The geometry of evolutionary conflict

Conflicts of interest abound not only in human affairs but also in the biological realm. Evolutionary conflict occurs over multiple scales of biological organization, from genetic outlawry within genomes, to sibling rivalry within nuclear families, to collective-action disputes within societies. However, achieving a general understanding of the dynamics and consequences of evolutionary conflict remains an outstanding challenge. Here, we show that a development of R. A. Fisher's classic 'geometric model' of adaptation yields novel and surprising insights into the dynamics of evolutionary conflict and resulting maladaptation, including the discoveries that: (i) conflict can drive evolving traits arbitrarily far away from all parties' optima and, indeed, if all mutations are equally likely then contested traits are more often than not driven outwith the zone of actual conflict (hyper-maladaptation); (ii) evolutionary conflicts drive persistent maladaptation of orthogonal, non-contested traits (para-maladaptation); and (iii) modular design greatly ameliorates conflict-driven maladaptation, thereby facilitating major transitions in individuality.

Automated summary

Conflicts of interest are common in both human affairs and the biological realm, and evolutionary conflict occurs at various levels of biological organization. This study reveals novel insights into the dynamics and consequences of evolutionary conflict by developing a geometric model of adaptation. The findings demonstrate that conflict can drive evolving traits far from the optimal state, lead to persistent maladaptation of non-contested traits, and be alleviated by modular design, facilitating major transitions in individuality.