Philosophy of Science 76 (5):750-761 (2009)

Authors
Marshall Abrams
University of Alabama, Birmingham
Abstract
It has been argued that biological fitness cannot be defined as expected number of offspring in all contexts. Some authors argue that fitness therefore merely satisfies a common schema or that no unified mathematical characterization of fitness is possible. I argue that comparative fitness must be relativized to an evolutionary effect; thus relativized, fitness can be given a unitary mathematical characterization in terms of probabilities of producing offspring and other effects. Such fitnesses will sometimes be defined in terms of probabilities of effects occurring over the long term, but these probabilities nevertheless concern effects occurring over the short term. †To contact the author, please write to: Department of Philosophy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, HB 414A, 900 13th Street South, Birmingham, AL 35294‐1260; e‐mail: [email protected]
Keywords Fitness   Biology
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2009
DOI 10.1086/605788
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,579
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology.E. Sober (ed.) - 1994 - The Mit Press. Bradford Books.
Adaptation and Evolutionary Theory.Robert N. Brandon - 1978 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 9 (3):181.

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

A New Foundation for the Propensity Interpretation of Fitness.Charles H. Pence & Grant Ramsey - 2013 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (4):851-881.
Levels, Time and Fitness in Evolutionary Transitions in Individuality.Pierrick Bourrat - 2015 - Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 7 (20150505).

View all 16 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Can Fitness Differences Be a Cause of Evolution?Grant Ramsey - 2013 - Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 5 (20130604):1-13.
Fitness and Propensity’s Annulment?Marshall Abrams - 2007 - Biology and Philosophy 22 (1):115-130.
A Causal Dispositional Account of Fitness.Laura Nuño de la Rosa & Vanessa Triviño - 2016 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 38 (3).
Probability in Biology: The Case of Fitness.Roberta L. Millstein - 2016 - In A. Hájek & C. R. Hitchcock (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Probability and Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 601-622.
Block Fitness.Grant Ramsey - 2006 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37 (3):484-498.
Fitness: static or dynamic?Peter Takacs & Pierrick Bourrat - 2021 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 11 (4):1-20.
Roles of Mitonuclear Ecology and Sex in Conceptualizing Evolutionary Fitness.Kyle B. Heine & Elay Shech - 2021 - In Biology & Philosophy. Springer: Springer. pp. 1-20.
The Confusions of Fitness.André Ariew & Richard C. Lewontin - 2004 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (2):347-363.
A New Foundation for the Propensity Interpretation of Fitness.Charles H. Pence & Grant Ramsey - 2013 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (4):851-881.
Hamilton’s Two Conceptions of Social Fitness.Jonathan Birch - 2016 - Philosophy of Science 83 (5):848-860.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
81 ( #136,429 of 2,461,985 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #448,803 of 2,461,985 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes