Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):533-534 (2002)
|Abstract||Although Gould and Lewontin's (1979) paper stimulated an extraordinary response, the current study of adaptation is – and should be – more than a defense against their criticisms. Adaptations are studied by biologists in new and exciting ways, including experimental manipulations of populations in the field and laboratory, comparative analyses of taxa with known evolutionary relationships, and quantitative genetics. These techniques go beyond ascertaining whether or not a trait is an adaptation.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Louis P. Pojman (1998). Straw Man or Straw Theory? International Journal of Applied Philosophy 12 (2):169-180.
Ilkka Pyysiäinen (2006). No Evidence of a Specific Adaptation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (5):483-484.
Michael T. Ghiselin (1966). On Semantic Pitfalls of Biological Adaptation. Philosophy of Science 33 (1/2):147-.
Russil Durrant & Brian D. Haig (2001). How to Pursue the Adaptationist Program in Psychology. Philosophical Psychology 14 (4):357 – 380.
Scott Aikin & John Casey (2011). Straw Men, Weak Men, and Hollow Men. Argumentation 25 (1):87-105.
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).
Kostas Kampourakis (2013). Teaching About Adaptation: Why Evolutionary History Matters. Science and Education.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #178,473 of 548,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?