David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Biology and Philosophy 23 (5):673-699 (2008)
The two authors of this paper have diametrically opposed views of the prevalence and strength of adaptation in nature. Hendry believes that adaptation can be seen almost everywhere and that evidence for it is overwhelming and ubiquitous. Gonzalez believes that adaptation is uncommon and that evidence for it is ambiguous at best. Neither author is certifiable to the knowledge of the other, leaving each to wonder where the other has his head buried. Extensive argument has revealed that each author thinks his own view is amply supported by both theory and empirical evidence. Further reflection has revealed that the differences in opinion may start with the different disciplines in which we work: evolutionary ecology for Hendry and community ecology for Gonzalez. In the present paper, we each present devastating evidence supporting our own position and thus refuting that of the other. We then identify the critical differences that led to such opposing views. We close by combining our two perspectives into a common framework based on the adaptive landscape, and thereby suggest means by which to assess the prevalence and strength of adaptation.
|Keywords||Philosophy Evolutionary Biology Philosophy of Biology|
|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
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 73-90.
Nick Barton & Linda Partridge (2000). Limits to Natural Selection. Bioessays 22 (12):1075-1084.
Citations of this work BETA
Sean A. Valles (2012). Evolutionary Medicine at Twenty: Rethinking Adaptationism and Disease. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 27 (2):241-261.
Similar books and articles
Marlene Zuk (2002). A Straw Man on a Dead Horse: Studying Adaptation Then and Now. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):533-534.
Hugo Viciana & Pierrick Bourrat (2011). Is God an Adaptation? Philosophia 39 (2):397-408.
David Sloan Wilson (1990). Species of Thought: A Comment on Evolutionary Epistemology. Biology and Philosophy 5 (1):37-62.
Shaun Nichols & Todd A. Grantham (2000). Adaptive Complexity and Phenomenal Consciousness. Philosophy of Science 67 (4):648-670.
Kostas Kampourakis (2013). Teaching About Adaptation: Why Evolutionary History Matters. [REVIEW] Science and Education 22 (2):173-188.
Leigh Van Valen (2009). How Ubiquitous is Adaptation? A Critique of the Epiphenomenist Program. Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):267-280.
J. T. Wiebes (1982). L'adaptation Evolutive. Acta Biotheoretica 31 (4):239-243.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #246,547 of 1,792,912 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #282,298 of 1,792,912 )
How can I increase my downloads?