David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Foundations of Science 14 (3):195-216 (2009)
In spite of its success, Neo-Darwinism is faced with major conceptual barriers to further progress, deriving directly from its metaphysical foundations. Most importantly, neo-Darwinism fails to recognize a fundamental cause of evolutionary change, “niche construction”. This failure restricts the generality of evolutionary theory, and introduces inaccuracies. It also hinders the integration of evolutionary biology with neighbouring disciplines, including ecosystem ecology, developmental biology, and the human sciences. Ecology is forced to become a divided discipline, developmental biology is stubbornly difficult to reconcile with evolutionary theory, and the majority of biologists and social scientists are still unhappy with evolutionary accounts of human behaviour. The incorporation of niche construction as both a cause and a product of evolution removes these disciplinary boundaries while greatly generalizing the explanatory power of evolutionary theory
|Keywords||Niche construction Evolutionary biology Ecological inheritance Ecosystem ecology Developmental 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
Neeltje J. Boogert, David M. Paterson & Kevin N. Laland (2006). The Implications of Niche Construction and Ecosystem Engineering for Conservation Biology. BioScience 56 (7):570-578.
Richard Dawkins (2004). Extended Phenotype – but Not Too Extended. A Reply to Laland, Turner and Jablonka. Biology and Philosophy 19 (3):377-396.
Scott F. Gilbert (2006). The Generation of Novelty: The Province of Developmental Biology. Biological Theory 1 (2):209-212.
Peter Godfrey-Smith (1996). Complexity and the Function of Mind in Nature. Cambridge University Press.
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.
Citations of this work BETA
Andreas de Block & Bart du Laing (2009). Goodwin, Piaget, and the Evolving Evolutionary Synthesis. Biological Theory 4 (2):112-114.
Thomas C. Scott-Phillips & Thomas E. Dickins (2014). Group-Level Traits Can Be Studied with Standard Evolutionary Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37 (3):273-274.
Similar books and articles
Kevin N. Laland, John Odling-Smee & Marcus W. Feldman (2000). Niche Construction, Biological Evolution, and Cultural Change. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (1):131-146.
Kevin N. Laland, John Odling-Smee & Marcus W. Feldman (2000). Niche Construction Earns its Keep. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (1):164-172.
Kim Sterelny (2000). Development, Evolution, and Adaptation. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):387.
David N. Stamos (1996). Popper, Falsifiability, and Evolutionary Biology. Biology and Philosophy 11 (2):161-191.
Wim J. van der Steen (2000). Niche Construction: A Pervasive Force in Evolution? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (1):162-163.
Massimo Pigliucci (2007). Do We Need an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis? Evolution 61 (12):2743-2749.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads31 ( #88,075 of 1,700,378 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #206,271 of 1,700,378 )
How can I increase my downloads?