Koinophilia

Last updated
This leucistic Indian peacock, Pavo cristatus, is unlikely to find a mate and reproduce in a natural setting due to its unusual coloration. However, its striking colour is appreciated by humans, and may be included in artificial selective breeding to produce more individuals with the leucistic phenotype. Indian peafowl white mutation.jpg
This leucistic Indian peacock, Pavo cristatus, is unlikely to find a mate and reproduce in a natural setting due to its unusual coloration. However, its striking colour is appreciated by humans, and may be included in artificial selective breeding to produce more individuals with the leucistic phenotype.

Koinophilia is an evolutionary hypothesis proposing that during sexual selection, animals preferentially seek mates with a minimum of unusual or mutant features, including functionality, appearance and behavior. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Koinophilia intends to explain the clustering of sexual organisms into species and other issues described by Darwin's Dilemma. [3] [4] [5] The term derives from the Greek word koinos meaning "common" or "that which is shared", and philia, meaning "fondness".

Contents

Natural selection causes beneficial inherited features to become more common at the expense of their disadvantageous counterparts. The koinophilia hypothesis proposes that a sexually-reproducing animal would therefore be expected to avoid individuals with rare or unusual features, and to prefer to mate with individuals displaying a predominance of common or average features. [2] [3] Mutants with strange, odd or peculiar features would be avoided because most mutations that manifest themselves as changes in appearance, functionality or behavior are disadvantageous. [7] Because it is impossible to judge whether a new mutation is beneficial (or might be advantageous in the unforeseeable future) or not, koinophilic animals avoid them all, at the cost of avoiding the very occasional potentially beneficial mutation. [8] Thus, koinophilia, although not infallible in its ability to distinguish fit from unfit mates, is a good strategy when choosing a mate. A koinophilic choice ensures that offspring are likely to inherit a suite of features and attributes that have served all the members of the species well in the past. [3]

Koinophilia differs from the "like prefers like" mating pattern of assortative mating. [9] [10] If like preferred like, leucistic animals (such as white peacocks) would be sexually attracted to one another, and a leucistic subspecies would come into being. Koinophilia predicts that this is unlikely because leucistic animals are attracted to the average in the same way as are all the other members of its species. Since non-leucistic animals are not attracted by leucism, few leucistic individuals find mates, and leucistic lineages will rarely form.

Koinophilia provides simple explanations for the almost universal canalization of sexual creatures into species, [3] [4] [5] the rarity of transitional forms between species (between both extant and fossil species), [3] [4] evolutionary stasis, punctuated equilibria, [3] [4] [5] and the evolution of cooperation. [11] [12] Koinophilia might also contribute to the maintenance of sexual reproduction, preventing its reversion to the much simpler asexual form of reproduction. [13] [14]

The koinophilia hypothesis is supported by the findings of Judith Langlois and her co-workers. [2] [15] [16] [17] They found that the average of two human faces was more attractive than either of the faces from which that average was derived. [18] The more faces (of the same gender and age) that were used in the averaging process the more attractive and appealing the average face became. [19] This work into averageness [2] [15] [16] [20] supports koinophilia as an explanation of what constitutes a beautiful face. [17] [21] [22]

Speciation and punctuated equilibria

Biologists from Darwin onwards [23] have puzzled over how evolution produces species whose adult members look extraordinarily alike, and distinctively different from the members of other species. Lions and leopards are, for instance, both large carnivores that inhabit the same general environment, and hunt much the same prey, but look quite different. The question is why intermediates do not exist. [7] [24]

The overwhelming impression of strict uniformity, involving all the external features of the adult members of a species, is illustrated by this herd of Springbok, Antidorcas marsupialis, in the Kalahari Desert. This homogeneity in appearance is typical, and virtually diagnostic, of almost all species, and a great evolutionary mystery. Darwin emphasized individual variation, which is unquestionably present in any herd such as this, but is extraordinarily difficult to discern, even after long-term familiarity with the herd. Each individual needs to be uniquely and prominently tagged to follow its life history and interactions with the other (tagged) members of the population. Kgalagadi Springbok.JPG
The overwhelming impression of strict uniformity, involving all the external features of the adult members of a species, is illustrated by this herd of Springbok, Antidorcas marsupialis, in the Kalahari Desert. This homogeneity in appearance is typical, and virtually diagnostic, of almost all species, and a great evolutionary mystery. Darwin emphasized individual variation, which is unquestionably present in any herd such as this, but is extraordinarily difficult to discern, even after long-term familiarity with the herd. Each individual needs to be uniquely and prominently tagged to follow its life history and interactions with the other (tagged) members of the population.

This is the "horizontal" dimension of a two-dimensional problem, [28] [29] referring to the almost complete absence of transitional or intermediate forms between present-day species (e.g. between lions, leopards, and cheetahs). [24] [30] [31]

Speciation poses a "2-dimensional" problem. The discontinuities in appearance between existing species represent the "horizontal dimension" of the problem. The succession of fossil species represent the "vertical dimension". Species 01a.gif
Speciation poses a "2-dimensional" problem. The discontinuities in appearance between existing species represent the "horizontal dimension" of the problem. The succession of fossil species represent the "vertical dimension".

The "vertical" dimension concerns the fossil record. Fossil species are frequently remarkably stable over extremely long periods of geological time, despite continental drift, major climate changes, and mass extinctions. [32] [33] [34] When a change in form occurs, it tends to be abrupt in geological terms, again producing phenotypic gaps (i.e. an absence of intermediate forms), but now between successive species, which then often co-exist for long periods of time. Thus the fossil record suggests that evolution occurs in bursts, interspersed by long periods of evolutionary stagnation in so-called punctuated equilibria. [32] Why this is so has been an evolutionary enigma ever since Darwin first recognized the problem. [23] [34] [35]

Koinophilia could explain both the horizontal and vertical manifestations of speciation, and why it, as a general rule, involves the entire external appearance of the animals concerned. [3] [4] [5] Since koinophilia affects the entire external appearance, the members of an interbreeding group are driven to look alike in every detail. [25] [36] Each interbreeding group will rapidly develop its own characteristic appearance. [5] An individual from one group which wanders into another group will consequently be recognized as different, and will be discriminated against during the mating season. Reproductive isolation induced by koinophilia might thus be the first crucial step in the development of, ultimately, physiological, anatomical and behavioral barriers to hybridization, and thus, ultimately, full specieshood. Koinophilia will thereafter defend that species' appearance and behavior against invasion by unusual or unfamiliar forms (which might arise by immigration or mutation), and thus be a paradigm of punctuated equilibria (or the "vertical" aspect of the speciation problem). [3] [4]

Evolution under koinophilic conditions

Plants and domestic animals and can differ markedly from their wild ancestors
Maize-teosinte.jpg
Top: wild teosinte; middle: maize-teosinte hybrid; bottom: maize
Brassica oleracea0.jpg
Ancestral wild cabbage
Woolworths-cauliflower.jpg
Domesticated cauliflower
Carassius gibelio 2008 G2.jpg
Ancestral prussian carp
Gullfiskur.jpg
Domestic gold fish
Ovis orientalis LC0267.jpg
Ancestral mouflon
Pair of Icelandic Sheep.jpg
Domestic sheep
More detailed version of diagram on left by geographical area Hominidae miocene.svg
More detailed version of diagram on left by geographical area

Background

Evolution can be extremely rapid, as shown by the creation of domesticated animals and plants in a very short period of geological time, spanning only a few tens of thousands of years, by humans with little or no knowledge of genetics. Maize, Zea mays, for instance, was created in Mexico in only a few thousand years, starting about 7 000 to 12 000 years ago. [37] This raises the question of why the long term rate of evolution is far slower than is theoretically possible. [7] [32] [34] [38]

Evolution is imposed on species or groups. It is not planned or striven for in some Lamarckist way. [39] [40] The mutations on which the process depends are random events, and, except for the "silent mutations" which do not affect the functionality or appearance of the carrier, are thus usually disadvantageous, and their chance of proving to be useful in the future is vanishingly small. Therefore, while a species or group might benefit by being able to adapt to a new environment through the accumulation of a wide range of genetic variation, this is to the detriment of the individuals who have to carry these mutations until a small, unpredictable minority of them ultimately contributes to such an adaptation. Thus, the capability to evolve is a group adaptation, which has been discredited by, among others, George C. Williams, [41] John Maynard Smith [42] and Richard Dawkins. [43] [44] [45] [46] because it is not to the benefit of the individual.

Consequently, sexual individuals would be expected to avoid transmitting mutations to their progeny by avoiding mates with strange or unusual characteristics. [1] [2] [3] [5] Mutations that therefore affect the external appearance and habits of their carriers will seldom be passed on to the next and subsequent generations. They will therefore seldom be tested by natural selection. Evolutionary change in a large population with a wide choice of mates, will, therefore, come to a virtual standstill. The only mutations that can accumulate in a population are ones that have no noticeable effect on the outward appearance and functionality of their bearers (they are thus termed "silent" or "neutral mutations").

Evolutionary process

The restraint koinophilia exerts on phenotypic change suggests that evolution can only occur if mutant mates cannot be avoided as a result of a severe scarcity of potential mates. This is most likely to occur in small restricted communities, such as on small islands, in remote valleys, lakes, river systems, caves, [9] or during periods of glaciation, [47] or following mass extinctions, when sudden bursts of evolution can be expected. [48] Under these circumstances, not only is the choice of mates severely restricted, but population bottlenecks, founder effects, genetic drift and inbreeding cause rapid, random changes in the isolated population's genetic composition. [9] Furthermore, hybridization with a related species trapped in the same isolate might introduce additional genetic changes. [49] [50] If an isolated population such as this survives its genetic upheavals, and subsequently expands into an unoccupied niche, or into a niche in which it has an advantage over its competitors, a new species, or subspecies, will have come in being. In geological terms this will be an abrupt event. A resumption of avoiding mutant mates will, thereafter, result, once again, in evolutionary stagnation.

Thus the fossil record of an evolutionary progression typically consists of species that suddenly appear, and ultimately disappear hundreds of thousands or millions of years later, without any change in external appearance. [33] [35] [48] [51] Graphically, these fossil species are represented by horizontal lines, whose lengths depict how long each of them existed. The horizontality of the lines illustrates the unchanging appearance of each of the fossil species depicted on the graph. During each species' existence new species appear at random intervals, each also lasting many hundreds of thousands of years before disappearing without a change in appearance. The degree of relatedness and the lines of descent of these concurrent species is generally impossible to determine. This is illustrated in the following diagram depicting the evolution of modern humans from the time that the hominins separated from the line that led to the evolution of our closest living primate relatives, the chimpanzees. [51]

Distribution of Hominin species over time. For examples of similar evolutionary timelines see the paleontological list of African dinosaurs, Asian dinosaurs, the Lampriformes and the Amiiformes. Hominin evolution.jpg
Distribution of Hominin species over time. For examples of similar evolutionary timelines see the paleontological list of African dinosaurs, Asian dinosaurs, the Lampriformes and the Amiiformes.

Phenotypic implications

This proposal, that population bottlenecks are possibly the primary generators of the variation that fuels evolution, predicts that evolution will usually occur in intermittent, relatively large scale morphological steps, interspersed with prolonged periods of evolutionary stagnation, [52] instead of in a continuous series of finely graded changes. [53] However, it makes a further prediction. [4] Darwin emphasized that the shared biologically useless oddities and incongruities that characterize a species are signs of an evolutionary history – something that would not be expected if a bird's wing, for instance, was engineered de novo, as argued by his detractors. [54] The present model predicts that, in addition to vestiges which reflect an organism's evolutionary heritage, all the members of a given species will also bear the stamp of their isolationary past – arbitrary, random features, accumulated through founder effects, genetic drift and the other genetic consequences of sexual reproduction in small, isolated communities. [4] [55] Thus all lions, African and Asian, have a highly characteristic black tuft of fur at the end of their tails, which is difficult to explain in terms of an adaptation, or as a vestige from an early feline, or more ancient ancestor. The unique, often color- and pattern-rich plumage of each of today's wide variety of bird species presents a similar evolutionary enigma. This richly varied array of phenotypes is more easily explained as the products of isolates, subsequently defended by koinophilia, than as assemblies of very diverse evolutionary relics, or as sets of uniquely evolved adaptations.

Evolution of co-operation

Co-operation is any group behavior that benefits the individuals more than if they were to act as independent agents.

Co-operative hunting by wolves allows them to tackle much larger and more nutritious prey than any individual wolf could handle. However, such co-operation could be exploited by selfish individuals which do not expose themselves to the dangers of the hunt, but nevertheless share in the spoils. Canis lupus pack surrounding Bison.jpg
Co-operative hunting by wolves allows them to tackle much larger and more nutritious prey than any individual wolf could handle. However, such co-operation could be exploited by selfish individuals which do not expose themselves to the dangers of the hunt, but nevertheless share in the spoils.

However selfish individuals can exploit the co-operativeness of others by not taking part in the group activity, but still enjoying its benefits. For instance, a selfish individual which does not join the hunting pack and share in its risks, but nevertheless shares in the spoils, has a fitness advantage over the other members of the pack. Thus, although a group of co-operative individuals is fitter than an equivalent group of selfish individuals, selfish individuals interspersed among a community of co-operators are always fitter than their hosts. They will raise, on average, more offspring than their hosts, and will ultimately replace them. [43] [44] [45] [46]

If, however, the selfish individuals are ostracized, and rejected as mates, because of their deviant and unusual behavior, then their evolutionary advantage becomes an evolutionary liability. [3] Co-operation then becomes evolutionarily stable. [11] [12]

Effects of diets and environmental conditions

Male Drosophila pseudoobscura Drosophila pseudoobscura-Male.png
Male Drosophila pseudoobscura

The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster , using a maze with three different choices of habitat, such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies that came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas. [56] The history of such attempts is described in Rice and Hostert (1993). [57] [58]

Diane Dodd used a laboratory experiment to show how reproductive isolation can evolve in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after several generations by placing them in different media, starch- or maltose-based media. [59]

Drosophila speciation experiment.svg

Dodd's experiment has been easy for many others to replicate, including with other kinds of fruit flies and foods. [60]

A map of Europe indicating the distribution of the carrion and hooded crows on either side of a contact zone (white line) separating the two species Distribution of carrion and hooded crows across Europe.jpg
A map of Europe indicating the distribution of the carrion and hooded crows on either side of a contact zone (white line) separating the two species

The carrion crow (Corvus corone) and hooded crow (Corvus cornix) are two closely related species whose geographical distribution across Europe is illustrated in the accompanying diagram. It is believed that this distribution might have resulted from the glaciation cycles during the Pleistocene, which caused the parent population to split into isolates which subsequently re-expanded their ranges when the climate warmed causing secondary contact. [47] [61] Jelmer W. Poelstra and coworkers sequenced almost the entire genomes of both species in populations at varying distances from the contact zone to find that the two species were genetically identical, both in their DNA and in its expression (in the form of RNA), except for the lack of expression of a small portion (<0.28%) of the genome (situated on avian chromosome 18) in the hooded crow, which imparts the lighter plumage coloration on its torso. [47] Thus the two species can viably hybridize, and occasionally do so at the contact zone, but the all-black carrion crows on the one side of the contact zone mate almost exclusively with other all-black carrion crows, while the same occurs among the hooded crows on the other side of the contact zone. It is therefore clear that it is only the outward appearance of the two species that inhibits hybridization. [47] [61] The authors attribute this to assortative mating, the advantage of which is not clear, and it would lead to the rapid appearance of streams of new lineages, and possibly even species, through mutual attraction between mutants. Unnikrishnan and Akhila [62] propose, instead, that koinophilia is a more precise explanation for the resistance to hybridization across the contact zone, despite the absence of physiological, anatomical or genetic barriers to such hybridization.

Reception

William B. Miller, [5] in an extensive recent (2013) review of koinophilia theory, notes that while it provides precise explanations for the grouping of sexual animals into species, their unchanging persistence in the fossil record over long periods of time, and the phenotypic gaps between species, both fossil and extant, it represents a major departure from the widely accepted view that beneficial mutations spread, ultimately, to the whole, or some portion of the population (causing it to evolve gene by gene). [63] [64] Darwin recognized that this process had no inherent, or inevitable propensity to produce species. [24] [23] Instead populations would be in a perpetual state of transition both in time and space. [24] [23] They would, at any given moment, consist of individuals with varying numbers of beneficial characteristics that may or may not have reached them from their various points of origin in the population, and neutral features will have a scattering determined by random mechanisms such as genetic drift. [65] [66] [67]

He also notes that koinophilia provides no explanation as to how the physiological, anatomical and genetic causes of reproductive isolation come about. It is only the behavioral reproductive isolation that is addressed by koinophilia. It is furthermore difficult to see how koinophilia might apply to plants, and certain marine creatures that discharge their gametes into the environment to meet up and fuse, it seems, entirely randomly (within conspecific confines). However, when pollen from several compatible donors is used to pollinate stigmata, the donors typically do not sire equal numbers of seeds. [68] Marshall and Diggle state that the existence of some kind of non-random seed paternity is, in fact, not in question in flowering plants. How this occurs remains unknown. Pollen choice is one of the possibilities, [68] taking into account that 50% of the pollen grain's haploid genome is expressed during its tube's growth towards the ovule. [69]

The apparent preference of the females of certain, particularly bird, species for exaggerated male ornaments, such as the peacock's tail, [7] [70] [71] is not easily reconciled with the concept of koinophilia.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evolution</span> Change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations

Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. It occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection and genetic drift act on genetic variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more or less common within a population over successive generations. The process of evolution has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Natural selection</span> Mechanism of evolution by differential survival and reproduction of individuals

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection", contrasting it with artificial selection, which is intentional, whereas natural selection is not.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Punctuated equilibrium</span> Theory in evolutionary biology

In evolutionary biology, punctuated equilibrium is a theory that proposes that once a species appears in the fossil record, the population will become stable, showing little evolutionary change for most of its geological history. This state of little or no morphological change is called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sexual selection</span> Mode of natural selection involving the choosing of and competition for mates

Sexual selection is a mode of natural selection in which members of one biological sex choose mates of the other sex to mate with, and compete with members of the same sex for access to members of the opposite sex. These two forms of selection mean that some individuals have greater reproductive success than others within a population, for example because they are more attractive or prefer more attractive partners to produce offspring. Successful males benefit from frequent mating and monopolizing access to one or more fertile females. Females can maximise the return on the energy they invest in reproduction by selecting and mating with the best males.

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which populations evolve to become distinct species. The biologist Orator F. Cook coined the term in 1906 for cladogenesis, the splitting of lineages, as opposed to anagenesis, phyletic evolution within lineages. Charles Darwin was the first to describe the role of natural selection in speciation in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species. He also identified sexual selection as a likely mechanism, but found it problematic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Modern synthesis (20th century)</span> Fusion of natural selection with Mendelian inheritance

The modern synthesis was the early 20th-century synthesis of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and Gregor Mendel's ideas on heredity into a joint mathematical framework. Julian Huxley coined the term in his 1942 book, Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. The synthesis combined the ideas of natural selection, Mendelian genetics, and population genetics. It also related the broad-scale macroevolution seen by palaeontologists to the small-scale microevolution of local populations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evolutionary biology</span> Study of the processes that produced the diversity of life

Evolutionary biology is the subfield of biology that studies the evolutionary processes that produced the diversity of life on Earth. It is also defined as the study of the history of life forms on Earth. Evolution holds that all species are related and gradually change over generations. In a population, the genetic variations affect the phenotypes of an organism. These changes in the phenotypes will be an advantage to some organisms, which will then be passed on to their offspring. Some examples of evolution in species over many generations are the peppered moth and flightless birds. In the 1930s, the discipline of evolutionary biology emerged through what Julian Huxley called the modern synthesis of understanding, from previously unrelated fields of biological research, such as genetics and ecology, systematics, and paleontology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Index of evolutionary biology articles</span>

This is a list of topics in evolutionary biology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evolution of sexual reproduction</span> How sexually reproducing multicellular organisms could have evolved from a common ancestor species

Sexual reproduction is an adaptive feature which is common to almost all multicellular organisms and various unicellular organisms. Currently, the adaptive advantage of sexual reproduction is widely regarded as a major unsolved problem in biology. As discussed below, one prominent theory is that sex evolved as an efficient mechanism for producing variation, and this had the advantage of enabling organisms to adapt to changing environments. Another prominent theory, also discussed below, is that a primary advantage of outcrossing sex is the masking of the expression of deleterious mutations. Additional theories concerning the adaptive advantage of sex are also discussed below. Sex does, however, come with a cost. In reproducing asexually, no time nor energy needs to be expended in choosing a mate and, if the environment has not changed, then there may be little reason for variation, as the organism may already be well-adapted. However, very few environments have not changed over the millions of years that reproduction has existed. Hence it is easy to imagine that being able to adapt to changing environment imparts a benefit. Sex also halves the amount of offspring a given population is able to produce. Sex, however, has evolved as the most prolific means of species branching into the tree of life. Diversification into the phylogenetic tree happens much more rapidly via sexual reproduction than it does by way of asexual reproduction.

<i>Genetics and the Origin of Species</i> 1937 book by Theodosius Dobzhansky

Genetics and the Origin of Species is a 1937 book by the Ukrainian-American evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky. It is regarded as one of the most important works of modern synthesis and was one of the earliest. The book popularized the work of population genetics to other biologists and influenced their appreciation for the genetic basis of evolution. In his book, Dobzhansky applied the theoretical work of Sewall Wright (1889–1988) to the study of natural populations, allowing him to address evolutionary problems in a novel way during his time. Dobzhansky implements theories of mutation, natural selection, and speciation throughout his book to explain the habits of populations and the resulting effects on their genetic behavior. The book explains evolution in depth as a process over time that accounts for the diversity of all life on Earth. The study of evolution was present, but greatly neglected at the time. Dobzhansky illustrates that evolution regarding the origin and nature of species during this time in history was deemed mysterious, but had expanding potential for progress to be made in its field.

The gene-centered view of evolution, gene's eye view, gene selection theory, or selfish gene theory holds that adaptive evolution occurs through the differential survival of competing genes, increasing the allele frequency of those alleles whose phenotypic trait effects successfully promote their own propagation. The proponents of this viewpoint argue that, since heritable information is passed from generation to generation almost exclusively by DNA, natural selection and evolution are best considered from the perspective of genes.

Genetic load is the difference between the fitness of an average genotype in a population and the fitness of some reference genotype, which may be either the best present in a population, or may be the theoretically optimal genotype. The average individual taken from a population with a low genetic load will generally, when grown in the same conditions, have more surviving offspring than the average individual from a population with a high genetic load. Genetic load can also be seen as reduced fitness at the population level compared to what the population would have if all individuals had the reference high-fitness genotype. High genetic load may put a population in danger of extinction.

In biology, altruism refers to behaviour by an individual that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing their own. Altruism in this sense is different from the philosophical concept of altruism, in which an action would only be called "altruistic" if it was done with the conscious intention of helping another. In the behavioural sense, there is no such requirement. As such, it is not evaluated in moral terms—it is the consequences of an action for reproductive fitness that determine whether the action is considered altruistic, not the intentions, if any, with which the action is performed.

In physical attractiveness studies, averageness describes the physical beauty that results from averaging the facial features of people of the same gender and approximately the same age. The majority of averageness studies have focused on photographic overlay studies of human faces, in which images are morphed together. The term "average" is used strictly to denote the technical definition of the mathematical mean. An averaged face is not unremarkable, but is, in fact, quite good looking. Nor is it typical in the sense of common or frequently occurring in the population, though it appears familiar, and is typical in the sense that it is a good example of a face that is representative of the category of faces.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Introduction to evolution</span> Non-technical overview of the subject of biological evolution

In biology, evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs. Biological populations evolve through genetic changes that correspond to changes in the organisms' observable traits. Genetic changes include mutations, which are caused by damage or replication errors in organisms' DNA. As the genetic variation of a population drifts randomly over generations, natural selection gradually leads traits to become more or less common based on the relative reproductive success of organisms with those traits.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecological speciation</span>

Ecological speciation is a form of speciation arising from reproductive isolation that occurs due to an ecological factor that reduces or eliminates gene flow between two populations of a species. Ecological factors can include changes in the environmental conditions in which a species experiences, such as behavioral changes involving predation, predator avoidance, pollinator attraction, and foraging; as well as changes in mate choice due to sexual selection or communication systems. Ecologically-driven reproductive isolation under divergent natural selection leads to the formation of new species. This has been documented in many cases in nature and has been a major focus of research on speciation for the past few decades.

The rate of evolution is quantified as the speed of genetic or morphological change in a lineage over a period of time. The speed at which a molecular entity evolves is of considerable interest in evolutionary biology since determining the evolutionary rate is the first step in characterizing its evolution. Calculating rates of evolutionary change is also useful when studying phenotypic changes in phylogenetic comparative biology. In either case, it can be beneficial to consider and compare both genomic data and paleontological data, especially in regards to estimating the timing of divergence events and establishing geological time scales.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social selection</span> Term used in biology

Social selection is a term used with varying meanings in biology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of speciation</span>

The scientific study of speciation — how species evolve to become new species — began around the time of Charles Darwin in the middle of the 19th century. Many naturalists at the time recognized the relationship between biogeography and the evolution of species. The 20th century saw the growth of the field of speciation, with major contributors such as Ernst Mayr researching and documenting species' geographic patterns and relationships. The field grew in prominence with the modern evolutionary synthesis in the early part of that century. Since then, research on speciation has expanded immensely.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Laboratory experiments of speciation</span> Biological experiments

Laboratory experiments of speciation have been conducted for all four modes of speciation: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric; and various other processes involving speciation: hybridization, reinforcement, founder effects, among others. Most of the experiments have been done on flies, in particular Drosophila fruit flies. However, more recent studies have tested yeasts, fungi, and even viruses.

References

  1. 1 2 Symons, Donald (1979). The Evolution of Human Sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-502535-4. LCCN   78023361. OCLC   4494283.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Langlois, Judith H.; Roggman, Lori A. (1990). "Attractive faces are only average". Psychological Science . 1 (2): 115–121. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00079.x. ISSN   0956-7976. S2CID   18557871.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Koeslag, Johan H. (1990). "Koinophilia groups sexual creatures into species, promotes stasis, and stabilizes social behaviour". Journal of Theoretical Biology . 144 (1): 15–35. Bibcode:1990JThBi.144...15K. doi:10.1016/s0022-5193(05)80297-8. ISSN   0022-5193. PMID   2200930.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Koeslag, Johan H. (1995). "On the engine of speciation". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 177 (4): 401–409. Bibcode:1995JThBi.177..401K. doi:10.1006/jtbi.1995.0256. ISSN   0022-5193.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Miller, William B. (2013). "What is the big deal about evolutionary gaps?". In: The Microcosm within: Evolution and Extinction in the Hologenome. Boca Raton, Florida.: Universal Publishers. pp. 177, 395–396. ISBN   978-1-61233-2772.
  6. ↑ Unnikrishnan, M.K. (2012). "Koinophilia revisited: the evolutionary link between mate selection and face recognition". Current Science. 102 (4): 563–570.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 Maynard Smith, John (1989). Evolutionary Genetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 55, 267, 273, 281. ISBN   978-0-19-854215-5.
  8. ↑ Williams, George C. (1992). "Optimization and related concepts". In: Natural Selection: Domains, Levels and Challenges. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 60–61. ISBN   978-0-19-506933-4.
  9. 1 2 3 Ayala, Francisco J. (1982). Population and Evolutionary Genetics. Menlo Park, California: Benjamin/Cummings. pp.  60, 73–83, 182–190, 198–215. ISBN   978-0-8053-0315-5. LCCN   81021623. OCLC   8034790.
  10. ↑ Buss, D.M. (1985). "Human mate selection". American Scientist. 37 (1): 47–51. Bibcode:1985AmSci..73...47B.
  11. 1 2 Koeslag, J.H. (1997). "Sex, the prisoner's dilemma game, and the evolutionary inevitability of cooperation". Journal of Theoretical Biology . 189 (1): 53–61. Bibcode:1997JThBi.189...53K. doi:10.1006/jtbi.1997.0496. PMID   9398503.
  12. 1 2 Koeslag, J.H. (2003). "Evolution of cooperation: cooperation defeats defection in the cornfield model". Journal of Theoretical Biology . 224 (3): 399–410. Bibcode:2003JThBi.224..399K. doi:10.1016/s0022-5193(03)00188-7. PMID   12941597.
  13. ↑ Koeslag, J.H.; Koeslag, P.D. (1993). "Evolutionarily stable meiotic sex". Journal of Heredity . 84 (5): 396–399. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a111360.
  14. ↑ Koeslag, P.D.; Koeslag, J.H. (1994). "Koinophilia stabilizes bi-gender sexual reproduction against asex in an unchanging environment". Journal of Theoretical Biology . 166 (3): 251–260. Bibcode:1994JThBi.166..251K. doi:10.1006/jtbi.1994.1023. PMID   8159013.
  15. 1 2 Langlois, J.H.; Roggman, L.A.; Musselman, L.; Acton, S. (1991). "A picture is worth a thousand words: Reply to 'On the difficulty of averaging faces'". Psychological Science . 2 (5): 354–357. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00165.x. S2CID   143993972.
  16. 1 2 Langlois, J.H.; Musselman, L. (1995). "The myths and mysteries of beauty". In Calhoun, D.R (ed.). 1996 Yearbook of Science and the Future. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. pp. 40–61.
  17. 1 2 Rubenstein, A.J.; Langlois, J.H.; Roggman, J.H. (2002). "What makes a face attractive and why: The role of averageness in defining facial beauty". In Rhodes, G.; Zebrowitz, L.A. (eds.). Facial Attractiveness: Evolutionary, Cognitive, and Social Perspectives. Westport, CT: Ablex. pp. 1–33.
  18. ↑ Martin Gruendl. "the average of two human faces". Uni-regensburg.de. Retrieved 2018-06-04.
  19. ↑ "averaging process the more attractive and appealing the average face became". Homepage.psy.utexas.edu. Archived from the original on 2015-02-04. Retrieved 2018-06-04.
  20. ↑ Langlois, J.H.; Roggman, L.A.; Musselman, L. (1994). "What is average and what is not average about attractive faces?". Psychological Science . 5 (4): 214–220. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00503.x. S2CID   145147905.
  21. ↑ Kalick, S.M.; Zebrowitz, L.A.; Langlois, J.H.; Johnson, R.M. (1998). "Does human facial attractiveness honestly advertise health? Longitudinal data on an evolutionary question". Psychological Science . 9: 8–13. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00002. S2CID   9134500.
  22. ↑ Hoss, R.A.; Langlois, J.H. (2003). "Infants prefer attractive faces". In Pascalis, O.; Slater, A. (eds.). The Development of Face Processing in infancy and early childhood: Current perspectives. New York: Nova Science Publishers. pp. 27–38.
  23. 1 2 3 4 Darwin, Charles (1859). "Chapter 6, 'Difficulties of the Theory' in". On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1st ed.). London: John Murray. LCCN   06017473. OCLC   741260650.
  24. 1 2 3 4 5 Gould, Stephen Jay (1980). "A Quahog is a Quahog". In: The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. pp.  204–213. ISBN   978-0-393-30023-9.
  25. 1 2 Hockey, P.A.R.; Dean, W.R.J.; Ryan, P.G., eds. (2003). Roberts – Birds of Southern Africa, VIIth Ed. Cape Town: The John Voelcker Bird Book Fund. pp. 14, 60–1138. ISBN   978-0620340519.
  26. ↑ White, G.C.; Burnham, K.P. (1999). "Program MARK. Survival estimates from marked animals". Bird Study. 46: S120–S139. doi:10.1080/00063659909477239.
  27. ↑ Reynolds, Richard T.; Joy, Suzanne M.; Leslie, Douglas G. (1994). "Nest productivity, fidelity, and spacing of Northern Goshawks in Arizona". Studies in Avian Biology. 16: 106–113.
  28. ↑ Bernstein, Harris; Byerly, Henry C.; Hopf, Frederic A.; et al. (1985). "Sex and the emergence of species". Journal of Theoretical Biology . 117 (4): 665–690. Bibcode:1985JThBi.117..665B. doi:10.1016/S0022-5193(85)80246-0. ISSN   0022-5193. PMID   4094459.
  29. ↑ Hopf, Frederic A. (1990). "Darwin's dilemma of transitional forms: a comparison of model with data". In Maynard Smith, J.; Vida, G. (eds.). Organisational Constraints of the Dymnamics of Evolution. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 357–372.
  30. ↑ Gould, Stephen Jay (1985). The Flamingo's Smile: Reflections in Natural History. London: Penguin Books. pp. 160, 169. ISBN   978-0-14-013554-1.
  31. ↑ Maynard Smith, John (1983). "The genetics of stasis and punctuation". Annual Review of Genetics. 17: 11–25. doi:10.1146/annurev.ge.17.120183.000303. ISSN   0066-4197. PMID   6364957.
  32. 1 2 3 Eldredge, Niles; Gould, Stephen Jay (1972). "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism". In Schopf, T.J.M. (ed.). Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper. pp. 82–115.
  33. 1 2 Gould, Stephen Jay; Eldredge, Niles (1977). "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered". Paleobiology. 3 (2): 115–151. Bibcode:1977Pbio....3..115G. doi:10.1017/S0094837300005224. S2CID   83492071.
  34. 1 2 3 Williams, George C. (1992). "Stasis". In: Natural Selection: Domains, Levels and Challenges. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 127–142. ISBN   978-0-19-506933-4.
  35. 1 2 Gould, Stephen Jay (1980). "The episodic nature of evolutionary change". In: The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. pp.  179–185. ISBN   978-0-393-30023-9.
  36. ↑ Stuart, Chris; Stuart, Tilde (2007). Field Guide to Mammals of Southern Africa (Fourth ed.). Cape Town: Struik. pp. 30–285. ISBN   978-1-77007-404-0.
  37. ↑ Laws, Bill (2010). Fifty Plants that Changed the Course of History. Buffalo, NY: Firefly Books. pp. 210–215. ISBN   978-1-55407-798-4. LCCN   2011414731. OCLC   711609823.
  38. ↑ Mayr, Ernst (1954). "Change of genetic environment and evolution". In Huxley, Julian; Hardy, Alister C.; Ford, Edmund B. (eds.). Evolution as a Process. London: Allen & Unwin. LCCN   54001781. OCLC   974739.
  39. ↑ Gould, Stephen Jay (1980). "Return of the hopeful monster". In: The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. pp.  186–193. ISBN   978-0-393-30023-9.
  40. ↑ Dawkins, Richard (1988). The Blind Watchmaker. London: Penguin Books. pp. 5, 21. ISBN   978-0-14-014481-9.
  41. ↑ Williams, George C. (1972). Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN   978-0-691-02357-1.
  42. ↑ Maynard Smith, John (1964). "Group selection and kin selection". Nature . 201 (4924): 1145–1147. Bibcode:1964Natur.201.1145S. doi:10.1038/2011145a0. S2CID   4177102.
  43. 1 2 Dawkins, Richard (1995). River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. Science Masters Series. New York: Basic Books. ISBN   978-0-465-01606-8. LCCN   94037146. OCLC   31376584.
  44. 1 2 Dawkins, R. (1994). "Burying the Vehicle Commentary on Wilson & Sober: Group Selection". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 17 (4): 616–617. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00036207. S2CID   143378724. Archived from the original on 2006-09-15.
  45. 1 2 Dennett, Daniel C. (1994). "E Pluribus Unum? Commentary on Wilson & Sober: Group Selection". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 17 (4): 617–618. doi:10.1017/s0140525x00036219. S2CID   146359497. Archived from the original on 2007-12-27.
  46. 1 2 Pinker, S. (2012). The False Allure of Group Selection. Edge, Jun 19, 2012. http://edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection
  47. 1 2 3 4 Poelstra, Jelmer W.; Vijay, Nagarjun; Bossu, Christen M.; et al. (2014). "The genomic landscape underlying phenotypic integrity in the face of gene flow in crows". Science. 344 (6190): 1410–1414. Bibcode:2014Sci...344.1410P. doi:10.1126/science.1253226. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   24948738. S2CID   14431499.
  48. 1 2 Campbell, Neil A. (1990). Biology (2nd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co. pp. 450–451, 487–490, 499–501. ISBN   978-0-8053-1800-5. LCCN   89017952. OCLC   20352649.
  49. ↑ Arnold, M.L. (1996). Natural Hybridization and Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 232. ISBN   978-0-19-509975-1.
  50. ↑ Wendel, J.F.; Doyle, J.J. (1998). "DNA Sequencing". In Soltis, D.E.; Soltis, P.S.; Doyle, J.J. (eds.). Molecular Systematics of Plants II. Boston: Kluwer. pp. 265–296.
  51. 1 2 McCarthy, Terence; Rubidge, Bruce (2005). The Story of Earth & Life: A Southern African Perspective on a 4.6-Billion-Year Journey. Cape Town, South Africa: Struik Publishers. ISBN   978-1-77007-148-3. LCCN   2006376206. OCLC   62098231.
  52. ↑ Gould, Stephen Jay (1980). "The episodic nature of evolutionary change". In: The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. pp.  179–185. ISBN   978-0-393-30023-9.
  53. ↑ Dawkins, Richard (1988). "Making tracks through animal space". In: The Blind Watchmaker. London: Penguin Books. pp. 77–109. ISBN   978-0-14-014481-9.
  54. ↑ Gould, Stephen Jay (1980). "Senseless signs of history". In: The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. pp.  27–34. ISBN   978-0-393-30023-9.
  55. ↑ Zimmer, Carl (2001). Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea. Introduction by Stephen Jay Gould; foreword by Richard Hutton (1st ed.). New York: HarperCollins. ISBN   978-0-06-019906-7. LCCN   2001024077. OCLC   46359440.
  56. ↑ Rice, William R.; Salt, George W. (1988). "Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: Experimental evidence". The American Naturalist. 131 (6): 911–917. doi:10.1086/284831. ISSN   0003-0147. S2CID   84876223.
  57. ↑ Rice, William R.; Hostert, Ellen E. (1993). "Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in 40 years?". Evolution . 47 (6): 1637–1653. doi:10.2307/2410209. ISSN   0014-3820. JSTOR   2410209. PMID   28568007.
  58. ↑ Gavrilets, Sergey (2003). "Perspective: Models of speciation: What have we learned in 40 years?". Evolution. 57 (10): 2197–2215. doi:10.1554/02-727. ISSN   0014-3820. PMID   14628909. S2CID   198158082.
  59. ↑ Dodd, Diane M. B. (1989). "Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura". Evolution. 43 (6): 1308–1311. doi:10.2307/2409365. ISSN   0014-3820. JSTOR   2409365. PMID   28564510.
  60. ↑ Kirkpatrick, Mark; Ravigné, Virginie (2002). "Speciation by natural and sexual selection: Models and experiments". The American Naturalist. 159 (S3): S22–S35. doi:10.1086/338370. ISSN   0003-0147. PMID   18707367. S2CID   16516804.
  61. 1 2 de Knijf, Peter (2014). "How carrion and hooded crows defeat Linnaeus's curse". Science. 344 (6190): 1345–1346. Bibcode:2014Sci...344.1345D. doi:10.1126/science.1255744. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   24948724. S2CID   207790306.
  62. ↑ Poelstra, Jelmer W.; Vijay, Nagarjun; Bossu, Christen M.; et al. (2014). "The genomic landscape underlying phenotypic integrity in the face of gene flow in crows" (PDF). Science. 344 (6190): 1410–1414. Bibcode:2014Sci...344.1410P. doi:10.1126/science.1253226. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   24948738. S2CID   14431499. The phenotypic differences between Carrion and Hooded Crows across the hybridization zone in Europe are unlikely to be due to assortative mating. — Commentary by Mazhuvancherry K. Unnikrishnan and H. S. Akhila
  63. ↑ Dawkins, Richard (1988). "Accumulating small change". In: The Blind Watchmaker. London: Penguin Books. pp. 43–74. ISBN   978-0-14-014481-9.
  64. ↑ Dawkins, Richard (1996). Climbing Mount Improbable. London: Penguin Books. pp. 97–179. ISBN   978-0-670-85018-1.
  65. ↑ Gould, S.J.; Lewontin, R.C. (September 1979). "The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B (published 1979). 205 (1161): 581–598. Bibcode:1979RSPSB.205..581G. doi:10.1098/rspb.1979.0086. PMID   42062. S2CID   2129408.
  66. ↑ Gould, Stephen Jay (1983). "Hyena myths and realities". In: Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes. Further Reflections in Natural History. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books. pp.  147–157. ISBN   978-0-14-022533-4.
  67. ↑ Gould, Stephen Jay (1980). The Panda's Thumb. More Reflections in Natural History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. pp.  129–130. ISBN   978-0-393-30023-9.
  68. 1 2 Marshall, Diane L.; Diggle, Pamela K. (2001). "Mechanisms of differential pollen donor performance in wild radish, Raphanus sativus (Brassicaceae)". American Journal of Botany. 88 (2): 242–257. doi: 10.2307/2657015 . ISSN   1537-2197. JSTOR   2657015. PMID   11222247.
  69. ↑ Trivers, Robert (1988). "Sex differences in rates of recombination and sexual selection". In Michod, Richard E.; Levin, Bruce R. (eds.). The Evolution of Sex. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates Inc. p.  279. ISBN   978-0-87893-459-1.
  70. ↑ Dawkins, Richard (1988). "Explosions and spirals". In: The Blind Watchmaker. London: Penguin Books. pp. 195–220. ISBN   978-0-14-014481-9.
  71. ↑ Lande, R. (1981). "Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. 78 (6): 3721–3725. Bibcode:1981PNAS...78.3721L. doi: 10.1073/pnas.78.6.3721 . PMC   319643 . PMID   16593036.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.