Ludus Vitalis 5:91-120 (1997)

Authors
Armando Aranda-Anzaldo
Universidad Autónoma Del Estado De México
Abstract
The unit of selection is the concept of that ‘something’ to which biologists refer when they speak of an adaptation as being ‘for the good of’ something. Darwin identified the organism as the unit of selection because for him the ‘struggle for existence’ was an issue among individuals. Later on it was suggested that, in order to understand the evolution of social behavior, it is necessary to argue that groups, and not individuals, are the units of selection. The last addition to this debate was the formulation by Dawkins, in 1976, that the genes themselves are the units of selection while organisms are merely the temporary receptacles and vehicles for such genes. Thus, the preposterous dissolution of the organism into genes and the proteins coded by such genes has been introduced in the evolutionary discourse by neglecting that the explanations for biological phenomena can be either synchronic or diachronic, depending on the phenomenon to be explained. Therefore explanations in molecular biology are synchronic while evolutionary biology needs diachronic explanations. Nevertheless, for ultra-Darwinians such as Dawkins, efficient replication is all that biology is about. Here I develop an argument in order to show that there is nothing in molecular and cell biology that might support such a contention and that the idea of the gene as the unit of selection is incompatible with the evident evolution of biological complexity.
Keywords Complexity  Evolution  Neo-Darwinism  Ontogeny  Reductionism
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

On Natural Selection and Hume's Second Problem.Armando Aranda-Anzaldo - 1998 - Evolution and Cognition 4 (2):156-172.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Competing Units of Selection?: A Case of Symbiosis.Sandra D. Mitchell - 1987 - Philosophy of Science 54 (3):351-367.
Gould Talking Past Dawkins on the Unit of Selection Issue.Michael Anthony Istvan - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (3):327-335.
The Selection of Alleles and the Additivity of Variance.Sahotra Sarkar - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:3 - 12.
What is the Gene Trying to Do?Warren J. Ewens - 2011 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62 (1):155-176.
Are Genes Units of Inheritance?Thomas Fogle - 1990 - Biology and Philosophy 5 (3):349-371.
Artifact, Cause and Genic Selection.Elliott Sober & Richard C. Lewontin - 1982 - Philosophy of Science 49 (2):157-180.
The Units of Selection and the Structure of the Multi-Level Genome.William C. Wimsatt - 1980 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:122 - 183.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-02-05

Total views
76 ( #137,395 of 2,439,040 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #136,430 of 2,439,040 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes