What is this stuff called fitness?

Biology and Philosophy 6 (1):81-92 (1991)
Abstract
This paper considers a variety of attempts to define fitness in such a way as to defend the theory of evolution by natural selection from the criticism that it is a circular argument. Each of the definitions is shown to be inconsistent with the others. The paper argues that the environment in which an animal evolves can be defined only with respect to the properties of the phenotype of the animal and that it is therefore not illuminating to try to explain the phenotypic properties of the animal in terms of adaptation to an environment that is defined by those very properties. Furthermore, since there is no way that the environment can be defined independently of the presence of the animal there is no way that the quality of an animal can be assessed; and there can be no objective criteria by whichany form of selection can be carried out, therefore there can be no criteria by whichnatural selection can be carried out. It is proposed that fitness is nothing more than the production of offspring, that this is a phenotypic property like all the others, and if it is heritable then the offspring of the parents that produce the most offspring will themselves produce the most offspring, and that in principle it is impossible to account for this in terms of the other phenotypic properties of the fittest animals except by circular argument. Differential rates of reproduction are the causes of evolution and the phenotypic causes are strictly inexplicable.
Keywords Evolution  fitness  natural selection
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF02426827
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 28,756
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Sociobiology and the Preemption of Social Science.Alexander Rosenberg - 1980 - Johns Hopkins University Press, C1980.
The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness.Susan K. Mills & John H. Beatty - 1979 - Philosophy of Science 46 (2):263-286.
Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies.Michael Ruse - 1983 - Journal of the History of Biology 16 (3):441-442.
The Open Universe.Karl R. Popper - 1983 - Philosophy of Science 50 (4):651-656.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
The Non-Existence of a Principle of Natural Selection.Abner Shimony - 1989 - Biology and Philosophy 4 (3):255-273.
The Confusions of Fitness.André Ariew & R. C. Lewontin - 2004 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (2):347-363.
The Unity of Fitness.Marshall Abrams - 2009 - Philosophy of Science 76 (5):750-761.
The Natures of Selection.Tim Lewens - 2010 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (2):313-333.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

12 ( #380,645 of 2,177,875 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #317,247 of 2,177,875 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums