David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 179 (455):477 (2011)
According to a once influential view of selection, it consists of repeated cycles of replication and interaction. It has been argued that this view is wrong: replication is not necessary for evolution by natural selection. I analyze the nine most influential arguments for this claim and defend the replication–interaction conception of selection against these objections. In order to do so, however, the replication–interaction conception of selection needs to be modified significantly. My proposal is that replication is not the copying of an entity, the replicator, but the copying of a property. Thus, we can have a replication process without there being a replicator that is being copied.
|Keywords||Replication Interaction Fitness Replicators Clonal organisms Microbes|
|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
Elliott Sober (1984/1993). The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. University of Chicago Press.
D. M. Armstrong (1997). A World of States of Affairs. Cambridge University Press.
Samir Okasha (2006/2008). Evolution and the Levels of Selection. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Pierrick Bourrat (2014). From Survivors to Replicators: Evolution by Natural Selection Revisited. Biology and Philosophy 29 (4):517-538.
Similar books and articles
François Tonneau & Michel B. C. Sokolowski (2001). Is Operant Selectionism Coherent? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):558-559.
David L. Hull & Sigrid S. Glenn (2004). Multiply Concurrent Replication. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (6):902-904.
Peter Godfrey-Smith (2001). The Role of Information and Replication in Selection Processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):538-538.
Kim Sterelny, Kelly C. Smith & Michael Dickison (1996). The Extended Replicator. Biology and Philosophy 11 (3):377-403.
Bence Nanay (2002). The Return of the Replicator: What is Philosophically Significant in a General Account of Replication and Selection? [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 17 (1):109-121.
Robert Alan Skipper (2001). The Causal Crux of Selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):556-556.
David L. Hull, Rodney E. Langman & Sigrid S. Glenn (2001). At Last: Serious Consideration. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):559-569.
David L. Hull, Rodney E. Langman & Sigrid S. Glenn (2001). A General Account of Selection: Biology, Immunology, and Behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):511-528.
B. Nanay (2002). The Return of the Replicator: What is Philosophically Signiﬁcant in a General Account of Replication and Selection? [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy (1):109-121.
Added to index2009-12-05
Total downloads39 ( #85,375 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #99,332 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?