François Papale

In this manifesto for a more comprehensive account of evolution by natural selection (ENS), we draw on Hull’s framework to expand the reach of Darwinian explanations. His approach is centered on the notions of interactor and replicator. He (and many others following him) defines the interactor in terms of cohesiveness. Often, such cohesiveness is cashed out by the vertical transmission to the next generation of the replicators that constitute the interactors. While we maintain the importance of the reciprocal influence of interactors and replicators (the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors leads to the differential extinction and proliferation of the replicators that produce them) central to Hull’s framework, we downplay the importance of the cohesiveness of interactors and eliminate any need for lineage formation among them. This suggested revision of the interactor synthesizes various recent contributions in the field, and it allows the interactor/replicator framework to tackle more complex entities. Our approach, however, stands in stark opposition to the classical approach to ENS centered on lineage formation. In this paper, we present our view and argue that it should replace the classical approach in structuring future work in evolutionary biology.

The aim of this article is to develop an approach to the unit of selection concept that fits the theory of evolution by natural selection without reproduction. I review the history of the concept to show that predominant approaches, which have recently been categorized by Suárez and Lloyd using the labels “unitary project” and “disambiguating project,” cannot be used in the context of evolution by natural selection without reproduction. I therefore propose a new and more inclusive understanding of the unit of selection that upholds the unitary project’s central claim that the concept has a unitary extension. I define the unit of selection as an entity whose interactions with the environment influence the ratio of units with similar traits in the population. That is, a unit of selection is a fitness bearer, where fitness is defined in terms that correspond to its operationalization in population genetics (without reference to heritability). This revamped unitary concept covers cases in which fitness can be reduced to reproductive output, but also cases where differential persistence or reconstitution are more important than reproduction.

The objective of this paper is twofold. First, I present a framework called historical coherentism (Chang, 2004; Tal, 2016; Van fraassen 2008) and argue that it is the best epistemological framework available to tackle the problem of coordination, an epistemic conundrum that arises with every attempt to provide empirical content to scientific theories, models or statements. Second, I argue that the problem of coordination, which has so far been theorized only in the context of measurement practices (Reichenbach, 1927; Chang, 2001; Tal, 2012; Van fraassen 2008), can be generalized beyond the philosophy of measurement. Specifically, it will be shown that the problem is embodied in classificatory practices and that, consequently, historical coherentism is well suited to analyze these practices as well as metrological ones. As a case study, I look at a contemporary debate in phylogenetics, regarding the evolutionary origin of a newly identified archaeal phylum called Methanonatronarchaeia. Exploring this debate through the lens of historical coherentism provides a detailed understanding of the dynamics of the field and a foothold for critical analyses of the standard rationale used by practitioners.

In this paper, we redefine the target of evolutionary explanations by proposing the “evosystem” as an alternative to populations, lineages and species. Evosystems account for changes in the distribution of heritable variation within individual Darwinian populations (evolution by natural selection, drift, or constructive neutral evolution), but also for changes in the networks of interactions within or between Darwinian populations and changes in the abiotic environment (whether these changes are caused by the organic entities or not). The evosystem can thereby become a centerpiece for a redefined evolutionary science, that is, evolutionary studies, that apprehends through a single framework the variety of evolutionary processes that lie at various scales. To illustrate the importance of this broadened perspective on evolution, we use a case of antimicrobial resistance evolution: the spread of the blaNDM gene family and the related resistance to carbapenem antibiotics observed globally, and show how evolutionary studies can contribute to answering contemporary socially relevant challenges.

Theoreticians that defend a form of realism regarding natural kinds minimally entertain the belief that the world features divisions into kinds and that the natural kind concept is a useful tool for philosophy of science. The objective of this paper is to challenge these assumptions. First, we challenge realism toward natural kinds by showing that the main arguments for their existence, which rely on the epistemic success of natural kinds, are unsatisfactory. Second, we show that, whether they exist or not, natural kinds are expendable when it comes to describing and analyzing scientific explanations accurately.

Recently, Doolittle and Inkpen formulated a thought provoking theory, asserting that evolution by natural selection was responsible for the sideways evolution of two radically different kinds of selective units (also called Domains). The former entities, termed singers, correspond to the usual objects studied by evolutionary biologists (gene, genomes, individuals, species, etc.), whereas the later, termed songs, correspond to re‐produced biological and ecosystemic functions, processes, information, and memes. Singers perform songs through selected patterns of interactions, meaning that a wealth of critical phenomena might receive novel evolutionary explanations. However, this theory did not provide an empirical approach to study evolution in such a broadened context. Here, we show that analyzing songs and singers, using patterns of interaction networks as a common ontology for both, offers a novel, actionable, inclusive and mathematical way to analyze not only the re‐production but also the evolution and fitness of biological and ecosystemic interconnected processes.

This paper analyzes recent attempts to reject reproduction with lineage formation as a necessary condition for evolution by means of natural selection :560–570, 2008; Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 42:106–114, 2011; Bourrat in Biol Philos 29:517–538, 2014; Br J Philos Sci 66:883–903, 2015; Charbonneau in Philos Sci 81:727–740, 2014; Doolittle and Inkpen in Proc Natl Acad Sci 115:4006–4014, 2018). Building on the strengths of these attempts and avoiding their pitfalls, it is argued that a robust formulation of evolution by natural selection without reproduction can be established. The main contribution of this paper is a reformulation of Lewontin’s three principles stating that minimal evolution by natural selection occurs when two conditions are met in a population: fitness-related variation and memory. Paradigmatic evolution by natural selection, which can generate adaptations, takes place when an additional condition is present, namely regeneration.