David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 42 (1):82-88 (2011)
Failing to acknowledge substantial differences between Darwinism and neo-Darwinism impedes evolutionary biology. Darwin described evolution as the outcome of interactions between the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions, each relatively autonomous but both historically and spatially intertwined. Furthermore, he postulated that the nature of the organism was more important than the nature of the conditions, leading to natural selection as an inevitable emergent product of biological systems. The neo-Darwinian tradition assumed a creative rather than selective view of natural selection, with the nature of the organism determined by the nature of the conditions, rendering the nature of the organism and temporal contingency unnecessary. Contemporary advances in biology, specifically the phylogenetics revolution and evo-devo, underscore the significance of history and the nature of the organism in biology. Darwinism explains more biology better, and better resolves apparent anomalies between living systems and more general natural laws, than does neo-Darwinism. The “extended” or “expanded” synthesis currently called for by neo-Darwinians is Darwinism
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Kelly C. Smith (1992). Neo-Rationalism Versus Neo-Darwinism: Integrating Development and Evolution. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 7 (4):431-451.
Elias L. Khalil & Alain Marciano (2010). The Equivalence of Neo-Darwinism and Walrasian Equilibrium: In Defense of Organismus Economicus. Biology and Philosophy 25 (2):229-248.
Alan Haworth (2001). Genes and Citizens: Can Moral Philosophy Learn From Evolutionary Biology? Res Publica 7 (2):137-157.
Arthur B. Cody (2000). Informational Darwinism. Inquiry 43 (2):167 – 179.
Martin H. Brinkworth, David Miller & David Iles (2012). Implications of Recent Advances in the Understanding of Heritability for Neo-Darwinian Orthodoxy. In Martin H. Brinkworth & Friedel Weinert (eds.), Evolution 2.0: Implications of Darwinism in Philosophy and the Social and Natural Sciences. Springer.
Maria Kronfeldner (2007). Darwinism, Memes, and Creativity: A Critique of Darwinian Analogical Reasoning From Nature to Culture. Dissertation, University of Regensburg
Davide Vecchi (2012). Taking Biology Seriously : Neo-Darwinism and its Many Challenges. In Martin H. Brinkworth & Friedel Weinert (eds.), Evolution 2.0: Implications of Darwinism in Philosophy and the Social and Natural Sciences. Springer.
Christine Clavien (forthcoming). Evolution, Society, and Ethics: Social Darwinism Versus Evolutionary Ethics. In Thomas Heams (ed.), Handbook of Evolutionary Biology (provis. Title). Springer.
Cor Weele (1993). Metaphors and the Privileging of Causes. Acta Biotheoretica 41 (4).
John Richardson (2004/2008). Nietzsche's New Darwinism. Oxford University Press.
A. J. Wells (1999). Rose's Homeodynamic Perspective is Not an Alternative to Neo-Darwinism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):911-912.
James H. Fetzer (2011). Evolution and Atheism: Has Griffin Reconciled Science and Religion? Synthese 178 (2):381 - 396.
Dirk Robert Johnson (2010). Nietzsche's Anti-Darwinism. Cambridge University Press.
Richard Machalek & Michael W. Martin (2004). Sociology and the Second Darwinian Revolution: A Metatheoretical Analysis. Sociological Theory 22 (3):455-476.
Added to index2012-03-03
Total downloads9 ( #173,442 of 1,413,394 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #154,345 of 1,413,394 )
How can I increase my downloads?