Skip to main content
Log in

Biological Levers and Extended Adaptationism

  • Published:
Biology & Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two critiques of simple adaptationism are distinguished: anti-adaptationism and extended adaptationism. Adaptationists and anti-adaptationists share the presumption that an evolutionary explanation should identify the dominant simple cause of the evolutionary outcome to be explained. A consideration of extended-adaptationist models such as coevolution, niche construction and extended phenotypes reveals the inappropriateness of this presumption in explaining the evolution of certain important kinds of features—those that play particular roles in the regulation of organic processes, especially behavior. These biological or behavioral ‘levers’ are distinctively available for adaptation and exaptation by their possessors and for co-optation by other organisms. As a result they are likely to result from a distinctive and complex type of evolutionary process that conforms neither to simple adaptationist nor to anti-adaptationist styles of explanation. Many of the human features whose evolutionary explanation is most controversial belong to this category, including the female orgasm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Gould and Vrba (1982) use ‘co-optation’ as a synonym for the new term they are introducing: ‘exaptation.’

  2. It should be borne in mind throughout that although I will write about the interactions as taking place between members of two discrete populations, usually of different species, the same kinds of processes may take place among members of a single population.

References

  • Alcock J (1987) Ardent adaptationism. Nat Hist 96(4):4

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby WR (1956) An introduction to cybernetics. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Barash DP (2005) Let a thousand orgasms bloom! a review of the case of the female orgasm by Elisabeth A. Lloyd. Evol Psychol 3:347–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber I, Hoare D, Krause J (2000) Effects of parasites on fish behaviour: A review and evolutionary perspective. Rev Fish Biol Fish 10:131–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson P (1988) The active role of behaviour in evolution. In: Ho M-W, Fox SW (eds) Evolutionary processes and metaphors. Wiley, New York, pp 191–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard C (1865) An introduction to the study of experimental medicine, English translation Greene HC (trans.) 1927. Macmillan, New York

  • Bowlby J (1969/1997) Attachment, vol 1 of Attachment and loss. Pimlico, London. Reprint of Hogarth, New York

  • Bowlby J (1977) The making and breaking of affectional bonds. Br J Psychiatry 130:201–210; 421–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd R, Richerson PJ (1985) Culture and the evolutionary process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss LW (1987) The evolution of individuality. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavalli-Sforza LL, Feldman MW (1981) Cultural transmission and evolution: a quantitative approach. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Cziko G (2000) The things we do: using the lessons of Bernard and Darwin to understand the what, how, and why of our behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins R (1982) The extended phenotype. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins R (1986) The blind watchmaker. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins R (2004) Extended phenotype – but not too extended. A reply to Laland, Turner and Jablonka. Biol Philos 19:377–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day RL, Laland KN, Odling-Smee J (2003) Rethinking adaptation: the niche-construction perspective. Perspect Biol Med [Chicago] 46(1):80–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennett DC (1995) Darwin’s dangerous idea. Simon and Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicke M, van Poecke RMP (2002) Signalling in plant-insect interactions: signal transduction in direct and indirect plant defence. In: Scheel D, Wasternack C (eds) Plant signal transduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 289–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich PR, Raven PH (1964) Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18:586–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson BF, Mathesius U (2003) Signaling interactions during nodule development. J Plant Growth Regul 22:47–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher J, Hinde RA (1949) The opening of milk bottles by birds. Br Birds 42:347–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma DJ, Slatkin M (eds) (1983) Coevolution. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA

  • Godfrey-Smith P (2001) Three kinds of adaptationism. In: Orzack SH, Sober E (eds) Adaptationism and optimality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 335–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1987) Freudian slip. Nat Hist 96(2):14–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ, Lewontin RC (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist program. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, vol 205, pp 581–598, reprinted in Sober E (ed) 1994, Conceptual issues in evolutionary biology, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp 73–90

  • Gould SJ, Vrba E (1982) Exaptation – a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8:4–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Gresshoff PM, Rose RJ, Singh M, Rolfe BG (2003) Symbiosis signals. Today Life Sci May/June, 30–33

  • Griffiths PE, Gray RD (1994) Developmental systems and evolutionary explanation. J Philos 91(6):277–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ham JH, Bent A (2002) Recognition and defense signalling in plant/bacterial and fungal interactions. In: Scheel D, Wasternack C (eds) Plant signal transduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 198–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland J (1995) Hidden order: how adaptation builds complexity. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablonka E (2001) The systems of inheritance. In: Oyama S, Griffiths PE, Gray RD (eds) Cycles of contingency. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 99–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablonka E, Lamb MJ (1995) Epigenetic inheritance and evolution: the Lamarckian dimension. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Janzen DH (1980) When is it coevolution? Evolution 34:611–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jog M, Watve M (2005) Role of parasites and commensals in shaping host behaviour. Curr Sci 89:1184–1191

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller EF (2002) Making sense of life: explaining biological development with models, metaphors, and machines. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Laland KN (2004) Extending the extended phenotype. Biol Philos 19(3):313–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laland KN, Odling-Smee FJ, Feldman MW (1996) On the evolutionary consequences of niche construction. J Evol Biol 9:293–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laland KN, Odling-Smee FJ, Feldman MW (2000) Niche construction, biological evolution, and cultural change. Behav Brain Sci 23(1):131–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin RC (1983a) Gene, organism, and environment. In: Bendall DS (ed) Evolution from molecules to men. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 273–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin RC (1983b) The organism as the subject and object of evolution. Scientia 118:65–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin RC (1984) Adaptation. In: Sober E (ed) Conceptual issues in theoretical biology: an anthology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 234–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd EA (2005) The case of the female orgasm: bias in the science of evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J, Harper D (1995) Animal signals: models and terminology. J Theor Biol 177:305–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J, Szathmary E (1995) The major transitions in evolution. W.H. Freeman, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1983) How to carry out the adaptationist program? American Naturalist 121:324–333, reprinted in Mayr E, Towards a new philosophy of biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988, pp 149–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RW, Thompson NS (1990) The effects of familiarity on dog-human play. Anthrozoos 4(1):24–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RW, Thompson NS (1991) Projects, routines, and enticements in dog-human play. In: Bateson PPG, Klopfer PH (eds) Perspectives in ethology, vol 9. Plenum Press, New York, pp 189–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J (2002) Parasites and the behavior of animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Odling-Smee FJ, Laland KN, Feldman MW (2003) Niche construction: the neglected process in evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Oyama S (2000) The ontogeny of information: developmental systems and evolution, 2nd edn. Duke University Press, Durham, NC

    Google Scholar 

  • Oyama S, Griffiths PE, Gray RD (eds) (2001) Cycles of contingency. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

  • Plotkin HC (ed) (1988) The role of behavior in evolution. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

  • Preston, B (1988) Why is a wing like a spoon? A pluralist theory of function. J Philos 95(5):215–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richerson PJ, Boyd R (2005) Not by genes alone: how culture transformed human evolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson DS (1991) Feedback theory and Darwinian evolution. J Theor Biol 152: 469–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheel D, Wasternack C (2002) Signal transduction in plants: cross talk with the environment. In: Scheel D, Wasternack C (eds) Plant signal transduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleidt WM (1998) Is humaneness canine?. Hum Ethol Bull 13:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah I (1972) The exploits of the incomparable Mulla Nasrudin. E.P. Dutton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober E, Wilson DS (1998) Unto others: the evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Soosaar JLM, Burch-Smith TM, Dinesh-Kumar SP (2005) Mechanisms of plant resistance to viruses. Nat Rev Microbiol 3:789–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Symons D (1979) The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas F, Adamo S, Moore J (2005) Parasitic manipulation: where are we, and where should we go? Behav Processes 68:185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JN (1995) The coevolutionary process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner JS (2000) The extended organism: the physiology of animal-built structures. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Valen L (1973) A new evolutionary law. Evol Theory 1:1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitham SA, Dinesh-Kumar SP (2002) Signaling, in plant-virus interactions. In: Scheel D, Wasternack C (eds) Plant signal transduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 226–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener N (1961) Cybernetics or control and communication in the animal and the machine, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf JB, Brodie ED III, Cheverud JM, Moore AJ, Wade MJ (1998) Evolutionary consequences of indirect genetic effects. Trends Ecol Evol 13(2):64–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gillian Barker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barker, G. Biological Levers and Extended Adaptationism. Biol Philos 23, 1–25 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-007-9061-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-007-9061-2

Keywords

Navigation