David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Acta Biotheoretica 39 (2) (1991)
Using a classical life history model (the Smith & Fretwell model of the evolution of offspring size), it is demonstrated that even in the presence of overwhelming empirical support, the testability of predictions derived from evolutionary models can give no guarantee that the underlying fitness concept is sound. Non-awareness of this problem may cause considerable justified but avoidable criticism. To help understanding the variable use of fitness in evolutionary models and recognizing potentially problematic areas which need careful consideration, a hierarchical classification of definitions of fitness used in evolutionary models is presented. As a conclusion, it is advocated to use the term fitness more conscientiously than currently often practised and to think more about ways to develop fitness-free evolutionary theories compatible with Darwin's ideas.
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Brett Calcott (2008). Assessing the Fitness Landscape Revolution. Biology and Philosophy 23 (5):639-657.
Mohan Matthen & André Ariew (2002). Two Ways of Thinking About Fitness and Natural Selection. Journal of Philosophy 99 (2):55-83.
Marshall Abrams (2009). The Unity of Fitness. Philosophy of Science 76 (5):750-761.
Robert N. Brandon (1980). A Structural Description of Evolutionary Theory. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:427 - 439.
André Ariew & R. C. Lewontin (2004). The Confusions of Fitness. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (2):347-363.
Henry Byerly (1986). Fitness as a Function. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:494 - 501.
Henry C. Byerly & Richard E. Michod (1991). Fitness and Evolutionary Explanation. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 6 (1):45-53.
Susan K. Mills & John H. Beatty (1979). The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness. Philosophy of Science 46 (2):263-286.
Robert C. Richardson & Richard M. Burian (1992). A Defense of Propensity Interpretations of Fitness. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:349 - 362.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #252,595 of 1,098,956 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?