{"status":"public","type":"journal_article","publist_id":"1791","page":"643 - 671","citation":{"ama":"Coyne J, Barton NH, Turelli M. Perspective: A critique of Sewall Wright’s shifting balance theory of evolutionight’s shifting balance theory of evolution. <i>Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution</i>. 1997;51(3):643-671. doi:<a href=\"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb03650.x\">10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb03650.x</a>","ista":"Coyne J, Barton NH, Turelli M. 1997. Perspective: A critique of Sewall Wright’s shifting balance theory of evolutionight’s shifting balance theory of evolution. Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution. 51(3), 643–671.","mla":"Coyne, Jerry, et al. “Perspective: A Critique of Sewall Wright’s Shifting Balance Theory of Evolutionight’s Shifting Balance Theory of Evolution.” <i>Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution</i>, vol. 51, no. 3, Wiley-Blackwell, 1997, pp. 643–71, doi:<a href=\"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb03650.x\">10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb03650.x</a>.","ieee":"J. Coyne, N. H. Barton, and M. Turelli, “Perspective: A critique of Sewall Wright’s shifting balance theory of evolutionight’s shifting balance theory of evolution,” <i>Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution</i>, vol. 51, no. 3. Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 643–671, 1997.","chicago":"Coyne, Jerry, Nicholas H Barton, and Michael Turelli. “Perspective: A Critique of Sewall Wright’s Shifting Balance Theory of Evolutionight’s Shifting Balance Theory of Evolution.” <i>Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution</i>. Wiley-Blackwell, 1997. <a href=\"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb03650.x\">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb03650.x</a>.","short":"J. Coyne, N.H. Barton, M. Turelli, Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution 51 (1997) 643–671.","apa":"Coyne, J., Barton, N. H., &#38; Turelli, M. (1997). Perspective: A critique of Sewall Wright’s shifting balance theory of evolutionight’s shifting balance theory of evolution. <i>Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution</i>. Wiley-Blackwell. <a href=\"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb03650.x\">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb03650.x</a>"},"volume":51,"scopus_import":"1","publication":"Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution","oa":1,"_id":"4287","doi":"10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb03650.x","author":[{"first_name":"Jerry","full_name":"Coyne, Jerry","last_name":"Coyne"},{"id":"4880FE40-F248-11E8-B48F-1D18A9856A87","last_name":"Barton","orcid":"0000-0002-8548-5240","full_name":"Barton, Nicholas H","first_name":"Nicholas H"},{"first_name":"Michael","full_name":"Turelli, Michael","last_name":"Turelli"}],"day":"01","article_processing_charge":"No","month":"06","publication_identifier":{"issn":["0014-3820"]},"article_type":"original","pmid":1,"oa_version":"Published Version","acknowledgement":"We thank the following people for discussion and comments on themanuscript: S.Barrett,J. Bull, B.Charlesworth, D.Charlesworth, P. DeVries, S.Gavrilets, J. H.Gillespie, R.K.Grosberg, W.G. Hill, A. A.Hoffmann, M.Kirkpatrick, C.H.Langley, R.  C.Lewontin, J.B. Mallet, M. Noor, L.Nunney, H. A. Orr, T. Prout, M.Slatkin, J.Spofford, W.Stephan, J.  B.  Walsh,  P. Ward, K. Weber, J. Willis, and M.Zwick. We are especially grateful to D.J. Futuyma and D.Schemskefor  their exhaustive criticism of the manuscript. Needless to say, not all of these reviewers agree with our ideas. This work  was supported by National Institutes of Health grant GM50355 to JAC, National Science Foundation grant DEB9527808 to MT, and grants from the Darwin Trust of Edinburgh and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (GRJI76057,GRIHI09928) to NHB.","main_file_link":[{"url":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb03650.x","open_access":"1"}],"year":"1997","external_id":{"pmid":["28568586"]},"date_published":"1997-06-01T00:00:00Z","language":[{"iso":"eng"}],"issue":"3","date_created":"2018-12-11T12:08:03Z","user_id":"ea97e931-d5af-11eb-85d4-e6957dddbf17","date_updated":"2022-08-18T09:48:43Z","quality_controlled":"1","extern":"1","abstract":[{"lang":"eng","text":"We evaluate Sewall Wright's three-phase \"shifting balance\" theory of evolution, examining both the theoretical issues and the relevant data from nature and the laboratory. We conclude that while phases I and II of Wright's theory (the movement of populations from one \"adaptive peak\" to another via drift and selection) can occur under some conditions, genetic drift is often unnecessary for movement between peaks. Phase III of the shifting balance, in which adaptations spread from particular populations to the entire species, faces two major theoretical obstacles: (1) unlike adaptations favored by simple directional selection, adaptations whose fixation requires some genetic drift are often prevented from spreading by barriers to gene flow; and (2) it is difficult to assemble complex adaptations whose constituent parts arise via peak shifts in different demes. Our review of the data from nature shows that although there is some evidence for individual phases of the shifting balance process, there are few empirical observations explained better by Wright's three-phase mechanism than by simple mass selection. Similarly, artificial selection experiments fail to show that selection in subdivided populations produces greater response than does mass selection in large populations. The complexity of the shifting balance process and the difficulty of establishing that adaptive valleys have been crossed by genetic drift make it impossible to test Wright's claim that adaptations commonly originate by this process. In view of these problems, it seems unreasonable to consider the shifting balance process as an important explanation for the evolution of adaptations. "}],"title":"Perspective: A critique of Sewall Wright's shifting balance theory of evolutionight's shifting balance theory of evolution","publisher":"Wiley-Blackwell","intvolume":"        51","publication_status":"published"}