Defending evo‐devo: A response to Hoekstra and Coyne

Philosophy of Science 76 (3):335-344 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The study of evolutionary developmental biology (“evo‐devo”) has recently experienced a dramatic surge in popularity among researchers and theorists concerned with evolution. However, some biologists and philosophers remain skeptical of the claims of evo‐devo. This paper discusses and responds to the recent high profile criticisms of evo‐devo presented by biologists Hopi E. Hoekstra and Jerry A. Coyne. I argue that their objections are unconvincing. Indeed, empirical research supports the main tenets of evo‐devo, including the claim that morphological evolution is the result of cis ‐regulatory change and the distinction that evo‐devo draws between morphological and physiological traits. *Received January 2008; revised March 2009. †To contact the author, please write to: Department of Philosophy, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221; e‐mail: [email protected].

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 89,764

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-01-09

Downloads
88 (#174,905)

6 months
5 (#243,444)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Lindsay Craig
Temple University

References found in this work

The Material Basis of Evolution.Richard Goldschmidt - 1941 - Philosophy of Science 8 (3):394-395.
Organisers and Genes.C. H. Waddington - 1941 - Philosophy of Science 8 (3):463-463.
Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo.Sean Carroll - 2007 - Journal of the History of Biology 40 (3):594-597.

Add more references