conjugation

Genetic Experimentation ~ Bibliography

Genetic Experimentation: The Adaptive Function of Sex & ConjugationAbbot, P. et. al. (2011). “Inclusive fitness theory and eusociality.” Nature 471 (March 24, 2011).

Achtman, M. (1975). “Mating aggregates in Escherichia coli conjugation.” J.Bacteriol. 123:505–515.

Alcock, J. (1993). Animal Behavior (5th ed.). Sinauer Associates

Armbruster, W.S. (1996). “Exaptation, Adaptation, and Homplasy: Evolution of Ecological Traits in Dalechampia Vines”, pp. 227-243, in Homoplasy: The Recurrence of Similarity in Evolution. (eds. Sanderson, M.J. and Hufford, L.). Academic Press

Arms, K., and Camp, P. (1987). Biology (3rd ed.). Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Baldwin, B.G. (1997). “Adaptive Radiation of the Hawaiian Silversword Alliance: Convergence and Conflict of Phylogenetic Evidence from Molecular and Non- molecular Investigations”, pp. 103-128, in Molecular Evolution and Adaptive Radiation (eds. Givnish, T.J. and Sytsma, K.J.). Cambridge U. Press

Barnes, R.E. (1980). Invertebrate Zoology (4th ed). Saunders College/Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Beaudet, A.L. and Jiang, Y. (2002). “A Rheostat Model for a Rapid and Reversible Form of Imprinting-Dependent Evolution”. Am. J. of Human Genetics 70:1389-1397

Belas, R. (1997). “Proteus Mirabilis and Other Swarming Bacteria”, pp. 183-219, in Bacteria as Multicellular Organisms (eds. Shapiro and Dworkin). Oxford U. Press

Bell, G. (1982). The Masterpiece of Nature. Croom Helm.

Bennett, N.C., Faulkes, C.G., and Jarvis, J. (1999). “Socially Induced Infertility, Incest Avoidance and the Monopoly of Reproduction in Cooperatively Breeding African Mole-Rats, Family Bathyergidae”, Advances in the Study of Behavior 28:75-114

Bonner, J.T. (1971). Cells and Societies. Princeton U. Press

Bourke, A. and Franks, N. (1995). Social Evolution in Ants. Princeton U. Press

Bristow, A. (1978). The Sex Life of Plants. Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Brooker, R.J., Widmaier, E.P., Graham, L.E., Stiling, P.D. (2011). Biology (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill

Bush, G. (1982). “What do we really know about speciation?”, pp. 119-128, in Perspectives on Evolution (ed. Milkman, R.). Sinauer Associates

Butlin, R.K., Schon, I., Griffiths, H.I. (1998). “Introduction to Reproductive Modes”, pp. 1-24, in Sex and Parthenogenesis: Evolutionary Ecology of Reproductive Modes in Non-Marine Ostracods (ed. Martens, K.). Backhuys Publishers, Leiden

Campbell, B. (1987). Humankind Emerging (5th ed.). Scott, Foresman and Company

Campbell, J. (1994). “Organisms Create Evolution”, pp. 85-102, in Creative Evolution? (eds. Campbell, J. and Schoft, J.W.).

Campbell, J. (1982). “Autonomy in Evolution”, pp. 190-201, in Perspectives on Evolution (ed. Milkman, R.). Sinauer Associates

Capy, P., Claude B., Higuet, D., Langin, T. (1998). Dynamics and Evolution of Transposable Elements. International Thomson Publishing Services.

Carlson, E.A. (2011). Mutation: The History of an Idea from Darwin to Genomics. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

Carlson, E.A. (1966). The Gene: A Critical History. W.B. Saunders Co.

Chase, M.W. and Palmer, J.D. (1997). “Leapfrog Radiation in Floral and Vegetative Traits Among Twig Epiphytes in the Orchid Subtribe Oncidiinae”, pp. 331-352, in Molecular Evolution and Adaptive Radiation (eds. Givnish, T.J. and Sytsma, K.J.). Cambridge U. Press

Clewell, D.B. (1985). “Sex Pheromones, Plasmids and Conjugation in Streptococcus Faecalis”, pp. 13-28, in The Origin and Evolution of Sex MBL Lecture Series in Biology, Vol. 7 (eds. Halvorson and Monroy). A.R. Liss.

Clewell, D. and Flanagan, S. (1993). “The Conjugative Transposons of Gram-Positive Bacteria”, pp. 369-393, in Bacterial Conjugation. (ed. Clewell, D.). Springer

Darwin, C. (2011). The Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication. Ulan Press

Darwin, C. (1952a). The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (Great Books Series). Encyclopedia Britannica

Darwin, C. (1952b). The Descent of Man (Great Books Series). Encyclopedia Britannica

Dawkins, R. (1989). The Selfish Gene (2nd ed.). Oxford U. Press

Dawkins, R. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. Longmans

Dennett, D. (1995). Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. Simon and Schuster.

Denton, M. (1998). “Beyond the Reach of Chance”, pp. 47-61, in Philosophy of Biology (ed. Ruse, M.). Prometheus Books

Dobzhansky, (1951). Genetics and Origins of Species. (3rd ed). Columbia U. Press

Elliott, C.G. (1993). Reproduction in Fungi. Springer

Eldridge, N. (1999). The Pattern of Evolution. W.H. Freeman & Co.Evans, H.E. and West-Eberhard, M.J. (1970). The Wasps. University of Michigan Press

Foster, S.A., Johnson, K.P., Tlusty, M.U. and Willmott, H.E. (1997). “Homoplasy: The Recurrence of Similarity in Evolution”, pp. 245-69, in in Molecular Evolution and Adaptive Radiation (eds. Givnish, T.J. and Sytsma, K.J.). Cambridge U. Press

Freeman, S. (2011). Biological Science (4th ed). Pearson Benjamin Cummings

Futuyma, D. (1986). Evolutionary Biology (2nd ed.). Sinauer Associates

Gadagkar, R. (1997). Survival Strategies: Cooperation and Conflict in Animal Societies. Harvard U. Press

Gamboa, G.J. (1996), “Kin Recognition in Social Wasps,” pp. 161-177, in Natural History and Evolution of Paper-Wasps, (eds. Turillazzi, S. and West-Eberhard, M.J.). Oxford U. Press

Gardner, E., Simmons, M., Snustad, D. (1991). Principles of Genetics (8th ed.). John Wiley and Sons

Givnish, T.J. (1997). “Adaptive Radiation and Molecular Systematics: Issues and Approaches”, pp. 1-54, in Molecular Evolution and Adaptive Radiation. (eds. Givnish, T.J. and Sytsma, K.J.). Cambridge U. Press

Gould, S.J. (1989). Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. W.W. Norton & Co.

Gould, S.J. (1982). “The Meaning of Punctuated Equilibrium and Its Role in Validating a Hierarchical Approach to Macroevolution” in Perspectives on Evolution (ed. Milkman, R.). Sinauer Associates.

Gould, S.J. (1980) The Panda’s Thumb (1982 paperback ed.). W.W. Norton and Co. Gould, S.J. (1977a). Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Belknap

Gould, S.J. (1977b). Ever Since Darwin. W.W. Norton & Co.

Herb, B.R., Wolschin, F., Hansen, K.D., Aryee, M.J., Langmead, B., Irizarry, R., Amdam, G., and Feinberg, A.P. (2012). “Reversible switching between epigenetic states in honeybee behavioral subcastes.” Nature Neuroscience 16:1371-373

Herbers, J. (1993). “Ecological determinants of queen number in ants”, pp. 262-93, in Queen Number and Sociality in Insects (ed. Keller). Oxford U. Press

Higgins, N.P. (1992). “Death and Transfiguration Among Bacteria”, pp. 207-211, Trends in Biochemical Science June 1992.

Hilliker, A.J. and Sharp, C.B. (1987). “New Perspectives on the Genetics and Molecular Biology of Constitutive Heterochromatin”, pp. 91-113, in Chromosome Structure and Function: Impact of New Concepts (eds. Gustafson, J.P. and Appels, R.). Springer

Holland, P.W.H. and Garcia-Fernandez, J. (1996). “Hox genes and chordate evolution”, Developmental Biology 173:382-95

Holldobler, B. and Wilson, E.O. (1990). Ants. Harvard U. Press

Huxley, J. (1942). Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. G. Allen and Unwin Ltd. Jablonka, E. and

Lamb, M.J. (1995). Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: The Lamarckian Dimension. Oxford U. Press

Jablonka, E. and Lamb, M.J. (2006). Evolution in Four Dimensions. MIT Press

Jackman, T., Losos, J.B., Larson, A. and de Queiroz, K. (1997). “Phylogenetic Studies of Convergent Adaptive Radiation in Caribbean Anolis Lizards”, pp. 535-57, in Molecular Evolution and Adaptive Radiation. (eds. Givnish, T.J. and Sytsma, K.J.). Cambridge U. Press

Jones, A.R. (1974). The Ciliates. Palgrave Macmillan

Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press

Laybourn-Parry, J. (1984). A Functional Biology of Free-Living Protozoa. Croom Helm

Lenski, R.E. and Mittler, J.E. (1993). “The Directed Mutation Controversy and Neo-Darwinism”. Science 259: 188-194

Li, W-H, (1997). Molecular Evolution. Sinauer and Associate

McClintock, B. (1987a). “Modified Gene Expressions Induced by Transposable Elements”, pp. 617-25, in The Collected Papers of Barbara McClintock. Garland Publishing

McClintock, B. (1987b). “The Significance of Responses of the Genome to Challenge”, pp. 626-35, in The Collected Papers of Barbara McClintock. Garland Publishing

McDonald, J. F. (1995). “Transposable elements—possible catalysts of organismic evolution.” Trends Ecol. Evol. 10:123–126.

McEachern, L.A. and Lloyd, V. (2011). “The Epigenetics of Genomic Imprinting”, pp. 43-69, in Epigenetics: Linking Genotype and Phenotype in Development and Evolution. (eds. Hallgrimsson, B. and Hall, B.K.) U. California Press

Maguire, M.P. (1987). “Meiotic behavior of a tiny fragment chromosome that carries a transposed centromere.” Genome 29:744-747.

Matsuda (1987). Animal Evolution in Changing Environments (with Special Reference to Abnormal Metamorphosis). Wiley Press

Maynard Smith, J. (1989). Evolutionary Genetics Oxford U. Press

Maynard Smith, J. (1978). The Evolution of Sex. Cambridge U. Press

Maynard Smith, J. and Szathmary, E. (1995). The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxford U. Press

Mayr, E. (1982). The Growth of Biological Thought. Harvard U. Press

Mech, L. (1995). The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species. U. of Minnesota Press

Michod, R.E., Bernstein, H., Nedelcu, A.M. (2008). “Adaptive Value of Sex in Microbial Pathogens”, Infect. Genet. Evol. 8(3):267-285

Miyake, A. (1996). “Fertilization and Sexuality in Ciliates”, pp. 243-290, in Ciliates: Cells as Organisms. (eds. Hausmann and Bradbury). Vch Pub

Mock, D., Drummond, H. and Stinson, C. (2010). “Avian siblicide”, in Exploring Animal Behavior: Readings from American Scientist. Sinauer Associates

Moritz, R., and Southwick, E. (1992). Bees as Superorganisms: An Evolutionary Reality, Springer-Verlag

Muller, G., and Wagner, G. (1996). “Homology, Hox genes, and Developmental Integration”, Amer. Zool. 36:4-13

Neyfakh, L. (2011). Boston Globe, April 17, 2011 http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/04/17/where_does_good_co me_from/?page=1

Nicolas, R.B. (1987). “Chromosomes and Kinetechores Do More in Mitosis Than Previously Thought”, pp. 53-74, in Chromosome Structure and Function: Important New Concepts (eds. Gustafson, J.P. and Appels, R.). Springer

Nowak, M.A., Tarnita, C.E. and Wilson, E.O. (2010). “The Evolution of Euociality.” Nature 466: 1057-1062

Otto S.P. (2007). “The evolutionary consequences of polyploidy”. Cell 131 (3): 452–62

Peters, J.E. and Benson, S.A. (1994). Redundant Transfer of F’ Plasmids Occurs between Escherichia coli Cells during Nonlethal Selections”. Journal of Bacteriology 177, No. 3: 847-850.

Pinker, S. (2002). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Viking. Radicella, J.P.,

Park, P.U. and Fox, M.S. (1995). “Adaptive Mutation in Escherichia coli: A Role for Conjugation.” Science 268:418-423

Raff, R.A. and Kaufman, T.C. (1983). Embryos, Genes and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolution. Indiana U. Press

Raper, J.R. (1966). The Genetics of Sexuality in Higher Fungi. The Ronald Press Co.

Ricci, N. (1982), “Preconjugant Cell Interactions in Oxytricha bifaria (Ciliata, Hypotrichida): A Two-Step Recognition Process Leading to Cell Fusion and the Induction of Meiosis,” pp. 319-350, in Sexual Interactions in Eukaryotic Microbes. (eds. O’Day,
D.H. and Horgen, P.). Academic Press

Ridley, Matt (1993). The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature. Macmillan

Rieseberg, L.H. and Willis, J.H. (2007). “Plant speciation”. Science 317 (5840): 910–4

Robinson, G.E. (2010). “From Society to Genes with the Honey Bee.” pp. 327-33, in Exploring Animal Behavior: Readings from American Scientist. (eds. Sherman, P.W. and Alcock, J.). Sinauer and Associates, Inc

Ruhfel, R.E., Leonard, B.A.B., Dunny, G.M. (1997). “Pheromone-Inducible Conjugation in Enterococcus faecalis: Mating Interactions Mediated by Chemical Signals and Direct Contact”, pp. 53-68, in Bacteria as Multicellular Organisms (eds. Shapiro and Dworkin). Oxford U. Press

Sanderson, M.J. (1991). “In Search of Homoplastic Tendencies: Statistical Inference of Topological Patterns in Homoplasy.” Evolution 45(2):351-358

Shapiro, J.A. (1997). “Multicellularity: The Rule, Not the Exception: Lessons from Escherichia coli colonies”, pp. 14 to 52, in Bacteria as Multicellular Organisms (eds. Shapiro and Dworkin). Oxford U. Press

Shapiro, J.A. (1995). “Adaptive Mutation: Who’s Really in the Garden”. Science 268: 373-74.

Shapiro, J.A. and Higgins, N.P. (1989). “Differential Activity of a Transposable Element in E.coli Colonies”, J. Bacteriology 171:5975-5986

Shee, C., Gibson, J.L. and Rosenberg, S.M. (2012). “Two Mechanisms Produce Mutation Hotspots at DNA Breaks in Escherichia coli”, Cell Reports 2(4):714-21.

Simpson, George G. (1951). The Meaning of Evolution. New American Library

South, G.R. and Whittick, A. (1987). Introduction to Phycology. Blackwell.

Stebbins, G.L. (1992). “Modal Themes: A New Framework for Evolutionary Syntheses”, in Perspectives on Evolution (ed. Milkman, R.). Sinauer Associates

Steele, E.J. (1979). Somatic Selection and Adaptive Evolution: On the Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics. U. of Chicago Press

Taylor, E.B., McPhail, J.D., and Schluter, D. (1997). “History of Ecological Selection in Sticklebacks: Uniting Experimental and Phylogenetic Approaches”, in Molecular Evolution and Adaptive Radiation (eds. Givnish, T.J. and Sytsma, K.J.). Cambridge U. Press

Templeton, A. (1987). “Inferences on Natural Population Structure from Genetic Studies on Captive Mammalian Populations” in Mammalian Dispersal Patterns: The Effects of Social Structure on Population Genetics (eds. Chepko-Sade, B.d., and Halpin, Z.J.). U. of Chicago Press

Trivers, R. (1971). “The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism”, The Quarterly Review of Biology 46:35-57.

Turnbaugh, W.A., Nelson, H., Jurmain, R., Kilgore, L. (1993). Understanding Physical Anthropology and Archeology. (5th ed.). West Publishing

Vallejo-Marin, M. (2012). “Mimulus peregrinus (Phrymaceae): A new British allopolyploid species.” Phytokeys 14:1-14

Vogel, F. and Motulsky, A.G. (1997). Human Genetics: Problems and Approaches. (3rd
ed). Springer

Wake, D. (1996). “Introduction”, pp. xvii – xxv, in Homoplasy: The Recurrence of Similarity in Evolution (eds. Sanderson, M.J. and Hufford, L.). Academic Press

West-Eberhard, M.J. (1988). “Phenotypic plasticity and ‘genetic’ theories of insect sociality” in Evolution of Social Behavior and Integrative Levels (eds. Greenberg and Tobach), pp. 123-33. Lawrence Erlbaum

West-Eberhard, M.J. (1987). “Flexible strategy and social evolution” in Animal Societies: Theories and Facts (eds. Brown and Kikkawa). Japan Scientific Societies Press

Willetts, N. (1993). “Bacterial Conjugation: A Historical Perspective”, pp. 1-22, in Bacterial Conjugation (ed. Clewell, D.). Springer

Williams, G.C. (1980). “Kin Selection and the Paradox of Sociality” in Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture. Westview

Williams, G.C. (1975). Sex and Evolution. Princeton U. Press

Williams, G.C. (1965). Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton U. Press

Wilson, D.S. and Sober, E. (1994). “Re-introducing Group Selection to the Human Behavioral Sciences”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17:585-654.

Wilson, E.O. (1980). Sociobiology (abridged). Harvard U. Press

Wilson, E.O. (1971). The Insect Societies. Harvard U. Press

Genetic Experimentation

Genetic Experimentation: The Adaptive Function of Sex & ConjugationExcerpt from the Introduction:

Sex has long been a difficult problem for Darwinian theory. “The existence of sexual reproduction poses a big theoretical puzzle to Darwinians.” (Dawkins 1986, p. 268). Although in some species, such as our own, sex is necessary for reproduction, that is not its adaptive function. Many lower organisms reproduce asexually (cloning). In many of these species, organisms switch to sexual reproduction at some stage in their life cycle. There are species, such as dandelions, that have even reverted from sexual reproduction to asexual. If reproduction was the function of sex, cloning would be far simpler, more efficient and wouldn’t require males. Moreover, even in species in which reproduction is tied to sex, reproduction itself doesn’t explain the genetic manipulations that accompany sex, including the intricate molecular processes involved in meiosis and crossing-over. Furthermore, conjugation, which like sex involves genetic manipulations in the transfer of DNA, occurs separate from reproduction.

That sex is a puzzle should be embarrassing for evolutionary biology. Sex must be extremely important. Most organisms reproduce sexually at some point in their life cycle. Sexual reproduction is present in all taxa and most species. No known “higher” organisms have evolved through cloning. All either reproduce sexually (at least periodically) or evolved from ancestors that did. (Bell 1982, p. 437; Maynard Smith and Szathmary 1995, pp. 164-66). As research of microorganisms has progressed, it is no longer even clear that any lower organisms have evolved by cloning since they engage in conjugation.

Not only should it be embarrassing, that sex remains a puzzle should be a clue that something fundamental is wrong with the whole neo-Darwinian framework. A leading theorist on the subject, John Maynard Smith, once remarked that “[o]ne is left with feeling that some essential feature of the situation is being overlooked.” (Ridley 1993, pp. 40-41, quoting Smith). The essential feature that has been overlooked, which Maynard Smith did not consider, is that population genetics and the concept of chance mutation are wrong. After describing sex as inconsistent with evolutionary theory, Williams stated that his “purpose is to propose minimal modifications of the theory to account for the persistence of so seemingly a maladaptive character.” (Williams 1975, Preface, v). The argument that follows is that sex can’t be solved with minimal modifications to neo-Darwinism; neo-Darwinian theory needs radical surgery, including removal of the concepts at its core.

The hypothesis set forth in this book is that genetic rearrangements are not due to “mutations” in the sense of random errors. Rather, they are produced by experimental genetic tinkering. This is the adaptive function of sex in higher organisms. It is the adaptive function of conjugation in lower organisms.

Check out the Table of Contents.

Take a look at the Bibliography.

Get the entire book:

Download the PDF (free) Get it for Kindle ($7)

Genetic Experimentation ~ Table of Contents

Genetic Experimentation: The Adaptive Function of Sex & ConjugationINTRODUCTION 1
Mendel, Neo-Darwinism, and the Problem of Sex 4
Mendel, Neo-Darwinism, and Point Mutations 8
The Doctrine of Blind Variation 10
Proof that Organisms Engage in Genetic Experimentation—Even within the Framework of
      Population Genetics 12
Opening the Black Box: The Immune System and Genetic Engineering 19
Opening the Black Box: Conjugation as Genetic Engineering 21
Opening the Black Box: Shifts in the Meanings of “Gene” and “Mutation” 24
Opening the Black Box: The Evolution of Proteins through Genetic Rearrangement 25
Opening the Black Box: Transposons, Introns, and Exons 26
Opening the Black Box: Noncoding DNA 28
Opening the Black Box: Homeotic Genes 30
Evolution through Changes in Developmental Sequences 31
Speciation through Polyploidization 35
The Connection between Sex and Genetic Rearrangements 36
Genetic Experimentation: The Continuum from Conjugation and Sex 40
Point Mutations and the Rival Allele Model of Evolution: Why Have They Stuck? 43
Directed Variation and Rearrangements 52
Organisms as Epigenetic Systems: Perceptive and Flexible 54
Organisms as Epigenetic Systems: The Genetic Library 56
The Genetic Library: Atavism and Homoplasy 56
The Genetic Library: Genomic Imprinting 60
The Genetic Library: The Contextual Shift Hypothesis 62
The Genetic Library: Its Significance for Genetic Experimentation 63
Communicating Environmental Information to Reproductive Cells 66
Criteria for Evaluating Theories of Sex 69
Theories of Sex that Do Not Acknowledge Genetic Experimentation 71
Theories that Do Acknowledge Sex as Experimentation 73
Sex, Recombination, and Rearrangements 78
A Higher Level of Genetic Experimentation? 80
Epilogue: Philosophical Implications of Directed Experimentation 84
BIBLIOGRAPHY 95

Read the entire book:

Download the PDF (free) Get it for Kindle ($7)

About the Author & Project

Britt W. Hanson
Britt W. Hanson

Each of these three books aims to solve a significant scientific puzzle: the evolution of group altruism; the evolution of culture and its relationship to natural selection; and the function of sex. Along the way, these books present theories of human nature, creativity, free will, and goal-directed causation, while also unloosening biology and the social sciences from the shackles of mechanical determinism.

I did not set out to do any of this. In the mid-1990s, I had asked a simple question: why, over the millennia, has the human species put its ingenuity towards extracting more and more resources and generating more and more people? And this follow-up question: do we have any control over this trajectory, or is it somehow ingrained in us?

When I couldn’t find an answer to these in the social sciences, I turned to evolution, expecting that what modern humans do should have some connection with what our ancestors evolved to do. Eventually I stumbled onto sociobiology. I became persuaded that a fundamental thesis of sociobiology must be correct: human culture must derive from human biology, as evolved through natural selection. The alternative is a blank slate hypothesis. But the more I examined sociobiology, the more I also became persuaded that most of the rest of its propositions were wrong.

My skepticism began with kin selection. In On Human Nature, E.O. Wilson stated that kin selection accounted for cooperation among close relatives, implying that kin selection could explain tribalism in our ancestors. This led me to wonder how modern human societies could have expanded so far beyond tribes of close kin. I searched for sources that would provide a rationale for how kin selection works. In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins emphasized again and again that kin selection does not predict tribalism at all. It is not a group theory. It is a theory of selfish individualism. Dawkins argued that group altruism is impossible, even theoretically. Although Dawkins is a persuasive writer, this did not seem right. Human groups, including tribes, are real. And the more I examined Dawkins’ selfish gene rationale for kin selection, the more I questioned its plausibility.

My interest was in humans, but it occurred to me that animal societies could not function if each individual member calculated altruism by degrees of relatedness, as predicted by kin selection. Poring over studies of animal societies, I quickly came to see that animals bestow altruism according to group membership, not degree of relatedness. In Ants and The Social Insects, E.O. Wilson made clear that this is true of ants and other social insects. So why then were evolutionary biologists, including Wilson, so enthusiastically proclaiming that kin selection was correct? Where were the skeptics?

In 1998, I came across two articles by Mary Jane West-Eberhard, which cast doubt upon kin selection. These articles contained what to me was a surprising, extraordinary fact: the division between queens and worker castes is epigenetic. This was directly at odds with the way that kin selection modeled the existence of “selfish” queens and “altruistic” workers as due to rival alleles for selfishness and altruism. Epigenesis didn’t solve the problem of altruism—some genetic selection must occur for worker altruism to evolve—but it did lead me from simple skepticism to a conviction that kin selection was just plain wrong. Evolutionary biology needed a theory that explained altruism at the level of the group. The theories of group selection, however, used the same gene-centered approach as did kin selection, and they were thus not persuasive, either. So I set out to devise a theory of group altruism. The outline of what I eventually called “dynastic theory” came about in short order.

Dynastic theory explains why animal societies are structured around lines of descent—what I call “dynastic structure”—and, hence, are groups of kin. I could project this structure to bands and tribes of human pre-cultural ancestors. But this still didn’t account for the fact that modern human societies have bonds that extend far beyond kinship.

I set myself to the task of figuring this out. I guessed that the solution had something to do with the distinctive way in which humans evolve, through culture. This was something else that sociobiology did not seem to get right. In places, sociobiologists were suggesting that human culture evolves just like natural selection, or maybe even through natural selection. At other times, sociobiologists pointed out that human biology has hardly changed over the past tens of thousands of years and that biological differences do not account for cultural differences. If so, natural selection of genetic variation could have nothing to do with the evolution of culture. Moreover, when I thought through specific examples of the evolution of cultural traits, it became clear that culture evolves independently of natural selection. The trick was to explain how this could happen. What emerged, in the year 2000, was a theory of cultural evolution: the theory of directed creativity.

This theory—and in particular, the very concept of creativity—conflicted with determinism, which is a premise of science. I was reluctant to open this can of worms, but it seemed too important not to do so. What emerged was a theory of guided free will and a theory of teleological causation—which is not to be confused with cosmic purpose or theology.

Meanwhile, during my reviews of kin selection, I became aware that biologists regard the function of sex as an unsolved evolutionary puzzle. This was striking. Biologists were heralding the neo-Darwinian synthesis as completing Darwin’s theory, yet the synthesis couldn’t account for a trait as apparently fundamental and as (nearly) ubiquitous as sex? Adding to the puzzle, to be consistent with kin selection, sociobiologists were asserting that sex must hurdle two-for-one leaps of benefits in order to evolve from asexual reproduction.

By this time, I had become thoroughly skeptical of almost every aspect of the neo-Darwinian framework. And since dynastic theory solved the problem of altruism without the need for leaps, I thought I might also easily solve the puzzle of sex. This quest, however, turned out to be far more difficult and time-consuming than solving altruism and cultural evolution. A sketch of the theory of sex and conjugation was completed by the end of 2002, but by then I was exhausted and needed to make a living. I took up these projects again several years later, attempting to put the several theories into comprehensible, readable forms. Given the scope and magnitude of the subject matter, this has taken several years. I hope that I have succeeded.

I realize that what these three books purport to accomplish appears to be all quite grand. I also realize that it is possible that they are simply grandiose.

The reader will rightly be skeptical, all the more so since I am not a trained evolutionary biologist, an anthropologist, or a philosopher. I am a lawyer. One of the questions that I asked myself early on in developing dynastic theory, and kept asking throughout the project, was how someone like me could possibly perceive flaws in evolutionary theory and put together improved theories. I think that my outside perspective proved to be essential. When a puzzle remains unsolved, it is usually because errors are embedded in orthodox assumptions that are so ingrained that no one questions them. In this case, the ingrained assumptions are embodied in the neo-Darwinian synthesis—a synthesis that became orthodoxy, became identified with Darwin, and then hardened into a phalanx of concepts and doctrines that is extremely difficult to breach. That is why outstanding scientists keep mulling over the same ideas and falling short of solutions. As science historian Thomas Kuhn observed, “normal science” occurs inside a scientific discipline; significant change arrives from the outside, from those who challenge ingrained assumptions. I didn’t begin with a priori assumptions. I began with the empirical patterns, then worked backwards until the puzzles were solved. The reader will judge whether I have solved them successfully.

Most of all, though, the end hope is that these books might contribute to the understanding of the questions that prompted them: why has our species evolved in the direction of more, more, and more? And do we have a choice?

–Britt Hanson