Nobel Prize winner Niko Tinbergen observed in his now classic 1963 paper, "On the aims and methods of ethology" (Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 20: 410-433) that in order to adequately analyze observed patterns of behavioural ecology in a species, it is necessary to distinguish between *ultimate* and *proximate* causative factors. Ultimate factors include: i) the *function* (or "adaptive value") of a behaviour, and ii) the "phylogeny" (or evolutionary history) of a behaviour; proximate factors include: i) *ontogeny* (or behavioural changes related tp growth and development), and ii)*proximate conditions* (i.e., that which has happened in the recent past and that which is going on under current ecological conditions). So, what is needed in trying to gain insight on biological evolution is an holistic perspective that incorporates *both* genetics and ecology. A perfect example of the value of this integrated approach is the need for up-to-date data in both the genetic and ecological realms in order to deal with conservation biology issues.

Both process are seen and documented in nature. Some characters could suffer more effect of natural selection and been correlated with environmental or niche characteristics ( ex. Diet, substrate, life style, temperature, etc) and others are just driven by common ancestral. A good example of a diet drive character is the bird beaks, with specific shapes to broke specific seed or catch insect in holes, and with species phylogenetically near presenting different shapes.

I am not in my computer now, but when I am I could prove good references to you about this topic.

Hello Felipe; Mutations are the raw material. Produced by any number of intrinsic error-producing mechanisms as well as extrinsic factors like radiation, mutagenic compounds, and the like; a population of interest is provided with some variation. That in itself is evolution (a change in gene frequency in the population).

Then, the environment - the physical aspects of it and/or the biotic aspects - may impose selection on that variation. Over some period of time, maybe only a few generations, the frequencies of some of the alleles rise or fall. Explanations about how successfully the individual creatures possessing these variants are able to reproduce come from the work of ecologists (writ large).

These interacting levels of organization are the system you are thinking about and a flow of causation probably isn't a helpful way to think about it. I'm interested to see how others frame the question. Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers

The main driving forces of evolution in any population are Mutation, Natural Selection, Genetic drift, and Gene flow.

The ability of these driving forces to perform their role is dependent on the amount of genetic diversity within and among populations. Thus, genetics that has been molded by ecology.

It's very interesting, and I'm thinking about abilities and opportunities caused by genome but realizing under real environmental conditions and their changes. I think, not only mutations are the raw for Natural Selection, but all genotypes, especially new genetic patterns as recombinations.

Thanks to James and the other colleagues for their comments so far.

I think the last word is given by ecology. The basis of my reasoning is as follows.

First, the mutations are not an inevitable consequence of the DNA structure or replication. The mutation rate is itself a heritable trait that can be adjusted (i.e., restrained or loosened).

In turn, ecological interactions are inevitable. And the reasons for this are not hard to understand: (i) every organism has a minimal demand for resources (e.g., carbon atoms, which most often form the body of another organism); and (ii) as there are no ecological vacuums (all organisms are born and live in a previously inhabited world), interactions (e.g., – / – or + / –) become inevitable.

Felipe; Your use of the symbols of biological interactions reminds me of a classic paper that might have escaped your notice. Try to find it...it is a joy to read from this distance in time.

Malcolm, WM. 1966. Biological Interactions. Botanical Review. 32(3): 243-254. While I was teaching, my students all read it and the discussions were very rich ones. Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers.

I like talking about the evolution, thanks for you , I think that the driver of biology is genetics , the ecology is just for adaptation , so I am not for Darwinism

I think, the Ecologic Genetics and the Genetic Ecology are two concepts and issues that should be undergo in consideration and research.

Darwinism introduces the notion of selection and ecology into evolution, newdarwinism (mendel) introduces the notion of genetics, personally I think that ecology is used for adaptation, but not for transformation! It is reflected in the intra and inter species relationships: competition, predation, symbiotic, ... but can never influence genetic characteristics. biological evolution can never touch genetic traits, unless we make hybrids

Nobel Prize winner Niko Tinbergen observed in his now classic 1963 paper, "On the aims and methods of ethology" (Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 20: 410-433) that in order to adequately analyze observed patterns of behavioural ecology in a species, it is necessary to distinguish between *ultimate* and *proximate* causative factors. Ultimate factors include: i) the *function* (or "adaptive value") of a behaviour, and ii) the "phylogeny" (or evolutionary history) of a behaviour; proximate factors include: i) *ontogeny* (or behavioural changes related tp growth and development), and ii)*proximate conditions* (i.e., that which has happened in the recent past and that which is going on under current ecological conditions). So, what is needed in trying to gain insight on biological evolution is an holistic perspective that incorporates *both* genetics and ecology. A perfect example of the value of this integrated approach is the need for up-to-date data in both the genetic and ecological realms in order to deal with conservation biology issues.

Hi Felipe,

A sort of non-answer is genetics sets the stage for ecology and vice versa.

Regards.

I thank colleagues for their comments. More specifically, I thank James and Ian for the references. (I think it is very important that we do not forget that much of what we are discussing today has been discussed before by other authors, and almost always in a more creative way. In particular, in the case of the distinction between proximate and ultimate causes, I think the reader interested in the subject should read Beatty’s [1994] article.)

I also take the opportunity to explain how I understand some of the terms and concepts that are important in our discussion.

Darwinism is an interpretation of evolution (see Gayon 1992 for details). In broad sense, evolution encompasses any change that occurs in the gene pool of a population. The process derives from three properties inherent to living beings: multiplication, heredity, and variation. (The use of the term ‘inherent’ does not imply that these properties are unchanging.)

Evolution by natural selection is a special kind of evolution. For evolution to occur in this specific way, a fourth property must be present: fitness (also ‘Darwinian fitness’ or ‘adaptive value’). Unlike the other three properties, fitness is not something that is inherent to organisms. Nor is it something that has absolute and permanent value. It is a relative and transitory parameter whose momentary value depends on the ecological context in which organisms are living.

Over generations, evolution may result in the (gradual) modification of lineages – a process that is commonly labeled ‘speciation’. For Darwinism, the process of modification is mold mainly (but not exclusively) by natural selection operating on a field of intra-population (and intra-generational) variation. Selection is what happens when there is a correlation (positive or negative) between a given phenotypic trait and some component of fitness (growth, longevity, fecundity) – Wade & Kalisz’s (1990) article may be a useful read.

Selection is generally a purification process – e.g., when the fitness of carriers of an old trait is superior to that of carriers of a new alternative trait. But the process can be directional – e.g., when the fitness of carriers of the new alternative trait reaches a higher value. In addition, selection can also be a creative process. This is the case, for example, when the presence of two (or more) traits in a single phenotype is favored over the presence of the same traits in two (or more) distinct phenotypes. (For a detailed and more accurate discussion, see Razeto-Barry & Frick 2011.)

While emphasizing the role and importance of selection, Darwinism does not rule out the possibility that other factors (e.g., drift) may have some impact on driving the evolutionary process, at least temporarily. Nor does it rule out the idea that selection operates at other levels of the biological hierarchy, both below (e.g., genes) and above (e.g., groups) the individual level.

References cited:

+ Beatty, J. 1994. The proximate/ultimate distinction in the multiple careers of Ernst Mayr. Biology and Philosophy 9: 333-56.

+ Gayon, J. 1992. Darwin et l’aprés-Darwin. Paris, Kimé. (English version : Cambridge UP, 1998.)

+ Razeto-Barry, P & Frick, R. 2011. Probabilistic causation and the explanatory role of natural selection. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science C 42: 344-55.

+ Wade, MJ. & Kalisz, S. 1990. The causes of natural selection. Evolution 44: 1947-55.

Добрый день.

Исходя из понятия «драйвер», видимо для биологической эволюции таковым может быть генетика, ибо она обеспечивает управление экологическими изменениями живого.

There are no any "last words" in evolution process: it is principally endless, and changes in both the genotypes or environment can drive evolution. In this regard, a couple of ideas should be noted.

First, the concept of "ecological genetics" has been coined more than 50 years ago (Ford E.B. 1964. Ecological Genetics. Chapman & Hall); several journals like Ecological Genetics and Genomics, and Ekologicheskaya Genetika (in Russian) are directly devoted to genetic control of ecological interrelations.

Second, genetics covers not only DNA-mediated hereditary factors but also various epigenetic ones, and some of them can be definitely induced by the enviroment (Tikhodeyev O.N. 2019. Heredity determined by the environment: Lamarckian ideas in modern molecular biology. Science of the Total Environment. Article Heredity determined by the environment: Lamarckian ideas in ...

I thank Lev Erdakov and Oleg Tikhodeyev for their comments.

As I wrote in the previous comment, evolution by natural selection (ENS) is a special kind of evolution. (I may not have expressed myself correctly in previous comments. When I wrote ‘last word’, I was not thinking of an end point in the history of lineages. I was thinking about the identity of the process that most commonly defines the course of these histories.)

Four processes contribute to ENS: (1) multiplication of the entities in focus (e.g., individual organisms); (2) heredity (phenotypic traits must have some genetic basis); (3) variation (hereditary transmission must admit some ‘noises’, without which there would be no variation); and, of course, (4) selection (the relationship between phenotypes and fitness).

Advances in genetics have illuminated our understanding of heredity and variation, but not selection. And the reason for this is not hard to perceive: Our understanding of selection depends on advances in ecology. The question for ecology is not how a phenotype is produced, but how and why there is a relationship between phenotypes and fitness (i.e., how selection is operating and why it operates in the observed manner). The environment (ecology) is the context that gives rise to this relationship.

Evolution is the slow, continuous change in inheritable traits of a population of living beings (including viruses) over generations.

Hello all; Among the very best studies of these processes is that of Peter and Rosemary Grant. For decades they have studied the ground finches on one of the Galapagos Islands. Here is a typical one of their studies. I think that focusing on these specific examples may focus this discussion.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.217.5395&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Dolph Schluter has studied Stickle-backed fishes and their evolution in marine and fresh-water environments in the context of their various predators.

Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers

While genetics offers up the available variation, and the range of strategies organisms are able to deploy, the ecology of the organism creates a set of adaptive challenges which must be solved on the path to reproduction.

Some adaptive challenges must be solved only once, such as development to reproductive maturity. Others must be solved continually, such as gathering sustenance, and fending off ever-evolving parasites.

The Red Queen Hypothesis posits that organisms must constantly evolve against other organisms that are also evolving against them, resulting in an evolutionary arms race. This would mean that genetics (available adaptive variation) and ecology (competitive adaptive challenge) are integral parts of selection in every generation, and hence no final word is given by either.

Genetics, but in a broad sense. Heterochromatin, sattelite DNA is a driver of ecological speciation. See Trifinov (Haifa), Eviatar Nevo's Institute of Evolution.

The key force that drives evolution in biological organisms is natural selection and this depends a lot on variation in organisms which of course has to do with their genetic make up.