Search results for 'selection' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  58
    Samir Okasha (2006/2008). Evolution and the Levels of Selection. Oxford University Press.
    Does natural selection act primarily on individual organisms, on groups, on genes, or on whole species? The question of levels of selection - on which biologists and philosophers have long disagreed - is central to evolutionary theory and to the philosophy of biology. Samir Okasha's comprehensive analysis gives a clear account of the philosophical issues at stake in the current debate.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   69 citations  
  2. Charles Darwin (2008/2006). On the Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Sterling Pub..
    Familiarity with Charles Darwin's treatise on evolution is essential to every well-educated individual. One of the most important books ever published--and a continuing source of controversy, a century and a half later--this classic of science is reproduced in a facsimile of the critically acclaimed first edition.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   244 citations  
  3.  25
    Charles Darwin (2007/1981). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Plume.
    The most accessible edition ever published of Darwin’s incendiary classic, edited by “as fine a science essayist as we have” ( New York Times ) The Descent of Man , Darwin’s second landmark work on evolutionary theory (following The Origin of the Species ), marked a turning point in the history of science with its modern vision of human nature as the product of evolution. Darwin argued that the noblest features of humans, such as language and morality, were the result (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   606 citations  
  4. Steven Pinker & Paul Bloom (1990). Natural Language and Natural Selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13 (4):707-27.
    Many people have argued that the evolution of the human language faculty cannot be explained by Darwinian natural selection. Chomsky and Gould have suggested that language may have evolved as the by-product of selection for other abilities or as a consequence of as-yet unknown laws of growth and form. Others have argued that a biological specialization for grammar is incompatible with every tenet of Darwinian theory – that it shows no genetic variation, could not exist in (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   209 citations  
  5. Mohan Matthen & André Ariew (2002). Two Ways of Thinking About Fitness and Natural Selection. Journal of Philosophy 99 (2):55-83.
    How do fitness and natural selection relate to other evolutionary factors like architectural constraint, mode of reproduction, and drift? In one way of thinking, drawn from Newtonian dynamics, fitness is one force driving evolutionary change and added to other factors. In another, drawn from statistical thermodynamics, it is a statistical trend that manifests itself in natural selection histories. It is argued that the first model is incoherent, the second appropriate; a hierarchical realization model is proposed as a basis (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   63 citations  
  6.  7
    Charles Darwin (1963). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. New York, Heritage Press.
    ... Difficulty of distinguishing between Varieties and Species — Origin of Domestic ... and Origin— Principle of Selection anciently followed, its Effects— ...
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   151 citations  
  7. Jonathan Birch (forthcoming). Natural Selection and the Maximization of Fitness. Biological Reviews.
    The notion that natural selection is a process of fitness maximization gets a bad press in population genetics, yet in other areas of biology the view that organisms behave as if attempting to maximize their fitness remains widespread. Here I critically appraise the prospects for reconciliation. I first distinguish four varieties of fitness maximization. I then examine two recent developments that may appear to vindicate at least one of these varieties. The first is the ‘new’ interpretation of Fisher's fundamental (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  8.  13
    Charles Darwin (1993/1998). The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Modern Library.
    Perhaps the most readable and accessible of the great works of scientific imagination, The Origin of Species sold out on the day it was published in 1859. Theologians quickly labeled Charles Darwin the most dangerous man in England, and, as the Saturday Review noted, the uproar over the book quickly "passed beyond the bounds of the study and lecture-room into the drawing-room and the public street." Yet, after reading it, Darwin's friend and colleague T. H. Huxley had a different reaction: (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   56 citations  
  9. Santiago Ginnobili (2010). La teoría de la selección natural darwiniana (The Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection). Theoria 25 (1):37-58.
    This paper is about the reconstruction of the Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection. My aim here is to outline the fundamental law of this theory in an informal way from its applications in The Origin of Species and to make explicit its fundamental concepts. I will introduce the theory-nets of special laws that arise from the specialization of the fundamental law. I will assume the metatheoretical structuralist frame. I will also point out many consequences that my proposal has about (...)
    Translate
      Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  10.  56
    Jonathan Birch & Samir Okasha (2015). Kin Selection and Its Critics. BioScience 65 (1):22-32.
    Hamilton’s theory of kin selection is the best-known framework for understanding the evolution of social behavior but has long been a source of controversy in evolutionary biology. A recent critique of the theory by Nowak, Tarnita, and Wilson sparked a new round of debate, which shows no signs of abating. In this overview, we highlight a number of conceptual issues that lie at the heart of the current debate. We begin by emphasizing that there are various alternative formulations of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  18
    Guillaume Rochefort-Maranda (2016). Simplicity and Model Selection. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 6 (2):261-279.
    In this paper I compare parametric and nonparametric regression models with the help of a simulated data set. Doing so, I have two main objectives. The first one is to differentiate five concepts of simplicity and assess their respective importance. The second one is to show that the scope of the existing philosophical literature on simplicity and model selection is too narrow because it does not take the nonparametric approach into account, S112–S123, 2002; Forster and Sober in The (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Mohan Matthen & André Ariew (2009). Selection and Causation. Philosophy of Science 76 (2):201-224.
    We have argued elsewhere that: (A) Natural selection is not a cause of evolution. (B) A resolution-of-forces (or vector addition) model does not provide us with a proper understanding of how natural selection combines with other evolutionary influences. These propositions have come in for criticism recently, and here we clarify and defend them. We do so within the broad framework of our own “hierarchical realization model” of how evolutionary influences combine.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   13 citations  
  13.  59
    Roberta L. Millstein (2002). Are Random Drift and Natural Selection Conceptually Distinct? Biology and Philosophy 17 (1):33-53.
    The latter half of the twentieth century has been marked by debates in evolutionary biology over the relative significance of natural selection and random drift: the so-called “neutralist/selectionist” debates. Yet John Beatty has argued that it is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the concept of random drift from the concept of natural selection, a claim that has been accepted by many philosophers of biology. If this claim is correct, then the neutralist/selectionist debates seem at best futile, and (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   30 citations  
  14.  98
    Mohan Matthen & André Ariew (2009). Selection and Causation. Philosophy of Science 76 (2):201-224.
    We have argued elsewhere that: (A) Natural selection is not a cause of evolution. (B) A resolution-of-forces (or vector addition) model does not provide us with a proper understanding of how natural selection combines with other evolutionary influences. These propositions have come in for criticism recently, and here we clarify and defend them. We do so within the broad framework of our own “hierarchical realization model” of how evolutionary influences combine.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  15.  50
    John Damuth & I. Lorraine Heisler (1988). Alternative Formulations of Multilevel Selection. Biology and Philosophy 3 (4):407-430.
    Hierarchical expansions of the theory of natural selection exist in two distinct bodies of thought in evolutionary biology, the group selection and the species selection traditions. Both traditions share the point of view that the principles of natural selection apply at levels of biological organization above the level of the individual organism. This leads them both to considermultilevel selection situations, where selection is occurring simultaneously at more than one level. Impeding unification of the theoretical (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   59 citations  
  16.  71
    Peter Godfrey-Smith (2009). Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection. OUP Oxford.
    The book presents a new way of understanding Darwinism and evolution by natural selection, combining work in biology, philosophy, and other fields.
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   71 citations  
  17. Elliott Sober (1984/1993). 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 theory. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   338 citations  
  18.  33
    David L. Hull (2001). Science and Selection: Essays on Biological Evolution and the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge University Press.
    One way to understand science is as a selection process. David Hull, one of the dominant figures in contemporary philosophy of science, sets out in this volume a general analysis of this selection process that applies equally to biological evolution, the reaction of the immune system to antigens, operant learning, and social and conceptual change in science. Hull aims to distinguish between those characteristics that are contingent features of selection and those that are essential. Science and (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   18 citations  
  19.  38
    David L. Hull, Rodney E. Langman & Sigrid S. Glenn (2001). A General Account of Selection: Biology, Immunology, and Behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):511-528.
    Authors frequently refer to gene-based selection in biological evolution, the reaction of the immune system to antigens, and operant learning as exemplifying selection processes in the same sense of this term. However, as obvious as this claim may seem on the surface, setting out an account of “selection” that is general enough to incorporate all three of these processes without becoming so general as to be vacuous is far from easy. In this target article, we set out (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   28 citations  
  20. Benjamin Kerr & Peter Godfrey-Smith (2002). Individualist and Multi-Level Perspectives on Selection in Structured Populations. Biology and Philosophy 17 (4):477-517.
    Recent years have seen a renewed debate over the importance of groupselection, especially as it relates to the evolution of altruism. Onefeature of this debate has been disagreement over which kinds ofprocesses should be described in terms of selection at multiple levels,within and between groups. Adapting some earlier discussions, we presenta mathematical framework that can be used to explore the exactrelationships between evolutionary models that do, and those that donot, explicitly recognize biological groups as fitness-bearing entities.We show a fundamental (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   22 citations  
  21. Casey Helgeson (2015). There is No Asymmetry of Identity Assumptions in the Debate Over Selection and Individuals. Philosophy of Science 81 (1):21-31.
    A long-running dispute concerns which adaptation-related explananda natural <span class='Hi'>selection</span> can be said to explain. At issue are explananda of the form: why a given individual organism has a given adaptation rather than that same individual having another trait. It is broadly agreed that one must be ready to back up a “no” answer with an appropriate theory of trans-world identity for individuals. I argue, against the conventional wisdom, that the same is true for a “yes” answer. My conclusion (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22.  10
    Stefan Petkov, Wei Wang & Yi Lei (forthcoming). Explanatory Unification and Natural Selection Explanations. Biology and Philosophy:1-21.
    The debate between the dynamical and the statistical interpretations of natural selection is centred on the question of whether all explanations that employ the concepts of natural selection and drift are reducible to causal explanations. The proponents of the statistical interpretation answer negatively, but insist on the fact that selection/drift arguments are explanatory. However, they remain unclear on where the explanatory power comes from. The proponents of the dynamical interpretation answer positively and try to reduce selection/drift (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23.  17
    Bence Nanay (2010). Natural Selection and the Limited Nature of Environmental Resources. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 41 (4):418-419.
    In this paper, I am clarifying and defending my argument in favor of the claim that cumulative selection can explain adaptation provided that the environmental resources are limited. Further, elaborate on what this limitation of environmental resources means and why it is relevant for the explanatory power of natural selection.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  24. Rasmus Grønfeldt Winther, Michael J. Wade & Christopher C. Dimond (2013). Pluralism in Evolutionary Controversies: Styles and Averaging Strategies in Hierarchical Selection Theories. Biology and Philosophy 28 (6):957-979.
    Two controversies exist regarding the appropriate characterization of hierarchical and adaptive evolution in natural populations. In biology, there is the Wright-Fisher controversy over the relative roles of random genetic drift, natural selection, population structure, and interdemic selection in adaptive evolution begun by Sewall Wright and Ronald Aylmer Fisher. There is also the Units of Selection debate, spanning both the biological and the philosophical literature and including the impassioned group-selection debate. Why do these two discourses exist separately, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  25.  44
    Bence Nanay (2005). Can Cumulative Selection Explain Adaptation? Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1099-1112.
    Two strong arguments have been given in favor of the claim that no selection process can play a role in explaining adaptations. According to the first argument, selection is a negative force; it may explain why the eliminated individuals are eliminated, but it does not explain why the ones that survived (or their offspring) have the traits they have. The second argument points out that the explanandum and the explanans are phenomena at different levels: selection is a (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   17 citations  
  26.  40
    James R. Griesemer & Michael J. Wade (1988). Laboratory Models, Causal Explanation and Group Selection. Biology and Philosophy 3 (1):67-96.
    We develop an account of laboratory models, which have been central to the group selection controversy. We compare arguments for group selection in nature with Darwin's arguments for natural selection to argue that laboratory models provide important grounds for causal claims about selection. Biologists get information about causes and cause-effect relationships in the laboratory because of the special role their own causal agency plays there. They can also get information about patterns of effects and antecedent conditions (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   42 citations  
  27. L. R. Franklin-Hall (2015). Explaining Causal Selection with Explanatory Causal Economy: Biology and Beyond. In P.-A. Braillard & C. Malaterre (eds.), Explanation in Biology: An Enquiry into the Diversity of Explanatory Patterns in the Life Sciences. Springer 413-438.
    Among the factors necessary for the occurrence of some event, which of these are selectively highlighted in its explanation and labeled as causes — and which are explanatorily omitted, or relegated to the status of background conditions? Following J. S. Mill, most have thought that only a pragmatic answer to this question was possible. In this paper I suggest we understand this ‘causal selection problem’ in causal-explanatory terms, and propose that explanatory trade-offs between abstraction and stability can provide a (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  28.  44
    Stuart Glennan (2009). Productivity, Relevance and Natural Selection. Biology and Philosophy 24 (3):325-339.
    Recent papers by a number of philosophers have been concerned with the question of whether natural selection is a causal process, and if it is, whether the causes of selection are properties of individuals or properties of populations. I shall argue that much confusion in this debate arises because of a failure to distinguish between causal productivity and causal relevance. Causal productivity is a relation that holds between events connected via continuous causal processes, while causal relevance is a (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  29.  80
    Mohammad J. Abdolmohammadi, William J. Read & D. Paul Scarbrough (2003). Does Selection-Socialization Help to Explain Accountants' Weak Ethical Reasoning? Journal of Business Ethics 42 (1):71 - 81.
    Recent business headlines, particularly those related to the collapsed energy-trading giant, Enron and its auditor, Arthur Andersen raise concerns about accountants'' ethical reasoning. We propose, and provide evidence from 90 new auditors from Big-Five accounting firms, that a selection-socialization effect exists in the accounting profession that results in hiring accountants with disproportionately higher levels of the Sensing/Thinking (ST) cognitive style. This finding is important and relevant because we also find that the ST cognitive style is associated with relatively low (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   17 citations  
  30. Clément Vidal (2012). Fine-Tuning, Quantum Mechanics and Cosmological Artificial Selection. Foundations of Science 17 (1):29-38.
    Jan Greben criticized fine-tuning by taking seriously the idea that “nature is quantum mechanical”. I argue that this quantum view is limited, and that fine-tuning is real, in the sense that our current physical models require fine-tuning. Second, I examine and clarify many difficult and fundamental issues raised by Rüdiger Vaas’ comments on Cosmological Artificial Selection.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  31.  57
    Robert N. Brandon (2005). The Difference Between Selection and Drift: A Reply to Millstein. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 20 (1):153-170.
    Millstein [Bio. Philos. 17 (2002) 33] correctly identies a serious problem with the view that natural selection and random drift are not conceptually distinct. She offers a solution to this problem purely in terms of differences between the processes of selection and drift. I show that this solution does not work, that it leaves the vast majority of real biological cases uncategorized. However, I do think there is a solution to the problem she raises, and I offer it (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  32.  10
    Eugene Earnshaw (2015). Group Selection and Contextual Analysis. Synthese 192 (1):305-316.
    Multi-level selection can be understood via the Price equation or contextual analysis, which offer incompatible statistical decompositions of evolutionary change into components of group and individual selection. Okasha argued that each approach suffers from problem cases. I introduce further problem cases for the Price approach, arguing that it is appropriate for MLS 2 group selection but not MLS 1. I also show that the problem cases Okasha raises for contextual analysis can be resolved. For some such cases, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  33.  47
    Patrick Forber (2005). On the Explanatory Roles of Natural Selection. Biology and Philosophy 20 (2-3):329-342.
    Can selection explain why individuals have the traits they do? This question has generated significant controversy. I will argue that the debate encompasses two separable aspects, to detrimental effect: (1) the role of selection in explaining the origin and evolution of biological traits and (2) the implications this may have for explaining why individuals have the traits they do. (1) can be settled on the basis of evolutionary theory while (2) requires additional, extra-scientific assumptions. By making a distinction (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   13 citations  
  34.  5
    Timo Maran & Karel Kleisner (2010). Towards an Evolutionary Biosemiotics: Semiotic Selection and Semiotic Co-Option. [REVIEW] Biosemiotics 3 (2):189-200.
    In biosemiotics, living beings are not conceived of as the passive result of anonymous selection pressures acted upon through the course of evolution. Rather, organisms are considered active participants that influence, shape and re-shape other organisms, the surrounding environment, and eventually also their own constitutional and functional integrity. The traditional Darwinian division between natural and sexual selection seems insufficient to encompass the richness of these processes, particularly in light of recent knowledge on communicational processes in the realm of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  35. Christopher Clarke (forthcoming). Multi-Level Selection and the Explanatory Value of Mathematical Decompositions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axv008.
    Do multi-level selection explanations of the evolution of social traits deepen the understanding provided by single-level explanations? Central to the former is a mathematical theorem, the multi-level Price decomposition. I build a framework through which to understand the explanatory role of such non-empirical decompositions in scientific practice. Applying this general framework to the present case places two tasks on the agenda. The first task is to distinguish the various ways of suppressing within-collective variation in fitness, and moreover to evaluate (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36.  25
    W. Ford Doolittle (2014). Natural Selection Through Survival Alone, and the Possibility of Gaia. Biology and Philosophy 29 (3):415-423.
    Here I advance two related evolutionary propositions. (1) Natural selection is most often considered to require competition between reproducing “individuals”, sometimes quite broadly conceived, as in cases of clonal, species or multispecies-community selection. But differential survival of non-competing and non-reproducing individuals will also result in increasing frequencies of survival-promoting “adaptations” among survivors, and thus is also a kind of natural selection. (2) Darwinists have challenged the view that the Earth’s biosphere is an evolved global homeostatic system. Since (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  37.  30
    Hayley Clatterbuck, Elliott Sober & Richard Lewontin (2013). Selection Never Dominates Drift (nor Vice Versa). Biology and Philosophy 28 (4):577-592.
    The probability that the fitter of two alleles will increase in frequency in a population goes up as the product of N (the effective population size) and s (the selection coefficient) increases. Discovering the distribution of values for this product across different alleles in different populations is a very important biological task. However, biologists often use the product Ns to define a different concept; they say that drift “dominates” selection or that drift is “stronger than” selection when (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  38.  50
    Kevin Reuter, Lara Kirfel, Raphael van Riel & Luca Barlassina (2014). The Good, the Bad, and the Timely: How Temporal Order and Moral Judgment Influence Causal Selection. Frontiers in Psychology 5:1-10.
    Causal selection is the cognitive process through which one or more elements in a complex causal structure are singled out as actual causes of a certain effect. In this paper, we report on an experiment in which we investigated the role of moral and temporal factors in causal selection. Our results are as follows. First, when presented with a temporal chain in which two human agents perform the same action one after the other, subjects tend to (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. Pablo Razeto-Barry & Ramiro Frick (2011). Probabilistic Causation and the Explanatory Role of Natural Selection. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 42 (3):344-355.
    The explanatory role of natural selection is one of the long-term debates in evolutionary biology. Nevertheless, the consensus has been slippery because conceptual confusions and the absence of a unified, formal causal model that integrates different explanatory scopes of natural selection. In this study we attempt to examine two questions: (i) What can the theory of natural selection explain? and (ii) Is there a causal or explanatory model that integrates all natural selection explananda? For the first (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  40. Rüdiger Vaas (2012). Cosmological Artificial Selection: Creation Out of Something? [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 17 (1):25-28.
    According to the scenario of cosmological artificial selection and artificial cosmogenesis, our universe was created and possibly even fine-tuned by cosmic engineers in another universe. This approach shall be compared to other explanations, and some far-reaching problems of it shall be discussed.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  41.  21
    Justin Garson (2012). Function, Selection, and Construction in the Brain. Synthese 189 (3):451-481.
    A common misunderstanding of the selected effects theory of function is that natural selection operating over an evolutionary time scale is the only functionbestowing process in the natural world. This construal of the selected effects theory conflicts with the existence and ubiquity of neurobiological functions that are evolutionary novel, such as structures underlying reading ability. This conflict has suggested to some that, while the selected effects theory may be relevant to some areas of evolutionary biology, its relevance to neuroscience (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  42.  56
    Joyce C. Havstad (2011). Problems for Natural Selection as a Mechanism. Philosophy of Science 78 (3):512-523.
    Skipper and Millstein analyze natural selection and mechanism, concluding that natural selection is not a mechanism in the sense of the new mechanistic philosophy. Barros disagrees and provides his own account of natural selection as a mechanism. This discussion identifies a missing piece of Barros's account, attempts to fill in that piece, and reconsiders the revised account. Two principal objections are developed: one, the account does not characterize natural selection; two, the account is not mechanistic. Extensive (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  43.  75
    Maximiliano Martínez & Andrés Moya (2011). Natural Selection and Multi-Level Causation. Philosophy and Theory in Biology 3 (20130604).
    In this paper, using a multilevel approach, we defend the positive role of natural selection in the generation of organismal form. Despite the currently widespread opinion that natural selection only plays a negative role in the evolution of form, we argue, in contrast, that the Darwinian factor is a crucial (but not exclusive) factor in morphological organization. Analyzing some classic arguments, we propose incorporating the notion of ‘downward causation’ into the concept of ‘natural selection.’ In our opinion, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  44.  71
    Roberta L. Millstein (2008). Distinguishing Drift and Selection Empirically: "The Great Snail Debate" of the 1950s. Journal of the History of Biology 41 (2):339-367.
    Biologists and philosophers have been extremely pessimistic about the possibility of demonstrating random drift in nature, particularly when it comes to distinguishing random drift from natural selection. However, examination of a historical case-Maxime Lamotte's study of natural populations of the land snail, Cepaea nemoralis in the 1950s - shows that while some pessimism is warranted, it has been overstated. Indeed, by describing a unique signature for drift and showing that this signature obtained in the populations under study, Lamotte was (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  45.  74
    Jonathan Birch (2012). The Negative View of Natural Selection. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 43 (2):569-573.
    An influential argument due to Elliott Sober, subsequently strengthened by Denis Walsh and Joel Pust, moves from plausible premises to the bold conclusion that natural selection cannot explain the traits of individual organisms. If the argument were sound, the explanatory scope of selection would depend, surprisingly, on metaphysical considerations concerning origin essentialism. I show that the Sober-Walsh-Pust argument rests on a flawed counterfactual criterion for explanatory relevance. I further show that a more defensible criterion for explanatory relevance recently (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  46.  10
    Deborah E. Shelton & Richard E. Michod (2014). Levels of Selection and the Formal Darwinism Project. Biology and Philosophy 29 (2):217-224.
    Understanding good design requires addressing the question of what units undergo natural selection, thereby becoming adapted. There is, therefore, a natural connection between the formal Darwinism project (which aims to connect population genetics with the evolution of design and fitness maximization) and levels of selection issues. We argue that the formal Darwinism project offers contradictory and confusing lines of thinking concerning level(s) of selection. The project favors multicellular organisms over both the lower (cell) and higher (social group) (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  47. Massimo Pigliucci (2010). Okasha's Evolution and the Levels of Selection: Toward a Broader Conception of Theoretical Biology. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 25 (3):405-415.
    The debate about the levels of selection has been one of the most controversial both in evolutionary biology and in philosophy of science. Okasha’s book makes the sort of contribution that simply will not be able to be ignored by anyone interested in this field for many years to come. However, my interest here is in highlighting some examples of how Okasha goes about discussing his material to suggest that his book is part of an increasingly interesting trend (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  48.  10
    Samir Okasha & Cédric Paternotte (2014). Adaptation, Fitness and the Selection-Optimality Links. Biology and Philosophy 29 (2):225-232.
    We critically examine a number of aspects of Grafen’s ‘formal Darwinism’ project. We argue that Grafen’s ‘selection-optimality’ links do not quite succeed in vindicating the working assumption made by behavioural ecologists and others—that selection will lead organisms to exhibit adaptive behaviour—since these links hold true even in the presence of strong genetic and developmental constraints. However we suggest that the selection-optimality links can profitably be viewed as constituting an axiomatic theory of fitness. Finally, we compare Grafen’s project (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  49. Peter Godfrey-Smith (2002). Individualist and Multi-Level Perspectives on Selection in Structured Populations. Biology and Philosophy 17 (4):477-517.
    Recent years have seen a renewed debate over the importance of groupselection, especially as it relates to the evolution of altruism. Onefeature of this debate has been disagreement over which kinds ofprocesses should be described in terms of selection at multiple levels,within and between groups. Adapting some earlier discussions, we presenta mathematical framework that can be used to explore the exactrelationships between evolutionary models that do, and those that donot, explicitly recognize biological groups as fitness-bearing entities.We show a fundamental (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  50.  6
    Warren J. Ewens (2014). Grafen, the Price Equations, Fitness Maximization, Optimisation and the Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection. Biology and Philosophy 29 (2):197-205.
    This paper is a commentary on the focal article by Grafen and on earlier papers of his on which many of the results of this focal paper depend. Thus it is in effect a commentary on the “formal Darwinian project”, the focus of this sequence of papers. Several problems with this sequence are raised and discussed. The first of these concerns fitness maximization. It is often claimed in these papers that natural selection leads to a maximization of fitness and (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
1 — 50 / 1000