Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||In 1979, Lewontin and I borrowed the archi- tectural term “spandrel” (using the pendentives of San Marco in Venice as an example) to designate the class of forms and spaces that arise as necessary byproducts of another decision in design, and not as adaptations for direct utility in them- selves. This proposal has generated a large literature featur- ing two critiques: (i) the terminological claim that the span- drels of San Marco are not true spandrels at all and (ii) the conceptual claim that they are adaptations and not byprod- ucts. The features of the San Marco pendentives that we explicitly defined as spandrel-properties—their necessary number (four) and shape (roughly triangular)—are inevitable architectural byproducts, whatever the structural attributes of the pendentives themselves. The term spandrel may be extended from its particular architectural use for two- dimensional byproducts to the generality of “spaces left over,” a definition that properly includes the San Marco pendentives. Evolutionary biology needs such an explicit term for features arising as byproducts, rather than adaptations, whatever their subsequent exaptive utility. The concept of biological span- drels—including the examples here given of masculinized genitalia in female hyenas, exaptive use of an umbilicus as a brooding chamber by snails, the shoulder hump of the giant Irish deer, and several key features of human mentality— anchors the critique of overreliance upon adaptive scenarios in evolutionary explanation. Causes of historical origin must always be separated from current utilities; their conf lation has seriously hampered the evolutionary analysis of form in the history of life.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Alasdair I. Houston (2009). San Marco and Evolutionary Biology. Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):215-230.
S. J. Gould & R. C. Lewontin (1994). The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. In E. Sober (ed.), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology. The Mit Press. Bradford Books.
Donald F. Klein (2002). Identifying Adaptation by Dysfunction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):521-522.
James L. Dannemiller (2002). Lack of Evidentiary Criteria for Exaptations? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):512-513.
Neil Van Leeuwen (2007). The Spandrels of Self-Deception: Prospects for a Biological Theory of a Mental Phenomenon. Philosophical Psychology 20 (3):329 – 348.
Massimo Pigliucci & Jonathan Kaplan (2000). The Fall and Rise of Dr. Pangloss: Adaptationism and the Spandrels Paper 20 Years Later. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15 (2):66-77.
Rob Pranger (1990). Towards a Pluralistic Concept of Function Function Statements in Biology. Acta Biotheoretica 38 (1).
Todd A. Grantham (2004). Constraints and Spandrels in Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Biology and Philosophy 19 (1):29-43.
S. Davies (2010). Why Art Is Not a Spandrel. British Journal of Aesthetics 50 (4):333-341.
Paul W. Andrews, Steven W. Gangestad & Dan Matthews (2002). Adaptationism – How to Carry Out an Exaptationist Program. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):489-504.
Paul W. Andrews, Steven W. Gangestad & Dan Matthews (2002). Adaptationism, Exaptationism, and Evolutionary Behavioral Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):534-547.
Bernd Rosslenbroich (2006). The Notion of Progress in Evolutionary Biology – the Unresolved Problem and an Empirical Suggestion. Biology and Philosophy 21 (1):41-70.
J. C. Beall (2009). Spandrels of Truth. Oxford University Press.
Tim Lewens (2009). Seven Types of Adaptationism. Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):161-182.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads14 ( #90,533 of 739,319 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,243 of 739,319 )
How can I increase my downloads?