Learning allows a moth to change more quickly but also reduces selection pressure, so that moths with maladaptive genotypes continue to appear. Lamarckian moths—which learn and then pass on their learned color to their progeny—track the changing environment closely. The question remains whether the benefits of learning and Lamarckism would outweigh the costs.
Note that the graph for Darwinian evolution covers a longer interval. The Harvard basketball team is not the most convenient context for a computer model of Lamarckian evolution.
In searching for a simpler system, I have been inspired by the famous case of the melanic moths in industrial Britain. Dark-pigmented forms of the peppered moth Biston betularia were first noticed in the 19th century; they grew in abundance for several decades and then receded again after the s. The cause of the original color shift was apparently the darkening of tree trunks by coal soot, which impaired the camouflage of lighter moths and left them exposed to predators.
The later reversal of the trend coincided with measures to reduce air pollution. My model of these events is highly abstract, with all the naturalistic details stripped away.
It is not meant to reveal anything new about melanic moths but merely uses the idea of selection based on camouflage to explore some mechanisms of adaptation. The computer model is written in the programming language StarLogo, created by Mitchel Resnick of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The model and additional technical details are available here. The rise and fall of melanism in the peppered moth was unquestionably a Darwinian event, brought about by natural selection acting on random mutations.
Inheritance of acquired characteristics was impossible simply because there were no acquired characteristics to inherit.
A moth has no way to change its color over the course of its lifetime, even if it could somehow figure out that making the change would be advantageous. And if the moth cannot adjust its color, it obviously cannot transmit any adjustments to its descendants.
But in imagination—or in the computer—we can rerun the experiment without the constraints of insect physiology. We can create chameleon moths that sense the color of their environment and adjust their own color to match.
I shall refer to this adjustment process as learning , although it needn't imply any kind of cognitive capacity; the term is meant to encompass any adaptation within the lifetime of an organism. Would moths that learn have an advantage over those that don't? It seems like a sure bet—and yet if adjustable camouflage is such an obvious asset, why don't all prey species have it? A likely answer is the no-free-lunch theorem. Learning has a cost, which in some cases may outweigh the benefits.
At a minimum there is a complexity cost: Sensing the state of the environment and responding to it requires metabolic machinery that a simpler organism could do without. Building and maintaining that machinery incurs an energy cost; resources that might have gone into growth and reproduction have to be diverted into learning.
Thus a creature that does a lot of learning could be expected to have a slower reproductive cycle than one with more hard-wired traits. Thus adjustable camouflage might reduce mortality, but the price would be reduced fertility.
The cost-benefit analysis for Lamarckism is similar. In a Darwinian world, any acquired improvements cannot cross the generation gap. A smart moth born with white wings might darken gradually to match a sooty environment, but the moth's offspring would be white again barring mutations.
The moth's acquired pigment is no more heritable than a suntan. Lamarckism creates a link between learning and genetics. A moth that adjusts its color during its lifespan will give birth to offspring that share at least some of this adjustment. Is this shortcut advantageous? Again it would seem so. The young moths are hatched with protective coloration already in place. But, as with learning, maintaining the Lamarckian mechanism imposes a metabolic cost, so that lowering the death rate limits the birth rate.
The balance between these two effects determines whether Lamarckian inheritance pays off. Finding the point of balance is the aim of the computer simulation. The main actors in a StarLogo program are mobile, animal-like objects.
For historical reasons they are known as turtles, but they can just as well represent moths. Each moth has its own internal state, which includes a genome, a camouflage color and a level of energy reserves. The moths move over a background of "patches," which represent the color of the environment. Figure 2. Competition of three species was initially dominated by Darwinians and then by learners but finally by Lamarckians.
Paradoxically, though, the gene for Lamarckian inheritance was driven to its minimal value. Melanism is often a polygenic trait, producing a more-or-less continuous range of hues. Mutations happen because DNA isn't perfectly copied or maintained; there's no bias in favour of beneficial mutations.
However, as generations pass beneficial mutations proliferate, deleterious ones disappear unless continually generated by mutation asymmetries, and even then they'll be rare in the population , and neutral ones' frequency in the population " drift " at random.
In Lamarckism, mutations are preserved based on beneficial acquired characteristics, which would require a way for bodies to identify which acquired traits are useful injuries aren't!
There is a lot of evidence that supports Darwinian evolution "natural selection" but not Lamarckian evolution. For starters, Lamarckism couldn't explain novel biochemistry. Biologists such as Richard Dawkins see e. Darwin Triumphant , a chapter of A Devil's Chaplain have pointed out that, even if there were life that could do what Lamarckism requires, it would not only still be susceptible to natural selection, but could only perfect a viable Lamarckism mechanism of discriminating good changes from bad by the action of natural selection.
In other words, even if Lamarckism happened it would be an emergent property of Darwinism, not an alternative to it. Sign up to join this community.
The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. To Read the Full Story. Subscribe Sign In. Continue reading your article with a WSJ membership.
Resume Subscription We are delighted that you'd like to resume your subscription. And in , Charles Darwin would publish the Origin of Species. Lamarck, St. Darwin relied on much the same evidence for evolution that Lamarck did such as vestigial structures and artificial selection through breeding , but made completely different arguments from Lamarck.
Darwin did not accept an arrow of complexity driving through the history of life. He argued that complexity evolved simply as a result of life adapting to its local conditions from one generation to the next, much as modern biologists see this process.
For example, he tried on and eventually rejected several different ideas about heredity including the inheritance of acquired characteristics, as championed by Lamarck and never came to any satisfying conclusion about how traits were passed from parent to offspring.
Despite all he got wrong, Lamarck can be credited with envisioning evolutionary change for the first time. Learn more about the fact and fiction of Lamarck. Extinctions: Georges Cuvier. Developmental Similarities: Karl von Baer.
0コメント