The Future of Human Evolution
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (1):145-175 (2012)
| Abstract | There is a tendency in both scientific and humanistic disciplines to think of biological evolution in humans as significantly impeded if not completely overwhelmed by the robust cultural and technological capabilities of the species. The aim of this article is to make sense of and evaluate this claim. In Section 2 , I flesh out the argument that humans are ‘insulated’ from ordinary evolutionary mechanisms in terms of our contemporary biological understandings of phenotypic plasticity, niche construction, and cultural transmission. In Section 3 , I consider two obvious objections to the above argument based on the growing literatures related to gene-culture coevolution and recent positive selection on the human genome, as well as a pair of less common objections relating to the connection between plasticity, population size and evolvability. In Section 4 , I argue that both the ‘human evolutionary stasis argument’ and its various detractor theories are premised on a fundamental conceptual flaw: they take evolutionary stasis for granted, since they fail to conceive of stabilizing selection as a type of evolution and drift as a universal tendency that dominates in the absence of selection. Without the continued operation of natural selection, the very properties that are purported to reduce the evolutionary response to selection in humans would themselves drift into non-functionality. I conclude that properly conceived, biological evolution is a permanent and ineradicable fixture of any species, including Homo sapiens | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesGiuseppe Fusco (2001). How Many Processes Are Responsible for Phenotypic Evolution? Evolution & Development 3 (4):279-286.
Giuseppe Fusco (2001). How Many Processes Are Responsible for Phenotypic Evolution? Evolution & Development 3 (4):279-286.
Mohan Matthen & Andre Ariew (2005). How to Understand Casual Relations in Natural Selection: Reply to Rosenberg and Bouchard. Biology and Philosophy 20 (2-3):355-364.
Sylvia Blad (2010). The Impact of 'Anthropotechnology' on Human Evolution. Techné 14 (2):72-87.
Börje Ekstig (2007). A Unifying Principle of Biological and Cultural Evolution and its Implications for the Future. World Futures 63 (2):98 – 106.
John Beatty (1984). Chance and Natural Selection. Philosophy of Science 51 (2):183-211.
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.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-06-03Total downloads16 ( #74,590 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,320 of 548,984 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
