Defending evo‐devo: A response to Hoekstra and Coyne

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

Authors
Lindsay Craig
Temple University
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: craiglr@email.uc.edu.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/649808
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 44,283
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Tension Between Tradition and Innovation.Werner Callebaut - 2013 - Biological Theory 7 (3):187-188.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-01-09

Total views
70 ( #118,812 of 2,270,950 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #420,316 of 2,270,950 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature