Biology and Philosophy 19 (2):185-203 (2004)
The concept of fitness, central to population genetics and to the synthetic theory of evolution, is discussed. After a historical introduction on the origin of this concept, the current meaning of it in population genetics is examined: a cause of the selective process and its quantification. Several difficulties arise for its exact definition. Three adequacy criteria for such a definition are formulated. It is shown that it is impossible to formulate an adequate definition of fitness respecting these criteria. The propensity definition of fitness is presented and rejected. Finally it is argued that fitness is a conceptual device, a useful tool, only for descriptive purposes of selective processes, changing from case to case, and thus devoid of any substantial physical counterpart. Any attempt to its reification is an apport to the metaphysical load evolutionary theory has inherited from Natural Theology.
|Keywords||Fitness Population genetics Theory of evolution|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
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.
How Do Natural Selection and Random Drift Interact?Marshall Abrams - 2007 - Philosophy of Science 74 (5):666-679.
Fitness “Kinematics”: Biological Function, Altruism, and Organism–Environment Development.Marshall Abrams - 2009 - Biology and Philosophy 24 (4):487-504.
Similar books and articles
Beyond Inclusive Fitness? On A Simple And General Explanation For The Evolution of Altruism.Alejandro Rosas - 2010 - Philosophy and Theory in Biology 2 (20130604).
A Defense of Propensity Interpretations of Fitness.Robert C. Richardson & Richard M. Burian - 1992 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:349 - 362.
Matthen and Ariew's Obituary for Fitness: Reports of its Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated. [REVIEW]Alex Rosenberg & Frederic Bouchard - 2005 - Biology and Philosophy 20 (2-3):343-353.
Fitness as a Function.Henry Byerly - 1986 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:494 - 501.
The Confusions of Fitness.André Ariew & R. C. Lewontin - 2004 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (2):347-363.
The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness.Susan K. Mills & John H. Beatty - 1979 - Philosophy of Science 46 (2):263-286.
Additivity and the Units of Selection.Peter Godfrey-Smith - 1992 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:315 - 328.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads47 ( #111,370 of 2,171,820 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #326,616 of 2,171,820 )
How can I increase my downloads?