10 found
Sort by:
  1. D. M. Walsh (2012). The Struggle for Life and the Conditions of Existence : Two Interpretations of Darwinian Evolution. In Martin H. Brinkworth & Friedel Weinert (eds.), Evolution 2.0: Implications of Darwinism in Philosophy and the Social and Natural Sciences. Springer.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. D. M. Walsh (2006). Organisms as Natural Purposes: The Contemporary Evolutionary Perspective. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 37 (4):771-791.
    I argue that recent advances in developmental biology demonstrate the inadequacy of suborganismal mechanism. The category of the organism, construed as a ’natural purpose’ should play an ineliminable role in explaining ontogenetic development and adaptive evolution. According to Kant the natural purposiveness of organisms cannot be demonstrated to be an objective principle in nature, nor can purposiveness figure in genuine explain. I attempt to argue, by appeal to recent work on self-organization, that the purposiveness of organisms is a natural phenomenon (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. D. M. Walsh (2004). Bookkeeping or Metaphysics? The Units of Selection Debate. Synthese 138 (3):337 - 361.
    The Units of Selection debate is a dispute about the causes of population change. I argue that it is generated by a particular `dynamical'' interpretation of natural selection theory, according to which natural selection causes differential survival and reproduction of individuals and natural selection explanations cite these causes. I argue that the dynamical interpretation is mistaken and offer in outline an alternative, `statistical'' interpretation, according to which natural selection theory is a fancy kind of `bookkeeping''. It explains by citing the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. D. M. Walsh, Causes of Adaptation and the Unity of Science.
    Evolutionary Biology has two principal explananda, fit and diversity (Lewontin 1978). Natural selection theory stakes its claim to being the central unifying concept in biology on the grounds that it demonstrates both phenomena to be the consequence of a single process. By now the standard story hardly needs reiterating: Natural selection is a force that operates over a population, preserving the better fit, culling the less fit, and along the way promoting novel solutions to adaptive problems. Amundson’s historical survey of (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. D. M. Walsh (2001). Editor's Introduction. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 49:1-21.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. D. M. Walsh (2001). Preface. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 49:v.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. D. M. Walsh (2000). Chasing Shadows: Natural Selection and Adaptation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 31 (1):135-53.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. D. M. Walsh (1998). The Scope of Selection: Sober and Neander on What Natural Selection Explains. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76 (2):250 – 264.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. D. M. Walsh (1997). Review. [REVIEW] British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (4):613-617.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. D. M. Walsh (1996). Fitness and Function. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47 (4):553-574.
    According to historical theories of biological function, a trait's function is determined by natural selection in the past. I argue that, in addition to historical functions, ahistorical functions ought to be recognized. I propose a theory of biological function which accommodates both. The function of a trait is the way it contributes to fitness and fitness can only be determined relative to a selective regime. Therefore, the function of a trait can only be specified relative to a selective regime. Apart (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation