Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
The Adaptive Landscape in Evolutionary Biology$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Erik Svensson and Ryan Calsbeek

Print publication date: 2013

Print ISBN-13: 9780199595372

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: December 2013

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199595372.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.date: 05 July 2022

Wright’s Adaptive Landscape Versus Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem

Wright’s Adaptive Landscape Versus Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem

(p.41) Chapter 4 Wright’s Adaptive Landscape Versus Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem
The Adaptive Landscape in Evolutionary Biology

Steven A. Frank

Oxford University Press

Two giants of evolutionary theory, Sewall Wright and R. A. Fisher, fought bitterly for over thirty years. The Wright–Fisher controversy forms a cornerstone of the history and philosophy of biology. The chapter argues that the standard interpretations of the Wright–Fisher controversy do not accurately represent the ideas and arguments of these two key historical figures. The usual account contrasts the major slogans attached to each name: Wright's adaptive landscape and shifting balance theory of evolution versus Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection. These alternative theories are in fact incommensurable. Wright's theory is a detailed dynamical model of evolutionary change in actual populations. Fisher's theory is an abstract invariance and conservation law that, like all physical laws, captures essential features of a system but does not account for all aspects of dynamics in real examples. This key contrast between embodied theories of real cases and abstract laws is missing from prior analyses of Wright versus Fisher. They never argued about this contrast. Instead, the issue at stake in their arguments concerned the actual dynamics of real populations. Both agreed that fluctuations of nonadditive (epistatic) gene combinations play a central role in evolution. Wright emphasized stochastic fluctuations of gene combinations in small, isolated populations. By contrast, Fisher believed that fluctuating selection in large populations was the main cause of fluctuation in nonadditive gene combinations. Close reading shows that widely cited views attributed to Fisher mostly come from what Wright said about Fisher, whereas Fisher's own writings clearly do not support such views.

Keywords:   natural selection, population genetics, Wright–Fisher controversy, shifting balance, epistasis, evolutionary theory, invariance, conservation law, adaptation

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .