Biology and Philosophy 22 (4):529-546 (2007)
Evolutionary psychologists argue that selective pressures in our ancestral environment yield a highly specialized set of modular cognitive capacities. However, recent papers in developmental psychology and neuroscience claim that evolutionary accounts of modularity are incompatible with the flexibility and plasticity of the developing brain. Instead, they propose cortical and neuronal brain structures are fixed through interactions with our developmental environment. Buller and Gray Hardcastle contend that evolutionary accounts of cognitive development are unacceptably rigid in light of evidence of cortical plasticity. The developing structure of the brain is both too random and too sensitive to external stimuli to be the product of a fixed genetic mechanism. They also claim that the complexity of the human brain cannot be explained in terms of our meager genetic endowment. There simply are not enough genes to program the intricate neuronal structures that are essential to cognition. I argue that neither of these arguments are persuasive. Small numbers of genes can function to determine diverse phenotypical outcomes through evolutionarily selected developmental systems. Similarly, theories of modularity do not rule out the possibility that innate cognitive systems exploit environmental regularities to guide the developing structure of the brain. Consequently, the anti-adaptionist consequences of these positions should be rejected
|Keywords||Philosophy Evolutionary Biology Philosophy of Biology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture.Jerome Barkow, Leda Cosmides & John Tooby (eds.) - 1992 - Oxford University Press.
Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature.David J. Buller - 2005 - MIT Press.
Pretending and Believing: Issues in the Theory of ToMM.Alan M. Leslie - 1994 - Cognition 50 (1-3):211-238.
Citations of this work BETA
Why the (Gene) Counting Argument Fails in the Massive Modularity Debate: The Need for Understanding Gene Concepts and Genotype-Phenotype Relationships.Kathryn S. Plaisance, Thomas A. C. Reydon & Mehmet Elgin - 2012 - Philosophical Psychology 25 (6):873-892.
Constructive Criticism: An Evaluation of Buller and Hardcastle's Genetic and Neuroscientific Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology.Catherine Driscoll - 2014 - Philosophical Psychology 27 (6):907-925.
Similar books and articles
Biological Preparedness and Evolutionary Explanation.Denise D. Cummins & Robert C. Cummins - 1999 - Cognition 73 (3):B37-B53.
Evolutionary Psychology and the Massive Modularity Hypothesis.Richard Samuels - 1998 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (4):575-602.
Evolutionary Psychology, Meet Developmental Neurobiology: Against Promiscuous Modularity. [REVIEW]David J. Buller & Valerie Gray Hardcastle - 2000 - Brain and Mind 1 (3):307-25.
The Theory of Mind Module in Evolutionary Psychology.Philip Gerrans - 2002 - Biology and Philosophy 17 (3):305-21.
Cognitive Modularity, Biological Modularity and Evolvability.Claudia Lorena García - 2007 - Biological Theory: Integrating Development, Evolution and Cognition (KLI) 2 (1):62-73.
Structural Abnormality May Not Equal Functional Oddity.Yonata Levy - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):760-761.
Constraining Constructivism: Cortical and Sub-Cortical Constraints on Learning in Development.Steven Quartz & Terrence Sejnowski - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):785-791.
Evo-Devo, Modularity, and Evolvability: Insights for Cultural Evolution.Simon M. Reader - 2006 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (4):361-362.
What Can Developmental Disorders Tell Us About Modularity?Gary F. Marcus - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):762-763.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads50 ( #101,780 of 2,153,475 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #399,083 of 2,153,475 )
How can I increase my downloads?