This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Siblings:
17 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
  1. Gillian Barker (1993). Models of Biological Change: Implications of Three Cases of "Lamrckian" Change. In Perspectives in Ethology 10: Behavior and Evolution. 229-248.
  2. Miroslav Brada, This is Not Foucault.
    In 2004 I talked with philosopher Miroslav Marcelli about legacy of Foucault and contemporary philosophy. Animation 'This is not Foucault' and film Discontinuity show Foucault's ideas. Finally I add a dispute of evolution becoming 'atheistic' religion.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Christopher Eliot (2009). Darwinism and its Discontents. By Michael Ruse. [REVIEW] Metaphilosophy 40 (5):702-710.
  4. James Franklin (1997). Stove's Anti-Darwinism. Philosophy 72 (279):133-136.
    Stove's article, 'So you think you are a Darwinian?'[ 1] was essentially an advertisement for his book, Darwinian Fairytales.[ 2] The central argument of the book is that Darwin's theory, in both Darwin's and recent sociobiological versions, asserts many things about the human and other species that are known to be false, but protects itself from refutation by its logical complexity. A great number of ad hoc devices, he claims, are used to protect the theory. If co operation is observed (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Logan Paul Gage (2013). Nagel, Thomas., Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Review of Metaphysics 66 (3):588-590.
    A review of Thomas Nagel's book Mind and Cosmos.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Logan Paul Gage (2013). Thomas Nagel: Mind and Cosmos. [REVIEW] Review of Metaphysics 66 (3):588-560.
  7. Enrique Morata (2009). Erased. Bubok.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Ray Scott Percival (1994). Natural Selections. [REVIEW] Nature 371 (6499):666-667.
    How do you put both physicists and biologists on their guard? Answer: propound a philosophical theory that ignores Darwin's demolition of essentialism in species and brands any physicist who denies your theory of natural kinds as an anti-realist. A traditional division in philosophy is between metaphysics (what sorts of things exist) and epistemology (what and how we know). Some think that the core of realism is the metaphysical assumption that there is a world independent of our minds. But this core (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Massimo Pigliucci (2010). A Misguided Attack on Evolution. [REVIEW] Nature 464:353-354.
    Why Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini are wrong about Darwin and evolution.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Massimo Pigliucci (2010). What Darwin Got Wrong. [REVIEW] Philosophy Now 81:38-39.
    What Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini got wrong about Darwin and evolution.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Reed Richter (2002). What Science Can and Cannot Say: The Problems with Methodological Naturalism. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 22 (Jan-Apr 2002):18-22.
    This paper rejects a view of science called "methodological naturalism." -/- According to many defenders of mainstream science and Darwinian evolution, anti-evolution critics--creationists and intelligent design proponents--are conceptually and epistemologically confusing science and religion, a supernatural view of world. These defenders of evolution contend that doing science requires adhering to a methodology that is strictly and essentially naturalistic: science is essentially committed to "methodological naturalism" and assumes that all the phenomena it investigates are entirely natural and consistent with the laws (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Marco Solinas (2015). From Aristotle’s Teleology to Darwin’s Genealogy: The Stamp of Inutility, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. Palgrave Macmillan.
    Starting with Aristotle and moving on to Darwin, Marco Solinas outlines the basic steps from the birth, establishment and later rebirth of the traditional view of living beings, and its overturning by evolutionary revolution. The classic framework devised by Aristotle was still dominant in the 17th Century world of Galileo, Harvey and Ray, and remained hegemonic until the time of Lamarck and Cuvier in the 19th Century. Darwin's breakthrough thus takes on the dimensions of an abandonment of the traditional finalistic (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Marco Solinas (2012). L'impronta dell'inutilità. Dalla teleologia di Aristotele alle genealogie di Darwin. ETS.
    The book aims to offer a contribution to the historiographical and conceptual reconfiguration of the evolutionary revolution in the light of the centuries-old tenets of the Aristotelian biological tradition. Darwin’s breakthrough constitutes a thorough overturning of the fixist, essentialist and teleological framework created by Aristotle, a framework still dominant in the 17th Century world of Harvey and Ray, as well as Galileo, and then hegemonic until Linnaeus and Cuvier. This change is exemplified in the morphological analysis of useless parts, such (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Marco Solinas (2009). L'impronta dell'inutilità. Il tramonto delle cause finali nell'impianto evoluzionistico. Leussein (3/6):127-145.
  15. Arlin Stoltzfus (2006). Mutationism and the Dual Causation of Evolutionary Change. Evolution and Development 8 (3):304-317.
    The rediscovery of Mendel's laws a century ago launched the science that William Bateson called "genetics," and led to a new view of evolution combining selection, particulate inheritance, and the newly characterized phenomenon of "mutation." This "mutationist" view clashed with the earlier view of Darwin, and the later "Modern Synthesis," by allowing discontinuity, and by recognizing mutation (or more properly, mutation-and-altered-development) as a source of creativity, direction, and initiative. By the mid-20th century, the opposing Modern Synthesis view was a prevailing (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Arlin Stoltzfus (1999). On the Possibility of Constructive Neutral Evolution. Journal of Molecular Evolution 49 (2):169-181.
    The neutral theory often is presented as a theory of "noise" or silent changes at an isolated "molecular level", relevant to marking the steady pace of divergence, but not to the origin of biological structure, function, or complexity. Nevertheless, precisely these issues can be addressed in neutral models, such as those elaborated here in regard to scrambled ciliate genes, gRNA-mediated RNA editing, the transition from self-splicing to spliceosomal splicing, and the retention of duplicate genes. All of these are instances of (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Arlin Stoltzfus & Lev Yampolsky (2009). Climbing Mount Probable: Mutation as a Cause of Non-Randomness in Evolution. Journal of Heredity 100 (5):637-647.
    The classic view of evolution as "shifting gene frequencies" in the Modern Synthesis literally means that evolution is the modulation of existing variation ("standing variation"), as opposed to a "new mutations" view of evolution as a 2-step process of mutational origin followed by acceptance-or-rejection (via selection and drift). The latter view has received renewed attention, yet its implications for evolutionary causation still are not widely understood. We review theoretical results showing that this conception of evolution allows for a role of (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation