says that Fisher had resolved this problem already in 1911.

Rothamsted Experimental Station, 1919–1933

In 1919, he began working at the Rothamsted Experimental Station for 14 years, where he analysed its immense data from crop experiments since the 1840s, and developed the analysis of variance (ANOVA). In 1919, he was offered a position at the Galton Laboratory in University College London led by Karl Pearson, but instead accepted a temporary job at Rothamsted in Harpenden to investigate the possibility of analysing the vast amount of crop data accumulated since 1842 from the "Classical Field Experiments". He analysed the data recorded over many years and in 1921, published Studies in Crop Variation, and his first application of the analysis of variance ANOVA. In 1928, Joseph Oscar Irwin began a three-year stint at Rothamsted and became one of the first people to master Fisher's innovations. Between 1912 and 1922 Fisher recommended, analyzed (with flawed attempts at proofs) and vastly popularized Maximum likelihood.

On graduating from Cambridge University, 1912
 
The peacock tail in flight, the classic example of a Fisherian runaway
 
Rothamsted Research

Fisher's 1924 article On a distribution yielding the error functions of several well known statistics presented Pearson's chi-squared test and William Gosset's Student's t-distribution in the same framework as the Gaussian distribution and is where he developed Fisher's z-distribution a new statistical method, commonly used decades later as the F distribution. He pioneered the principles of the design of experiments and the statistics of small samples and the analysis of real data.

In 1925 he published Statistical Methods for Research Workers, one of the 20th century's most influential books on statistical methods. Fisher's method is a technique for data fusion or "meta-analysis" (analysis of analyses). This book also popularized the p-value, and plays a central role in his approach. Fisher proposes the level p=0.05, or a 1 in 20 chance of being exceeded by chance, as a limit for statistical significance, and applies this to a normal distribution (as a two-tailed test), thus yielding the rule of two standard deviations (on a normal distribution) for statistical significance. The 1.96, the approximate value of the 97.5 percentile point of the normal distribution used in probability and statistics, also originated in this book.
"The value for which P=.05, or 1 in 20, is 1.96 or nearly 2 ; it is convenient to take this point as a limit in judging whether a deviation is to be considered significant or not."
In Table 1 of the work, he gave the more precise value 1.959964.

In 1928, Fisher was the first to use diffusion equations to attempt to calculate the distribution of allele frequencies and the estimation of genetic linkage by maximum likelihood methods among populations.

In 1930, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection was first published by Clarendon Press and is dedicated to Leonard Darwin. A core work of the neo-Darwinian modern evolutionary synthesis, it helped define population genetics, which Fisher founded alongside Sewall Wright and J. B. S. Haldane, and revived Darwins neglected idea of sexual selection. One of Fisher's favorite aphorisms was "Natural selection is a mechanism for generating an exceedingly high degree of improbability."

Fisher's fame grew and he began to travel and lecture widely. In 1931, he spent six weeks at the Statistical Laboratory at Iowa State College where he gave three lectures per week, and met many American statisticians, including George W. Snedecor. He returned there again in 1936.[citation needed]

University College London, 1933–39

In 1933, Fisher became the head of the Department of Eugenics at University College London. In 1935, he published The Design of Experiments, which was "also fundamental, [and promoted] statistical technique and application... The mathematical justification of the methods was not stressed and proofs were often barely sketched or omitted altogether .... [This] led H.B. Mann to fill the gaps with a rigorous mathematical treatment". In this book Fisher also outlined the Lady tasting tea, now a famous design of a statistical randomized experiment which uses Fisher's exact test and is the original exposition of Fisher's notion of a null hypothesis.

The same year he also published a paper on fiducial inference and applied it to the Behrens–Fisher problem, the solution to which, proposed first by Walter Behrens and a few years later by Fisher, is the Behrens–Fisher distribution

In 1936 he introduced the Iris flower data set as an example of discriminant analysis.

In his 1937 paper The wave of advance of advantageous genes he proposed Fisher's equation in the context of population dynamics to describe the spatial spread of an advantageous allele and explored its travelling wave solutions. Out of this also came the Fisher–Kolmogorov equation. In 1937, he visited the Indian Statistical Institute in Calcutta, and its one part-time employee, P. C. Mahalanobis, often returning to encourage its development. He was the guest of honour at its 25th anniversary in 1957, when it had 2000 employees.

In 1938, Fisher and Frank Yates described the Fisher–Yates shuffle in their book Statistical tables for biological, agricultural and medical research. Their description of the algorithm used pencil and paper; a table of random numbers provided the randomness.

University of Cambridge, 1940–1956

In 1943, along with A.S. Corbet and C.B. Williams he published a paper on relative species abundance where he developed the logseries to fit two different abundance data sets In the same year he took the Balfour Chair of Genetics where the Italian researcher Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza was recruited in 1948, establishing a one-man unit of bacterial genetics.

In 1936, Fisher used a Pearson's chi-squared test to analyze Mendel's data and concluded that Mendel's results with the predicted ratios were far too perfect, suggesting that adjustments (intentional or unconscious) had been made to the data to make the observations fit the hypothesis. Later authors have claimed Fisher's analysis was flawed, proposing various statistical and botanical explanations for Mendel's numbers. In 1947, Fisher cofounded the journal Heredity with Cyril Darlington and in 1949 he published The Theory of Inbreeding.
 
In 1950 he published "Gene Frequencies in a Cline Determined by Selection and Diffusion" on the wave of advance of advantageous genes and on clines of gene frequency, being notable as the first application of a computer, the EDSAC, to biology. He developed computational algorithms for analyzing data from his balanced experimental designs, with various editions and translations, becoming a standard reference work for scientists in many disciplines. In ecological genetics he and E. B. Ford showed how the force of natural selection was much stronger than had been assumed, with many ecogenetic situations (such as polymorphism) being maintained by the force of selection.

During this time he also worked on mouse chromosome mapping; breeding the mice in laboratories in his own house.

Fisher publicly spoke out against the 1950 study showing that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer, arguing that correlation does not imply causation. To quote his biographers Yates and Mather, "It has been suggested that the fact that Fisher was employed as consultant by the tobacco firms in this controversy casts doubt on the value of his arguments. This is to misjudge the man. He was not above accepting financial reward for his labours, but the reason for his interest was undoubtedly his dislike and mistrust of puritanical tendencies of all kinds; and perhaps also the personal solace he had always found in tobacco."

He gave the 1953 Croonian lecture on population genetics.

In the winter of 1954–1955 Fisher met Debabrata Basu, the Indian statistician who wrote in 1988, "With his reference set argument, Sir Ronald was trying to find a via media between the two poles of Statistics – Berkeley and Bayes. My efforts to understand this Fisher compromise led me to the likelihood principle".

Adelaide, 1957–1962

Memorial plaque over his mortal remains, lectern-side aisle of St Peter's Cathedral, Adelaide
 
In 1957, a retired Fisher emigrated to Australia, where he spent time as a senior research fellow at the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Adelaide. He died there in 1962, and his remains were interred within St Peter's Cathedral, Adelaide.

Personal life and beliefs

He married Eileen Guinness, with whom he had two sons and six daughters. His marriage disintegrated during World War II, and his oldest son George, an aviator, was killed in combat. His daughter Joan, who wrote a biography of her father, married the noted statistician George E. P. Box.

Stained glass window in the dining hall of Caius College, in Cambridge, commemorating Ronald Fisher and representing a Latin square, discussed by him in The Design of Experiments
 
According to Yates and Mather, "His large family, in particular, reared in conditions of great financial stringency, was a personal expression of his genetic and evolutionary convictions." Fisher was noted for being loyal, and was seen as a patriot, a member of the Church of England, politically conservative, as well as a scientific rationalist. He developed a reputation for carelessness in his dress and was the archetype of the absent-minded professor. H. Allen Orr describes him in the Boston Review as a "deeply devout Anglican who, between founding modern statistics and population genetics, penned articles for church magazines". In a 1955 broadcast on Science and Christianity,[3] he said:

The custom of making abstract dogmatic assertions is not, certainly, derived from the teaching of Jesus, but has been a widespread weakness among religious teachers in subsequent centuries. I do not think that the word for the Christian virtue of faith should be prostituted to mean the credulous acceptance of all such piously intended assertions. Much self-deception in the young believer is needed to convince himself that he knows that of which in reality he knows himself to be ignorant. That surely is hypocrisy, against which we have been most conspicuously warned.

Parapsychology

Fisher was involved with the Society for Psychical Research.

Eugenics

As a steward at the First International Eugenics Conference, 1912
 
In 1910 Fisher joined the Eugenics Society (UK) at University of Cambridge, whose members included John Maynard Keynes, R. C. Punnett, and Horace Darwin. He saw eugenics as addressing pressing social and scientific issues that encompassed and drove his interest in both genetics and statistics. During World War I Fisher started writing book reviews for the Eugenic Review and volunteered to undertake all such reviews for the journal, being hired for a part-time position.

The last third of The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection focussed on eugenics, attributing the fall of civilizations to the fertility of their upper classes being diminished, and used British 1911 census data to show an inverse relationship between fertility and social class, partly due, he claimed, to the lower financial costs and hence increasing social status of families with fewer children. He proposed the abolition of extra allowances to large families, with the allowances proportional to the earnings of the father. He served in several official committees to promote eugenics. In 1934, he resigned from the Eugenics Society over a dispute about increasing the power of scientists within the movement.

Race

In 1950, Fisher opposed UNESCO's The Race Question, believing that evidence and everyday experience showed that human groups differ profoundly "in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" and concluded that the "practical international problem is that of learning to share the resources of this planet amicably with persons of materially different nature", and that "this problem is being obscured by entirely well-intentioned efforts to minimize the real differences that exist". The revised statement titled "The Race Concept: Results of an Inquiry" (1951) was accompanied by Fisher's dissenting commentary.

Legacy

Fisher's former doctoral students include Walter Bodmer, D. J. Finney, Mary F. Lyon, and C. R. Rao.  Although a prominent opponent of Bayesian statistics, Fisher was the first to use the term "Bayesian", in 1950. The 1930 The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection is commonly cited in biology books, and outlines many important concepts, such as:
Fisher is also known for:

Recognition

Fisher was elected to the Royal Society in 1929. He was made a Knight Bachelor by Queen Elizabeth II in 1952 and awarded the Linnean Society of London Darwin–Wallace Medal in 1958.

He won Copley Medal and the Royal Medal. He was an Invited Speaker of the ICM in 1924 in Toronto and in 1928 in Bologna.

In 1950, Maurice Wilkes and David Wheeler used the Electronic Delay Storage Automatic Calculator to solve a differential equation relating to gene frequencies in a paper by Ronald Fisher. This represents the first use of a computer for a problem in the field of biology. The Kent distribution (also known as the Fisher–Bingham distribution) was named after him and Christopher Bingham in 1982 while Fisher kernel was named after Fisher in 1998.

The R. A. Fisher Lectureship is a North American annual lecture prize, established in 1963. On 28 April 1998 a minor planet, 21451 Fisher, was named after him.

Anders Hald called Fisher "a genius who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science", while Richard Dawkins named him "the greatest biologist since Darwin":
Not only was he the most original and constructive of the architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, Fisher also was the father of modern statistics and experimental design. He therefore could be said to have provided researchers in biology and medicine with their most important research tools, as well as with the modern version of biology's central theorem.
Geoffrey Miller said of him:
To biologists, he was an architect of the "modern synthesis" that used mathematical models to integrate Mendelian genetics with Darwin's selection theories. To psychologists, Fisher was the inventor of various statistical tests that are still supposed to be used whenever possible in psychology journals. To farmers, Fisher was the founder of experimental agricultural research, saving millions from starvation through rational crop breeding programs.

Mutationism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Painting of Hugo de Vries, making a painting of an evening primrose, the plant which had apparently produced new forms by large mutations in his experiments, by Thérèse Schwartze, 1918
 
Mutationism is one of several alternatives to evolution by natural selection that have existed both before and after the publication of Charles Darwin's 1859 book, On the Origin of Species. In the theory, mutation was the source of novelty, creating new forms and new species, potentially instantaneously, in sudden jumps. This was envisaged as driving evolution, which was thought to be limited by the supply of mutations.

Before Darwin, biologists commonly believed in saltationism, the possibility of large evolutionary jumps, including immediate speciation. For example, in 1822 Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire argued that species could be formed by sudden transformations, or what would later be called macromutation. Darwin opposed saltation, insisting on gradualism in evolution as in geology (uniformitarianism). In 1864, Albert von Kölliker revived Geoffroy's theory. In 1901 the geneticist Hugo de Vries gave the name "mutation" to seemingly new forms that suddenly arose in his experiments on the evening primrose Oenothera lamarckiana, and in the first decade of the 20th century, mutationism, or as de Vries named it mutationstheorie, became a rival to Darwinism supported for a while by geneticists including William Bateson, Thomas Hunt Morgan, and Reginald Punnett.

Understanding of mutationism is clouded by the mid-20th century portrayal of the early mutationists by supporters of the modern synthesis as opponents of Darwinian evolution and rivals of the biometrics school who argued that selection operated on continuous variation. In this portrayal, mutationism was defeated by a synthesis of genetics and natural selection that supposedly started later, around 1918, with work by the mathematician Ronald Fisher. However, the alignment of Mendelian genetics and natural selection began as early as 1902 with a paper by Udny Yule, and built up with theoretical and experimental work in Europe and America. Despite the controversy, the early mutationists had by 1918 already accepted natural selection and explained continuous variation as the result of multiple genes acting on the same characteristic, such as height.

Mutationism, along with other alternatives to Darwinism like Lamarckism and orthogenesis, was discarded by most biologists as they came to see that Mendelian genetics and natural selection could readily work together; mutation took its place as a source of the genetic variation essential for natural selection to work on. However, mutationism did not entirely vanish. In 1940, Richard Goldschmidt again argued for single-step speciation by macromutation, describing the organisms thus produced as "hopeful monsters", earning widespread ridicule. In 1987, Masatoshi Nei argued controversially that evolution was often mutation-limited. Modern biologists such as Douglas J. Futuyma conclude that essentially all claims of evolution driven by large mutations can be explained by Darwinian evolution.

Developments leading up to mutationism

Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire believed that "monstrosities" could immediately found new species in a single large jump or saltation.

Geoffroy's monstrosities, 1822

Prior to Charles Darwin, most naturalists were saltationists, believing that species evolved and that speciation took place in sudden jumps. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a gradualist but similar to other scientists of the period had written that saltational evolution was possible.

In 1822, in the second volume of his Philosophie anatomique, Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire endorsed a theory of saltational evolution that "monstrosities could become the founding fathers (or mothers) of new species by instantaneous transition from one form to the next." Geoffroy wrote that environmental pressures could produce sudden transformations to establish new species instantaneously.

Darwin's anti-saltationist gradualism, 1859

In his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin denied saltational evolution. He argued that evolutionary transformation always proceeds gradually, never in jumps: "natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight successive favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short steps". Darwin continued in this belief throughout his life.

Rudolph Albert von Kölliker revived Geoffroy's saltationist ideas, calling his theory heterogenesis. It depended on a nonmaterial directive force (orthogenesis).
 
Thomas Henry Huxley warned Darwin that he had taken on "an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum ["Nature does not take leaps"] so unreservedly." Huxley feared this assumption could discourage naturalists (catastrophists) who believed that major leaps and cataclysms played a significant role in the history of life.

von Kölliker's heterogenesis, 1864

In 1864 Albert von Kölliker revived Geoffroy's theory that evolution proceeds by large steps, under the name of heterogenesis, but this time assuming the influence of a nonmaterial force to direct the course of evolution.

Galton's "sports", 1892

Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, considered Darwin's evidence for evolution, and came to an opposite conclusion about the type of variation on which natural selection must act. He carried out his own experiments and published a series of papers and books setting out his views. Already by 1869 when he published Hereditary Genius, he believed in evolution by saltation. In his 1889 book Natural Inheritance he argued that natural selection would benefit from accepting that the steps need not, as Darwin had stated, be minute. In his 1892 book Finger Prints, he stated directly that "The progress of evolution is not a smooth and uniform progression, but one that proceeds by jerks, through successive 'sports' (as they are called), some of them implying considerable organic changes; and each in its turn being favoured by Natural Selection".

From 1860 to 1880 saltation had been a minority viewpoint, to the extent that Galton felt his writings were being universally ignored. By 1890 it became a widely held theory, and his views helped to launch a major controversy.

Drawing of William Bateson, 1909, by the biologist Dennis G. Lillie

Bateson's discontinuous variation, 1894

William Bateson's 1894 book Materials for the Study of Variation, Treated with Especial Regard to Discontinuity in the Origin of Species marked the arrival of mutationist thinking, before the rediscovery of Mendel's laws. He examined discontinuous variation (implying a form of saltation) where it occurred naturally, following William Keith Brooks, Galton, Thomas Henry Huxley and St. George Jackson Mivart.

Early 20th century mutationism

De Vries and Mendelian mutationstheorie, 1901

The main principle of the mutation theory is that species and varieties have originated by mutation, but are, at present, not known to have originated in any other way. — Hugo de Vries
Hugo de Vries's careful 1901 studies of wild variants of the evening primrose Oenothera lamarckiana showed that distinct new forms could arise suddenly in nature, apparently at random, and could be propagated for many generations without dissipation or blending. He gave such changes the name "mutation". By this, de Vries meant that a new form of the plant was created in a single step (not the same as a mutation in the modern sense); no long period of natural selection was required for speciation, and nor was reproductive isolation. In the view of the historian of science Peter J. Bowler, De Vries used the term to mean
large-scale genetic changes capable of producing a new subspecies, or even species, instantaneously.
The historian of science Betty Smocovitis described mutationism as
the case of purported saltatory evolution that Hugo de Vries had mistakenly interpreted for the evening primrose, Oenothera.
De Vries set out his position, known as Mutationstheorie (mutation theory) on the creative nature of mutation in his 1905 book Species and Varieties: their Origin by Mutation. In the view of the historian of science Edward Larson, de Vries was the person largely responsible for transforming Victorian era saltationism into early 20th century mutation theory, "and in doing so pushed Darwinism near the verge of extinction as a viable scientific theory".

Johannsen's "pure line" experiments, 1903

Wilhelm Johannsen's "pure line" experiments seemed to show that evolution could not work on continuous variation.
 
In the early 1900s, Darwin's mechanism of natural selection was understood by believers in continuous variation, principally the biometricians Walter Weldon and Karl Pearson, to be able to work on a continuously varying characteristic, whereas de Vries argued that selection on such characteristics would be ineffective. Wilhelm Johannsen's "pure line" experiments on Phaseolus vulgaris beans appeared to refute this mechanism. Using the true-breeding Princess variety of bean, carefully inbred within weight classes, Johannsen's work appeared to support de Vries. The offspring had a smooth random distribution. Johanssen believed that his results showed that continuous variability was not inherited, so evolution must rely on discontinuous mutations, as de Vries had argued. Johanssen published his work in Danish in a 1903 paper Om arvelighed i samfund og i rene linier (On inheritance in populations and in pure lines), and in his 1905 book Arvelighedslærens Elementer (The Elements of Heredity).

Punnett's mimicry, 1915

Papilio polytes has 3 forms with differing wing patterns, here the "Romulus" morph. Reginald Punnett argued that this polymorphism demonstrated discontinuous evolution. However, Ronald Fisher showed that this could have arisen by small changes in additional modifier genes.
 
In 1915, Reginald Punnett argued in his book Mimicry in Butterflies that the 3 morphs (forms) of the butterfly Papilio polytes, which mimic different host species of butterfly, demonstrated discontinuous evolution in action. The different forms existed in a stable polymorphism controlled by 2 Mendelian factors (genes). The alleles of these genes were certainly discontinuous, so Punnett supposed that they must have evolved in discontinuous leaps.

The undermining of mutationism

Yule's analysis of Mendelism and continuous variation, 1902

The undermining of mutationism began almost at once, in 1902, as the statistician Udny Yule analysed Mendel's theory and showed that given full dominance of one allele over another, a 3:1 ratio of alleles would be sustained indefinitely. This meant that the recessive allele could remain in the population with no need to invoke mutation. He also showed that given multiple factors, Mendel's theory enabled continuous variation, as indeed Mendel had suggested, removing the central plank of the mutationist theory, and criticised Bateson's confrontational approach. However, the "excellent" paper did not prevent the Mendelians and the biometricians from falling out.

Nilsson-Ehle's experiments on Mendelian inheritance and continuous variation, 1908

The Swedish geneticist H. Nilsson-Ehle demonstrated in 1908, in a paper published in German in a Swedish journal, Einige Ergebnisse von Kreuzungen bei Hafer und Weizen (Observations on Crosses in Oats and Wheat), that continuous variation could readily be produced by multiple Mendelian genes. He found numerous Mendelian 3:1 ratios, implying a dominant and a recessive allele, in oats and wheat; a 15:1 ratio for a cross of oat varieties with black and white glumes respectively, implying two pairs of alleles (two Mendelian factors); and that crossing a red-grained Swedish velvet wheat with a white one gave in the third (F3) generation the complex signature of ratios expected of three factors at once, with 37 grains giving only red offspring, 8 giving 63:1 in their offspring, 12 giving 15:1, and 6 giving 3:1. There weren't any grains giving all white, but as he had only expected 1 of those in his sample, 0 was not an unlikely outcome. Genes could clearly combine in almost infinite combinations: ten of his factors allowed for almost 60,000 different forms, with no need to suppose that any new mutations were involved. The results implied that natural selection would work on Mendelian genes, helping to bring about the unification of Darwinian evolution and genetics.

Similar work in America by Edward East on maize in 1910 showed the same thing for biologists without access to Nilsson-Ehle's work. On the same theme, the mathematician Ronald Fisher published "The Correlation Between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance" in 1918, again showing that continuous variation could readily be produced by multiple Mendelian genes. It showed, too, that Mendelian inheritance had no essential link with mutationism: Fisher stressed that small variations (per gene) would be sufficient for natural selection to drive evolution.

Castle's selection experiments on hooded rats, 1911

Starting in 1906, William Castle carried out a long study of the effect of selection on coat colour in rats. The piebald or hooded pattern was recessive to the grey wild type. He crossed hooded rats with the black-backed Irish type, and then back-crossed the offspring with pure hooded rats. The dark stripe on the back was bigger. He then tried selecting different groups for bigger or smaller stripes for 5 generations, and found that it was possible to change the characteristics way beyond the initial range of variation. This effectively refuted de Vries's claim that continuous variation could not be inherited permanently, requiring new mutations. By 1911 Castle noted that the results could be explained by Darwinian selection on heritable variation of Mendelian genes.

Morgan's small Mendelian genes in Drosophila, 1912

Thomas Hunt Morgan's work on Drosophila melanogaster found many small Mendelian factors for natural selection to work on.
 
By 1912, after years of work on the genetics of Drosophila fruit flies, Thomas Hunt Morgan showed that these animals had many small Mendelian factors on which Darwinian evolution could work as if variation was fully continuous. The way was open for geneticists to conclude that Mendelism supported Darwinism.

Muller's balanced lethal explanation of Oenothera "mutations", 1918

De Vries's mutationism was dealt a serious if not fatal blow in 1918 by the American geneticist Hermann Joseph Muller. He compared the behaviour of balanced lethals in Drosophila with De Vries's supposed mutations in Oenothera, showing that they could work the same way. No actual mutations were involved, but infrequent chromosome crossovers accounted for the sudden appearance of traits which had been present in the genes all along.

Fisher's explanation of polymorphism, 1927

In 1927, Fisher explicitly attacked Punnett's 1915 theory of discontinuous evolution of mimicry. Fisher argued that selection acting on genes making small modifications to the butterfly's phenotype (its appearance) would allow the multiple forms of a polymorphism to be established.

Later mutationist theories

The understanding that Mendelian genetics could both preserve discrete variations indefinitely, and support continuous variation for natural selection to work on gradually, meant that most biologists from around 1918 onwards accepted natural selection as the driving force of evolution. Mutationism and other alternatives to evolution by natural selection did not however vanish entirely.

Berg's nomogenesis, 1922

Lev Berg proposed a combination of mutationism and directed (orthogenetic) evolution in his 1922 book Nomogenesis; or, Evolution Determined by Law. He used evidence from paleontology, zoology, and botany to argue that natural selection had limitations which set a direction for evolution. He claimed that speciation was caused by "mass transformation of a great number of individuals" by directed mass mutations.

John Christopher Willis's The Course of Evolution by Differentiation Or Divergent Mutation Rather Than by Selection, 1940

Willis's macromutations, 1923

In 1923, the botanist John Christopher Willis proposed that species were formed by large mutations, not gradual evolution by natural selection, and that evolution was driven by orthogenesis, which he called "differentiation", rather than by natural selection.

Goldschmidt's hopeful monsters, 1940

Masatoshi Nei argues that evolution is often mutation-limited.
 
In his 1940 book The Material Basis of Evolution, the German geneticist Richard Goldschmidt argued for single-step speciation by macromutation, describing the organisms thus produced as "hopeful monsters". Goldschmidt's thesis was universally rejected and widely ridiculed by biologists, who favoured the neo-Darwinian explanations of Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane and Sewall Wright. However, interest in Goldschmidt's ideas has reawakened in the field of evolutionary developmental biology.

Nei's mutation-driven evolution, 1987

Contemporary biologists accept that mutation and selection both play roles in evolution; the mainstream view is that while mutation supplies material for selection in the form of variation, all non-random outcomes are caused by natural selection. Masatoshi Nei argues instead that the production of more efficient genotypes by mutation is fundamental for evolution, and that evolution is often mutation-limited. Nei's book received thoughtful reviews; while Wright, in the conservative journal Evolution, rejected Nei's thinking as mistaken, Galtier, Weiss, Stoltzfus, and Wagner, although not necessarily agreeing with Nei's position, treated it as a relevant alternative view.

Contemporary approaches

Reviewing the history of macroevolutionary theories, the American evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma notes that since 1970, two very different alternatives to Darwinian gradualism have been proposed, both by Stephen Jay Gould: mutationism, and punctuated equilibria. Gould's macromutation theory gave a nod to his predecessor with an envisaged "Goldschmidt break" between evolution within a species and speciation. His advocacy of Goldschmidt was attacked with "highly unflattering comments" by Brian Charlesworth, and Alan Templeton. Futuyma concludes, following other biologists reviewing the field such as K.Sterelny and A. Minelli, that essentially all the claims of evolution driven by large mutations could be explained within the Darwinian evolutionary synthesis. James A. Shapiro's claim that molecular genetics undermines Darwinism has been described as mutationism and an extreme view by the zoologist Andy Gardner.

Multiple explanations have been offered since the 19th century for how evolution took place, given that many scientists initially had objections to natural selection. Many of these, including mutationism, led to some form of orthogenesis (solid blue arrows), with or without theistic intervention (dotted blue arrows). Better understanding of mutation led instead (dashed orange arrows) to the modern synthesis of Mendelian genetics with natural selection, establishing Darwinian evolution throughout biology.

Historiography

Biologists at the start of the 20th century broadly agreed that evolution occurred, but felt that the mechanisms suggested by Darwin, including natural selection, would be ineffective. Large mutations looked likely to drive evolution quickly, and avoided the difficulty which had rightly worried Darwin, namely that blending inheritance would average out any small favourable changes. Further, large saltatory mutation, able to create species in a single step, offered a ready explanation of why the fossil record should contain large discontinuities and times of rapid change.

These discoveries were often framed by supporters of the mid-20th century modern synthesis, such as Julian Huxley and Ernst Mayr, as a controversy between the early geneticists—the "Mendelians"—including Bateson, Johannsen, de Vries, Morgan, and Punnett, who advocated Mendelism and mutation, and were understood as opponents of Darwin's original gradualist view, and the biometricians such as Pearson and Weldon, who opposed Mendelism and were more faithful to Darwin. In this version, little progress was made during the eclipse of Darwinism, and the debate between mutationist geneticists such as de Vries and biometricians such as Pearson ended with the victory of the modern synthesis between about 1918 and 1950. According to this account, the new population genetics of the 1940s demonstrated the explanatory power of natural selection, while mutationism, alongside other non-Darwinian approaches such as orthogenesis and structuralism, was essentially abandoned. This view became dominant in the second half of the 20th century, and was accepted by both biologists and historians.

A more recent view, advocated by the historians Arlin Stoltzfus and Kele Cable, is that Bateson, de Vries, Morgan and Punnett had by 1918 formed a synthesis of Mendelism and mutationism. The understanding achieved by these geneticists spanned the action of natural selection on alleles (alternative forms of a gene), the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, the evolution of continuously-varying traits (like height), and the probability that a new mutation will become fixed. In this view, the early geneticists accepted natural selection alongside mutation, but rejected Darwin's non-Mendelian ideas about variation and heredity, and the synthesis began soon after 1900. The traditional claim that Mendelians rejected the idea of continuous variation outright is simply false; as early as 1902, Bateson and Edith Saunders wrote that "If there were even so few as, say, four or five pairs of possible allelomorphs, the various homo- and hetero-zygous combinations might, on seriation, give so near an approach to a continuous curve, that the purity of the elements would be unsuspected".

Historians have interpreted the history of mutationism in different ways.The classical view is that mutationism, opposed to Darwin's gradualism, was an obvious error; the decades-long delay in synthesizing genetics and Darwinism is an "inexplicable embarrassment"; genetics led logically to the modern synthesis and mutationism was one of several anti-Darwinian "blind alleys" separate from the main line leading from Darwin to the present. A revisionist view is that mutationists accepted both mutation and selection, with broadly the same roles they have today, and early on accepted and indeed offered a correct explanation for continuous variation based on multiple genes, paving the way for gradual evolution. At the time of the Darwin centennial in Cambridge in 1909, mutationism and Lamarckism were contrasted with natural selection as competing ideas; 50 years later, at the 1959 University of Chicago centennial of the publication of On the Origin of Species, mutationism was no longer seriously considered.

Classical radicalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cla...