Search

The first Editor of Evolution was Ernst Mayr. His foreword to the first issue of Evolution published in 1947 framed evolution as a "problem of interaction" that was just beginning to be studied in this broad context. First, I explore progress and prospects on understanding the subsidiary interactions identified by Mayr, including interactions between parts of organisms, between individuals and populations, between species, and between the organism and its abiotic environment. Mayr's overall "problem of interaction" framework is examined in the context of coevolution within and among levels of biological organization. This leads to a comparison in the relative roles of biotic versus abiotic agents of selection and fluctuating versus directional selection, followed by stabilizing selection in shaping the genomic architecture of adaptation. Oligogenic architectures may be typical for traits shaped more by fluctuating selection and biotic selection. Conversely, polygenic architectures may be typical for traits shaped more by directional followed by stabilizing selection and abiotic selection. The distribution of effect sizes and turnover dynamics of adaptive alleles in these scenarios deserves further study. Second, I review two case studies on the evolution of acquired toxicity in animals, one involving cardiac glycosides obtained from plants and one involving bacterial virulence factors horizontally transferred to animals. The approaches used in these studies and the results gained directly flow from Mayr's vision of an evolutionary biology that revolves around the "problem of interaction." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific societies have the potential to catalyze support for communities that have been historically excluded from science. Many of these societies have formed committees to propose and administer initiatives to promote the career and well‐being of their members, with a special emphasis on racial and ethnic minorities. Yet, these societies are rarely armed with data to inform their proposals. Three of the evolution societies (American Society of Naturalists, "ASN"; Society of Systematic Biologists, "SSB"; Society for the Study of Evolution, "SSE") have also formed Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion committees in the last few years. As a first step in determining the needs of the societies, these committees collected data on the demographic characteristics of the societies' constituents by surveying the attendants of the Evolution 2019 meeting. Here, we report the proportions for different demographic groups in attendance at the meeting and compare these proportions to the demographics of recipients of Ph.D. degrees either in evolutionary biology or in the broader life sciences, as well as population demographics of the USA. Our results indicate that historically excluded groups are still underrepresented across US‐based evolutionary biology professional societies. We explore whether demographic composition differs at different professional stages and find that representation for women and LGBTQ+ members decreases as the career stage progresses. We also find some evidence for heterogeneity across societies in terms of racial composition. Finally, we discuss the caveats and limitations of our procedures. Our results will serve to inform future efforts to collect demographic data at the society levels, which should in turn be used to design and implement evidence‐based initiatives for inclusion and equity. This report should be a starting point for systematic efforts to characterize the ever‐changing representation in evolutionary biology and to work toward the inclusion of all groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

American resistance to accepting evolution is uniquely high among First World countries. This is due largely to the extreme religiosity of the United States, which is much higher than that of comparably advanced nations, and to the resistance of many religious people to the facts and supposed implications of evolution. The prevalence of religious belief in the United States suggests that outreach by scientists alone will not have a huge effect in increasing the acceptance of evolution, nor will the strategy of trying to convince the faithful that evolution is compatible with their religion. Because creationism is a symptom of religion, another strategy to promote evolution involves loosening the grip of faith on America. This is easier said than done, for recent sociological surveys show that religion is highly correlated with the dysfunctionality of a society, and various measures of societal health show that the United States is one of the most socially dysfunctional First World countries. Widespread acceptance of evolution in America, then, may have to await profound social change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) system is a recently discovered type of adaptive immune defense in bacteria and archaea that functions via directed incorporation of viral and plasmid DNA into host genomes. Here, we introduce a multiscale model of dynamic coevolution between hosts and viruses in an ecological context that incorporates CRISPR immunity principles. We analyze the model to test whether and how CRISPR immunity induces host and viral diversification and the maintenance of many coexisting strains. We show that hosts and viruses coevolve to form highly diverse communities. We observe the punctuated replacement of existent strains, such that populations have very low similarity compared over the long term. However, in the short term, we observe evolutionary dynamics consistent with both incomplete selective sweeps of novel strains (as single strains and coalitions) and the recurrence of previously rare strains. Coalitions of multiple dominant host strains are predicted to arise because host strains can have nearly identical immune phenotypes mediated by CRISPR defense albeit with different genotypes. We close by discussing how our explicit eco-evolutionary model of CRISPR immunity can help guide efforts to understand the drivers of diversity seen in microbial communities where CRISPR systems are active. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Belief in creationism and intelligent design is widespread and gaining significance in a number of countries. This article examines the characteristics of science and of religions and the possible relationship between science and religion. I argue that creationism is sometimes best seen not as a misconception but as a worldview. In such instances, the most to which a science educator (whether in school, college or university) can normally aspire is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the scientific position. In the short term, the scientific worldview is unlikely to supplant a creationist one for students who are firm creationists. We can help students to find their evolutionary biology courses interesting and intellectually challenging without their being threatening. Effective teaching in this area can help students not only learn about the theory of evolution but better appreciate the way science is done, the procedures by which scientific knowledge accumulates, the limitations of science, and the ways in which scientific knowledge differs from other forms of knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]