Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):267-280 (2009)
|Abstract||It is important to distinguish adaptation per se (adaptedness, or being adapted) from the more specific concept of adaptation for some function. Commonly used criteria for adaptation in either sense have limited applicability. There are, however, a number of widely applicable criteria for adaptation per se, such as several kinds of cost, low variation, the maintenance of integration, and the fitness distribution of mutations. Application of these criteria leads to the conclusion that adaptation is overwhelmingly prevalent for features of organisms. Neither the presence nor the absence of adaptation has a privileged status in inference. Effectively neutral evolution can occur on adaptive buttes while maintaining the same degree of adaptation, but it is likely to be relatively minor.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
D. Turner (2000). The Functions of Fossils: Inference and Explanation in Functional Morphology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 31 (1):193-212.
Gary L. Brase (2002). There is No Evidentiary Silver Bullet for the Frequency Adaptation Hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):508-509.
Kostas Kampourakis (2013). Teaching About Adaptation: Why Evolutionary History Matters. [REVIEW] Science and Education 22 (2):173-188.
Hugo Viciana & Pierrick Bourrat (2011). Is God an Adaptation? Philosophia 39 (2):397-408.
Michael T. Ghiselin (1966). On Semantic Pitfalls of Biological Adaptation. Philosophy of Science 33 (1/2):147-.
Owen Flanagan (2000). Dreaming is Not an Adaptation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (6):936-939.
J. T. Wiebes (1982). L'adaptation Evolutive. Acta Biotheoretica 31 (4).
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #85,870 of 722,698 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,006 of 722,698 )
How can I increase my downloads?