Search results for 'Evolutionary theory' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1. Massimo Pigliucci (2009). The Evolution of Evolutionary Theory. Philosophy Now 71 (Jan/Feb):6-8.
    Evolutionary theory has evolved over time, but has there ever been a paradigm shift in evolutionary biology?
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  28
    David L. Hull (2005). Deconstructing Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Context. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 38 (1):137 - 152.
    The topic of this paper is external versus internal explanations, first, of the genesis of evolutionary theory and, second, its reception. Victorian England was highly competitive and individualistic. So was the view of society promulgated by Malthus and the theory of evolution set out by Charles Darwin and A.R. Wallace. The fact that Darwin and Wallace independently produced a theory of evolution that was just as competitive and individualistic as the society in which they lived is (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  3.  47
    Philip Kitcher (2004). Evolutionary Theory and the Social Uses of Biology. Biology and Philosophy 19 (1):1-15.
    Stephen Jay Gould is rightly remembered for many different kinds of contributions to our intellectual life. I focus on his criticisms of uses of evolutionary ideas to defend inegalitarian doctrines and on his attempts to expand the framework of Darwinian evolutionary theory. I argue that his important successes in the former sphere are applications of the idea of local critique, grounded in careful attention to the details of the inegalitarian proposals. As he became more concerned with the (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  4. Elliott Sober (1984). The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. University of Chicago Press.
    The Nature of Selection is a straightforward, self-contained introduction to philosophical and biological problems in evolutionary theory. It presents a powerful analysis of the evolutionary concepts of natural selection, fitness, and adaptation and clarifies controversial issues concerning altruism, group selection, and the idea that organisms are survival machines built for the good of the genes that inhabit them. "Sober's is the answering philosophical voice, the voice of a first-rate philosopher and a knowledgeable student of contemporary evolutionary (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   338 citations  
  5.  31
    Massimo Pigliucci & Jonathan Kaplan (2006). Making Sense of Evolution: The Conceptual Foundations of Evolutionary Theory. University of Chicago Press.
    Making Sense of Evolution explores contemporary evolutionary biology, focusing on the elements of theories—selection, adaptation, and species—that are complex and open to multiple possible interpretations, many of which are incompatible with one another and with other accepted practices in the discipline. Particular experimental methods, for example, may demand one understanding of “selection,” while the application of the same concept to another area of evolutionary biology could necessitate a very different definition.
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   22 citations  
  6.  5
    Solomon H. Katz (1990). An Evolutionary Theory of Cuisine. Human Nature 1 (3):233-259.
    The evolution of human diet is the product of both biological and cultural adaptations to various plants and animals in the environment. This paper develops a new theory for the evolution of cuisine practices which attempts to account for how food processing provided a critical link in enhancing the nutrient balance of major domesticated plants.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  6
    David Depew (2001). Genetic Biotechnology and Evolutionary Theory: Some Unsolicited Advice to Rhetors. Journal of Medical Humanities 22 (1):15-28.
    In his book The Biotech Century Jeremy Rifkin makes arguments about the dangers of market-driven genetic biotechnology in medical and agricultural contexts. Believing that Darwinism is too compromised by a competitive ethic to resist capitalist depredations of the genetic commons, and perhaps hoping to pick up anti-Darwinian allies, he turns for support to unorthodox non-Darwinian views of evolution. The Darwinian tradition, more closely examined, contains resources that might better serve his argument. The robust tradition associated with Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  32
    W. S. Cooper (1989). How Evolutionary Biology Challenges the Classical Theory of Rational Choice. Biology and Philosophy 4 (4):457-481.
    A fundamental philosophical question that arises in connection with evolutionary theory is whether the fittest patterns of behavior are always the most rational. Are fitness and rationality fully compatible? When behavioral rationality is characterized formally as in classical decision theory, the question becomes mathematically meaningful and can be explored systematically by investigating whether the optimally fit behavior predicted by evolutionary process models is decision-theoretically coherent. Upon investigation, it appears that in nontrivial evolutionary models the expected (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  9.  5
    David J. Depew (2013). The Rhetoric of Evolutionary Theory. Biological Theory 7 (4):380-389.
    I argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory has a rhetorical dimension and that rhetorical criticism plays a role in how evolutionary science acquires knowledge. I define what I mean by rhetoric by considering Darwin’s Origin. I use the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis to show how rhetoric conceived as situated and addressed argumentation enters into evolutionary theorizing. Finally, I argue that rhetorical criticism helps judge the success, limits, and failures of these theories.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  8
    Hannah Rubin (2016). The Phenotypic Gambit: Selective Pressures and ESS Methodology in Evolutionary Game Theory. Biology and Philosophy 31 (4):551-569.
    The ‘phenotypic gambit,’ the assumption that we can ignore genetics and look at the fitness of phenotypes to determine the expected evolutionary dynamics of a population, is often used in evolutionary game theory. However, as this paper will show, an overlooked genotype to phenotype map can qualitatively affect evolution in ways the phenotypic approach cannot predict or explain. This gives us reason to believe that, even in the long-term, correspondences between phenotypic predictions and dynamical outcomes are not (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  36
    Walter J. Bock (2010). Multiple Explanations in Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. Acta Biotheoretica 58 (1):65-79.
    Variational evolutionary theory as advocated by Darwin is not a single theory, but a bundle of related but independent theories, namely: (a) variational evolution; (b) gradualism rather than large leaps; (c) processes of phyletic evolution and of speciation; (d) causes for the formation of varying individuals in populations and for the action of selective agents; and (e) all organisms evolved from a common ancestor. The first four are nomological-deductive explanations and the fifth is historical-narrative. Therefore evolutionary (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  12.  20
    Ray Scott Percival (2016). Does the New Classicism Need Evolutionary Theory? In Elizabeth Millán (ed.), After the Avant-Gardes: Reflections on the Future of the Fine Arts. Open Court Publishing Company 109 - 125.
    Drawing on work on modularity of mind and evolutionary psychology, I explore how evolutionary theory may support a return to classical artistic standards (the new classicism). At the same time, I argue for much that is admirable in the avant garde. I connect this question to the theory of epistemology and aesthetic biases, suggesting that aesthetics embody evolved knowledge.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  43
    Alasdair I. Houston & John M. McNamara (2005). John Maynard Smith and the Importance of Consistency in Evolutionary Game Theory. Biology and Philosophy 20 (5):933-950.
    John Maynard Smith was the founder of evolutionary game theory. He has also been the major influence on the direction of this field, which now pervades behavioural ecology and evolutionary biology. In its original formulation the theory had three components: a set of strategies, a payoff structure, and a concept of evolutionary stability. These three key components are still the basis of the theory, but what is assumed about each component is often different to (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  17
    Zachary Ernst (2005). Robustness and Conceptual Analysis in Evolutionary Game Theory. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1187-1196.
    A variety of robustness objections have been made against evolutionary game theory. One of these objections alleges that the games used in the underlying model are too arbitrary and oversimplified to generate a robust model of interesting prosocial behaviors. In this paper, I argue that the robustness objection can be met. However, in order to do so, we must attend to important conceptual issues regarding the nature of fairness, justice, and other moral concepts. Specifically, we must better understand (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  5
    Joseph Carroll (1998). Literary Study and Evolutionary Theory. Human Nature 9 (3):273-292.
    Several recent books have claimed to integrate literary study with evolutionary biology. All of the books here considered, except Robert Storey’s, adopt conceptions of evolutionary theory that are in some way marginal to the Darwinian adaptationist program. All the works attempt to connect evolutionary study with various other disciplines or methodologies: for example, with cultural anthropology, cognitive psychology, the psychology of emotion, neurobiology, chaos theory, or structuralist linguistics. No empirical paradigm has yet been established for (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16. Massimo Pigliucci (2008). The Proper Role of Population Genetics in Modern Evolutionary Theory. Biological Theory 3 (4):316-324.
    Evolutionary biology is a field currently animated by much discussion concerning its conceptual foundations. On the one hand, we have supporters of a classical view of evolutionary theory, whose backbone is provided by population genetics and the so-called Modern Synthesis (MS). On the other hand, a number of researchers are calling for an Extended Synthe- sis (ES) that takes seriously both the limitations of the MS (such as its inability to incorporate developmental biology) and recent empirical and (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  17.  76
    Elliott Sober (2010). Evolutionary Theory and the Reality of Macro Probabilities. In Ellery Eells & James H. Fetzer (eds.), The Place of Probability in Science. Springer 133--60.
    Evolutionary theory is awash with probabilities. For example, natural selection is said to occur when there is variation in fitness, and fitness is standardly decomposed into two components, viability and fertility, each of which is understood probabilistically. With respect to viability, a fertilized egg is said to have a certain chance of surviving to reproductive age; with respect to fertility, an adult is said to have an expected number of offspring.1 There is more to evolutionary theory (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   15 citations  
  18.  21
    Patrick D. Nolan (2003). Toward an Ecological-Evolutionary Theory of the Incidence of Warfare in Preindustrial Societies. Sociological Theory 21 (1):18-30.
    Prompted by the lack of attention by sociologists and the challenge of materialist explanations of warfare in "precivilized" societies posed by Keeley (1996), this paper tests and finds support for two materialist hypotheses concerning the likelihood of warfare in preindustrial societies: specifically, that, as argued by ecological-evolutionary theory, dominant mode of subsistence is systematically related to rates of warfare; and that, within some levels of technological development, higher levels of "population pressure" are associated with a greater likelihood of (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  19.  19
    Joan Dyste Lind (1983). The Organization of Coercion in History: A Rationalist-Evolutionary Theory. Sociological Theory 1:1-29.
    This chapter brings together social evolutionary theory and the rational choice approach to develop a theory of the organization of coercion in history. Recent works considering parallels and distinctions between biological and sociocultural evolution are reviewed here, along with those that produced the concept of bounded rationality. While modeling begins by generalization from historical materials, it is not the purpose of this chapter to produce a historical explanation of a chain of real events. Nor is it an (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  16
    Patrick D. Nolan (2004). Ecological-Evolutionary Theory: A Reanalysis and Reassessment of Lenski's Theory for the 21st Century. Sociological Theory 22 (2):328-337.
    Gerhard Lenski's ecological-evolutionary theory of human societies, originally presented and tested in Power and Privilege (1966) and Human Societies (1970), makes a number of general and specific predictions about the impact of subsistence technology on the fundamental features of societies, as well as identifying constraints that the techno-economic heritage of currently industrializing societies continue to exercise on their development trajectories. This paper reviews the strategies adopted for presenting and for testing the theory, critically analyzes and extends some (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  4
    Martin Stuart-Fox (1999). Evolutionary Theory of History. History and Theory 38 (4):33–51.
    Several attempts have been made recently to apply Darwinian evolutionary theory to the study of culture change and social history. The essential elements in such a theory are that variations occur in population, and that a process of selective retention operates during their replication and transmission. Location of such variable units in the semantic structure of cognition provides the individual psychological basis for an evolutionary theory of history. Selection operates on both the level of cognition (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22.  72
    Robert N. Brandon & Scott Carson (1996). The Indeterministic Character of Evolutionary Theory: No "No Hidden Variables Proof" but No Room for Determinism Either. Philosophy of Science 63 (3):315-337.
    In this paper we first briefly review Bell's (1964, 1966) Theorem to see how it invalidates any deterministic "hidden variable" account of the apparent indeterminacy of quantum mechanics (QM). Then we show that quantum uncertainty, at the level of DNA mutations, can "percolate" up to have major populational effects. Interesting as this point may be it does not show any autonomous indeterminism of the evolutionary process. In the next two sections we investigate drift and natural selection as the locus (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   25 citations  
  23.  45
    Leslie Graves, Barbara L. Horan & Alex Rosenberg (1999). Is Indeterminism the Source of the Statistical Character of Evolutionary Theory? Philosophy of Science 66 (1):140-157.
    We argue that Brandon and Carson's (1996) "The Indeterministic Character of Evolutionary Theory" fails to identify any indeterminism that would require evolutionary theory to be a statistical or probabilistic theory. Specifically, we argue that (1) their demonstration of a mechanism by which quantum indeterminism might "percolate up" to the biological level is irrelevant; (2) their argument that natural selection is indeterministic because it is inextricably connected with drift fails to join the issue with determinism; and (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   15 citations  
  24.  79
    Kevin McCain & Brad Weslake (2013). Evolutionary Theory and the Epistemology of Science. In Kostas Kampourakis (ed.), The Philosophy of Biology: A Companion for Educators. Springer 101-119.
    Evolutionary theory is a paradigmatic example of a well-supported scientific theory. In this chapter we consider a number of objections to evolutionary theory, and show how responding to these objections reveals aspects of the way in which scientific theories are supported by evidence. Teaching these objections can therefore serve two pedagogical aims: students can learn the right way to respond to some popular arguments against evolutionary theory, and they can learn some basic features (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. Roberta L. Millstein (2003). Interpretations of Probability in Evolutionary Theory. Philosophy of Science 70 (5):1317-1328.
    Evolutionary theory (ET) is teeming with probabilities. Probabilities exist at all levels: the level of mutation, the level of microevolution, and the level of macroevolution. This uncontroversial claim raises a number of contentious issues. For example, is the evolutionary process (as opposed to the theory) indeterministic, or is it deterministic? Philosophers of biology have taken different sides on this issue. Millstein (1997) has argued that we are not currently able answer this question, and that even scientific (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  26. Todd A. Grantham (2004). Constraints and Spandrels in Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Biology and Philosophy 19 (1):29-43.
    Gould's Structure ofEvolutionary Theory argues that Darwinism hasundergone significant revision. Although Gouldsucceeds in showing that hierarchicalapproaches have expanded Darwinism, hiscritique of adaptationism is less successful. Gould claims that the ubiquity of developmentalconstraints and spandrels has forced biologiststo soften their commitment to adaptationism. Iargue that Gould overstates his conclusion; hisprincipal claims are compatible with at leastsome versions of adaptationism. Despite thisweakness, Gould's discussion of adaptationism –particularly his discussions of the exaptivepool and cross-level spandrels – shouldprovoke new work in evolutionary (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  27.  74
    Marcel Weber (2001). Determinism, Realism, and Probability in Evolutionary Theory. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S213-.
    Recent discussion of the statistical character of evolutionary theory has centered around two positions: (1) Determinism combined with the claim that the statistical character is eliminable, a subjective interpretation of probability, and instrumentalism; (2) Indeterminism combined with the claim that the statistical character is ineliminable, a propensity interpretation of probability, and realism. I point out some internal problems in these positions and show that the relationship between determinism, eliminability, realism, and the interpretation of probability is more complex than (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  28.  36
    John Beatty (1980). What's Wrong with the Received View of Evolutionary Theory? PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:397 - 426.
    Much if not most recent literature in philosophy of biology concerns the extent to which biological theories conform to what is known as the "received" philosophical view of scientific theories, a descendant of the logical-empiricist view of theories. But the received view currently faces a competitor--a very different view of theories known as the "semantic" view. It is argued here that the semantic view is more sensitive to the nature and limitations of evolutionary theory than is the received (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  29.  62
    Jean Gayon (2005). Chance, Explanation, and Causation in Evolutionary Theory. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 27 (3/4):395 - 405.
    Chance comes into plays at many levels of the explanation of the evolutionary process; but the unity of sense of this category is problematic. The purpose of this talk is to clarify the meaning of chance at various levels in evolutionary theory: mutations, genetic drift, genetic revolutions, ecosystems, macroevolution. Three main concepts of chance are found at these various levels: luck (popular concept), randomness (probabilistic concept), and contingency relative to a given theoretical system (epistemological concept). After identifying (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30.  19
    Timothy Shanahan (2008). Why Don't Zebras Have Machine Guns Adaptation, Selection, and Constraints in Evolutionary Theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 39 (1):135-146.
    In an influential paper, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin contrasted selection-driven adaptation with phylogenetic, architectural, and developmental constraints as distinct causes of phenotypic evolution. In subsequent publications Gould has elaborated this distinction into one between a narrow “Darwinian Fundamentalist” emphasis on “external functionalist” processes, and a more inclusive “pluralist” emphasis on “internal structuralist” principles. Although theoretical integration of functionalist and structuralist explanations is the ultimate aim, natural selection and internal constraints are treated as distinct causes of evolutionary change. (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  31.  84
    Rasmus Grønfeldt Winther (2009). Prediction in Selectionist Evolutionary Theory. Philosophy of Science 76 (5):889-901.
    Selectionist evolutionary theory has often been faulted for not making novel predictions that are surprising, risky, and correct. I argue that it in fact exhibits the theoretical virtue of predictive capacity in addition to two other virtues: explanatory unification and model fitting. Two case studies show the predictive capacity of selectionist evolutionary theory: parallel evolutionary change in E. coli and the origin of eukaryotic cells through endosymbiosis. †To contact the author, please write to: Philosophy Department, (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  32.  5
    J. Sapp (2007). The Structure of Microbial Evolutionary Theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 38 (4):780-795.
    The study of microbial phylogeny and evolution has emerged as an interdisciplinary synthesis, divergent in both methods and concepts from the classical evolutionary biology. The deployment of macromolecular sequencing in microbial classification has provided a deep evolutionary taxonomy hitherto deemed impossible. Microbial phylogenetics has greatly transformed the landscape of evolutionary biology, not only in revitalizing the field in the pursuit of life’s history over billions of years, but also in transcending the structure of thought that has shaped (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  33.  15
    Jan Huston (1993). What Are the Greatest Challenges for Evolutionary Theory in Our Times? World Futures 38 (1):107-121.
    (1993). What are the greatest challenges for Evolutionary theory in our times? World Futures: Vol. 38, Theoretical Achievements and Practical Applications of General Evolutionary Theory, pp. 107-121.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34.  36
    Kim Sterelny (2003). Last Will and Testament: Stephen Jay Gould's the Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Philosophy of Science 70 (2):255-263.
    I outline Gould's conception of evolutionary theory and his ways of contrasting it with contemporary Darwinism; a contemporary Darwinism that focuses on the natural selection of individual organisms. Gould argues for a hierarchical conception of the living world and of the evolutionary processes that have built that living world: organisms are built from smaller components (genes, cells) and are themselves components of groups, populations, species, lineages. Selection, drift and constraint are important to all of these levels of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  35.  29
    Barbara L. Horan (1994). The Statistical Character of Evolutionary Theory. Philosophy of Science 61 (1):76-95.
    This paper takes a critical look at the idea that evolutionary theory is a statistical theory. It argues that despite the strong instrumental motivation for statistical theories, they are not necessary to explain deterministic systems. Biological evolution is fundamentally a result of deterministic processes. Hence, a statistical theory is not necessary for describing the evolutionary forces of genetic drift and natural selection, nor is it needed for describing the fitness of organisms. There is a computational (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  36.  11
    Robert N. Brandon (1980). A Structural Description of Evolutionary Theory. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:427 - 439.
    The principle of natural selection is stated. It connects fitness values (actual reproductive success) with expected fitness values. The term 'adaptedness' is used for expected fitness values. The principle of natural selection explains differential fitness in terms of relative adaptedness. It is argued that this principle is absolutely central to Darwinian evolutionary theory. The empirical content of the principle of natural selection is examined. It is argued that the principle itself has no empirical biological content, but that the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  37.  45
    Sahotra Sarkar (2004). Evolutionary Theory in the 1920s: The Nature of the “Synthesis”. Philosophy of Science 71 (5):1215-1226.
    This paper analyzes the development of evolutionary theory in the period from 1918 to 1932. It argues that: (i) Fisher's work in 1918 constituted a not fully satisfactory reduction of biometry to Mendelism; (ii) there was a synthesis in the 1920s but that this synthesis was mainly one of classical genetics with population genetics, with Haldane's The Causes of Evolution being its founding document; (iii) the most important achievement of the models of theoretical population genetics was to show (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  38.  27
    Bruce Glymour (2001). Selection, Indeterminism, and Evolutionary Theory. Philosophy of Science 68 (4):518-535.
    I argue that results from foraging theory give us good reason to think some evolutionary phenomena are indeterministic and hence that evolutionary theory must be probabilistic. Foraging theory implies that random search is sometimes selectively advantageous, and experimental work suggests that it is employed by a variety of organisms. There are reasons to think such search will sometimes be genuinely indeterministic. If it is, then individual reproductive success will also be indeterministic, and so too will (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  39.  25
    Marshall Abrams (2006). Infinite Populations and Counterfactual Frequencies in Evolutionary Theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 37 (2):256-268.
    One finds intertwined with ideas at the core of evolutionary theory claims about frequencies in counterfactual and infinitely large populations of organisms, as well as in sets of populations of organisms. One also finds claims about frequencies in counterfactual and infinitely large populations—of events—at the core of an answer to a question concerning the foundations of evolutionary theory. The question is this: To what do the numerical probabilities found throughout evolutionary theory correspond? The answer (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  40.  25
    Philippe Huneman, Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus.
    This chapter surveys the philosophical problems raised by the two Darwinian claims of the existence of a Tree of a life, and the explanatory power of natural selection. It explores the specificity of explanations by natural selection, emphasizing the high context-dependency of any process of selection. Some consequences are drawn about the difficulty of those explanations to fit a nomological model of explanation, and the irreducibility of their historic-narrative dimension. The paper introduces to the debates about units of selection, stating (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  41.  22
    Sahotra Sarkar (2004). Evolutionary Theory in the 1920s: The Nature of the "Synthesis". Philosophy of Science 71 (5):1215-1226.
    This paper analyzes the development of evolutionary theory in the period from 1918 to 1932. It argues that: (i) Fisher’s work in 1918 constitutes a not fully satisfactory reduction of biometry to Mendelism; (ii) that there was a synthesis in the 1920s but that this synthesis was mainly one of classical genetics with population genetics, with Haldane’s Causes of Evolution being its founding document; (iii) the most important achievement of the models of theoretical population genetics was to show (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  42.  56
    Francisco J. Ayala, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory: On Stephen Jay Gould's Monumental Masterpiece.
    Stephen Jay Gould’s monumental The Structure of Evolutionary Theory ‘‘attempts to expand and alter the premises of Darwinism, in order to build an enlarged and distinctive evolutionary theory . . . while remaining within the tradition, and under the logic, of Darwinian argument.’’ The three branches or ‘‘fundamental principles of Darwinian logic’’ are, according to Gould: agency (natural selection acting on individual organisms), efficacy (producing new species adapted to their environments), and scope (accumulation of changes that (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  36
    Mary B. Williams (1973). Falsifiable Predictions of Evolutionary Theory. Philosophy of Science 40 (4):518-537.
    Many philosophers have asserted that evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable. In this paper I refute these assertions by detailing some falsifiable predictions of the theory and the evidence used to test them. I then analyze both these predictions and evidence cited to support assertions of unfalsifiability in order to show both what type of predictions are possible and why it has been so difficult to spot them. The conclusion is that the apparent logical peculiarity of evolutionary (...) is not a property of evolutionary theory; it is a property of our human-sized perspective on evolutionary theory. (shrink)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  44.  44
    Prof Max Velmans (2011). Can Evolutionary Theory Explain the Existence of Consciousness? A Review of Humphrey, N. (2010) Soul Dust: The Magic of Consciousness. London: Quercus, ISBN 9781849162371. Journal of Consciousness Studies.
    This review summarises why it is difficult for Darwinian evolutionary theory to explain the existence and function of consciousness. It then evaluates whether Humphrey's book Soul Dust overcomes these problems. According to Humphrey, consciousness is an illusion constructed by the brain to enhance reproductive fitness by motivating creatures that have it to stay alive. Although the review entirely accepts that consciousness gives a first-person meaning to existence, it concludes that Humphrey does not give a convincing account of how (...)
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  20
    Mauro Adenzato (2000). Gene-Culture Coevolution Does Not Replace Standard Evolutionary Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (1):146-146.
    Though the target article is not without fertile suggestions, at least two problems limit its overall validity: (1) the extended gene-culture coevolutionary framework is not an alternative to standard evolutionary theory; (2) the proposed model does not explain how much time is necessary for selective pressure to determine the stabilization of a new aspect of the genotype.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  46.  36
    Ian Ravenscroft (2012). What's Darwin Got to Do with It? The Role of Evolutionary Theory in Psychiatry. Biology and Philosophy 27 (3):449-460.
    What’s Darwin got to do with it? The role of evolutionary theory in psychiatry Content Type Journal Article Category Review Essay Pages 1-12 DOI 10.1007/s10539-011-9301-3 Authors Ian Ravenscroft, Philosophy Department, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia Journal Biology and Philosophy Online ISSN 1572-8404 Print ISSN 0169-3867.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  15
    E. Neill (2003). Evolutionary Theory and British Idealism: The Case of David George Ritchie. History of European Ideas 29 (3):313-338.
    This article investigates the relationship between two influential intellectual schools in late 19th century Britain, namely social evolutionary theories and British Idealism, by focusing on the work of D.G. Ritchie who drew inspiration from both sources. In particular, it argues that Ritchie's work can best be understood as an attempt to overcome certain metaphysical problems in the work of his teacher, T.H. Green, by integrating an Idealist account of social development with a Darwinian one, and analyses the effects this (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  16
    Matti Sintonen (1991). How Evolutionary Theory Faces the Reality. Synthese 89 (1):163 - 183.
    The paper sketches an account of explanatory practice in which explanations are viewed as answers to explanation-requiring questions. To avoid difficulties in previous proposals, the paper uses the structuralist account of theory structure, arguing that theories are complex and evolving entities formed around a conceptual core and a set of intended applications. The argument is that this view does better justice to theories which involve a number of different kinds of theory-elements to give narrative explanations. Theories are, among (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  49.  19
    Elisabeth A. Lloyd (1988). The Semantic Approach and Its Application to Evolutionary Theory. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:278 - 285.
    In this talk I do three things. First, I review what I take to be fruitful applications of the semantic view of theory structure to evolutionary theory. Second, I list and correct three common misunderstandings about the semantic view. Third, I evaluate the weaknesses and strengths of Horan's paper in this symposium. Specifically, I argue that the criticisms leveled against the semantic view by Horan are inappropriate because they incorporate some basic misconceptions about the semantic view itself.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  50.  33
    Elisabeth Lloyd, Karen Arnold, Sandra Mitchell & Wendy Parker, Session 2: Female Orgasms and Evolutionary Theory.
    Proceedings of the Pittsburgh Workshop in History and Philosophy of Biology, Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, March 23-24 2001 Session 2: Female Orgasms and Evolutionary Theory.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 1000