DOCSLIB.ORG

Adaptationism and the Logic of Research Questions: How to Think Clearly About Evolutionary Causes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Adaptationism and the Logic of Research Questions: How to Think Clearly About Evolutionary Causes Biol Theory (2015) 10:343–362 DOI 10.1007/s13752-015-0214-2 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Adaptationism and the Logic of Research Questions: How to Think Clearly About Evolutionary Causes Elisabeth A. Lloyd1 Received: 20 March 2015 / Accepted: 29 May 2015 / Published online: 9 July 2015 Ó Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research 2015 Abstract This article discusses various dangers that popular methods, despite its benign reputation. In ‘‘The accompany the supposedly benign methods in behavioral Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm,’’ evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology that fall Gould and Lewontin (1979) drew attention to several under the framework of ‘‘methodological adaptationism.’’ dangers in using this method. In this article, I present a A ‘‘Logic of Research Questions’’ is proposed that aids in framework for analysis that makes their worries clearer. I clarifying the reasoning problems that arise due to the also warn of further risks of this methodological frame- framework under critique. The live, and widely practiced, work, expanding on the dangers it poses to scientific rea- ‘‘evolutionary factors’’ framework is offered as the key soning in evolutionary biology. At the same time, I comparison and alternative. The article goes beyond the emphasize that I am not attacking the notion of looking for traditional critique of Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. adaptations in evolutionary studies: I am not anti-adapta- Lewontin, to present problems such as the disappearance of tion. The issues concern which framework is most appro- evidence, the mishandling of the null hypothesis, and priate and fruitful. failures in scientific reasoning, exemplified by a case from As evolutionary biology is usually taught and con- human behavioral ecology. In conclusion the paper shows ceived, there are a variety of evolutionary forces or types that ‘‘methodological adaptationism’’ does not deserve its of factors that can influence the form and distribution of a benign reputation. given trait in a population or species (Singh and Krimbas 2000;Futuyma2013). While natural selection may be the Keywords Adaptationism Á Behavioral biology Á most significant factor, we also have sexual selection, Behavioral ecology Á Evolutionary methods Á Evolutionary genetic linkage, phyletic history or ‘‘inertia,’’ develop- psychology Á Evolutionary theory Á Female orgasm mental factors, drift or chance, embryological constraints, and social, environmental, and niche coevolutionary fac- tors (Wright 1931; Odling-Smee et al. 2001; Pigliucci and Introduction Mu¨ller 2010). Traits can also be byproducts, spandrels, or exaptations of any of these processes in a co-related or We do not usually think that the logic of our scientific linked trait, among other causal and explanatory factors methods leads to closed-mindedness, and the inability to (Gould and Lewontin 1979; Gould and Vrba 1982; see alternatives, or evaluate evidence, but that is exactly Futuyma 2013).Letuscallthisbasicapproachthe‘‘evo- what sometimes happens in evolutionary biology of lutionary factors’’ framework of evolutionary theory; its behavioral and morphological traits with one of its most fundamental research question is: ‘‘What evolutionary factors account for the form and distribution of this trait?’’ Often, several of these factors are understood to & Elisabeth A. Lloyd operate simultaneously on a given trait, but only one or [email protected] two are the major factors causing its form and distribution 1 Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Indiana at a given time (e.g., Otsuka 2014; see Newman 1988; University, Bloomington, IN, USA Amundson 1994, 1998, 2005;Griffiths1996;Raff1996; 123 344 E. A. Lloyd Carroll 2005; Newman and Bhat 2008). When we inves- might be able to reach into ant nests with their long tigate the evolutionary origins of a given trait, we usually tongues and eat the most ants, and were thus most able to prioritize the functional factors, natural selection and pursue their food resources. These longer-tongued antea- sexual selection, as the most significant factors in evolu- ter-ancestors—eventually with their 25-inch-long ton- tionary research, and we might start with the question: gues—would represent the best fit—or closest-to-best ‘‘Does this trait have a function?’’1 If the trait, after fit—to their environment. The anteater example thus investigation, does not appear to have a correlation with presents a good instance of a natural selection explanation fitness,2 or does not appear to have evidence of design that reinforces or produces an adaptation. I take it as given (hence, does not appear to have a current or past function), that our living world is filled with examples of such we pursue other possible evolutionary explanations, such adaptations. as whether it might be due to genetic linkage with another Consider a breed of scientist called a ‘‘methodologi- trait, or be an exaptation, or a byproduct of selection (see cal’’ (or ‘‘heuristic’’) adaptationist, an evolutionary biol- Gould and Vrba 1982; Gould 2002; Lloyd and Gould ogist who assumes, at the beginning of investigation, that ([2002]2014). Alternatively, it may be present due to a trait is, indeed, an adaptation.3 Assuming adaptation is developmental or embryological constraints, or due to standard operating procedure among most behavioral phyletic inertia, and so on (Wake 1991, 2009;Newman ecologists, evolutionary psychologists, and human evo- and Bhat 2008, 2011; Linde-Medina 2011; Griesemer lutionists. Many of them cite Ernst Mayr’s (1983) 2015). Pursuit of such explanations would consist of defense of an ‘‘adaptationist research program,’’ written testing them against available evidence and searching for in reaction to Gould and Lewontin’s critical 1979 new evidence specific to those factors, against which they ‘‘Spandrels of San Marco.’’ Mayr sets up the problem so could then be compared. that selection is the only answer to the evolutionary There is another approach, dominant among leading question: animal behaviorists, behavioral ecologists, and many Consequently, when one attempts to explain the human evolutionists and evolutionary psychologists, features of something that is the product of evolution, called ‘‘methodological adaptationism.’’ Under this one must attempt to reconstruct the evolutionary approach, the leading research question is: ‘‘What is the history of this feature…. The most helpful procedure function of this trait?’’ or ‘‘What adaptive explanation in an analysis of historical narratives is to ask ‘‘why’’ can account for this trait?’’ And the research consists of questions; that is, questions (to translate this into an exploration and search for supportive evidence for modern evolutionary language) which ask what is or adaptive hypotheses that can explain the trait’s presence might have been the selective advantage that is in the population. responsible for the presence of a particular feature. (Mayr 1983, p. 325) The Logic of Research Questions: Alternatives Mayr continues on to advocate an adaptationist methodol- ogy for pursuing evolutionary explanations: Issues about method in behavioral ecology and biology When one attempts to determine for a given trait revolve around evolutionary adaptations, one of evolu- whether it is the result of natural selection or of tion’s biggest successes. Evolutionary adaptations are chance (the incidental byproduct of stochastic pro- traits that exist today because they were products of nat- cesses), one is faced by an epistemological dilemma. ural selection acting on a variety of developed phenotypes Almost any change in the course of evolution might in the past history of the species (Burian 1992;West- have resulted by chance. Can one ever prove this? Eberhard 1992;Griffiths1996). In the ancestral popula- Probably never. By contrast, can one deduce the tion of anteaters, for instance, which resembled armadil- probability of causation by selection? Yes, by los, tongue length was likely highly variable, with high showing that possession of the respective feature fitness values accruing to those anteater-ancestors that would be favored by selection. It is this consideration which determines the approach of the evolutionist. He must first attempt to explain biological phenom- 1 See Rose and Lauder (1996) for some examples of the application of this evolutionary factors approach. Or Martins (2000), for some ena and processes as the product of natural selection. methodological details. 2 Symons gives a variety of reasons against using correlation with 3 See Lewens (2009) for an extensive categorization of types of fitness for detecting adaptations, and prefers evidence of design adaptationism. Amundson (2001) and Sansom (2003) have also (1990). Thornhill (1990) provides another perspective of behavioral emphasized the multiple nature of adaptationist questions and adaptationists. answers, but not in the way I do here. 123 Adaptationism and the Logic of Research Questions 345 Only after all attempts to do so have failed, is he ‘‘function’’ in the selective sense. For example, a trait justified in designating the unexplained residue ten- could contribute to fitness in the current population, tatively as a product of chance. (Mayr 1983, p. 326)4 without having been formed by selection to have done so. Gould and Vrba (1982) dubbed such traits ‘‘exapta- Thus, he promotes the key question: ‘‘The adaptationist tions’’; these have current utility but not functions in the question, ‘What is the function of a given structure
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Fourth Perspective: Evolution and Organismal Agency
    The Fourth Perspective: Evolution and Organismal Agency Johannes Jaeger Complexity Science Hub (CSH), Vienna, Josefstädter Straße 39, 1080 Vienna Abstract This chapter examines the deep connections between biological organization, agency, and evolution by natural selection. Using Griesemer’s account of the re- producer, I argue that the basic unit of evolution is not a genetic replicator, but a complex hierarchical life cycle. Understanding the self-maintaining and self-pro- liferating properties of evolvable reproducers requires an organizational account of ontogenesis and reproduction. This leads us to an extended and disambiguated set of minimal conditions for evolution by natural selection—including revised or new principles of heredity, variation, and ontogenesis. More importantly, the con- tinuous maintenance of biological organization within and across generations im- plies that all evolvable systems are agents, or contain agents among their parts. This means that we ought to take agency seriously—to better understand the con- cept and its role in explaining biological phenomena—if we aim to obtain an or- ganismic theory of evolution in the original spirit of Darwin’s struggle for exis- tence. This kind of understanding must rely on an agential perspective on evolu- tion, complementing and succeeding existing structural, functional, and processual approaches. I sketch a tentative outline of such an agential perspective, and present a survey of methodological and conceptual challenges that will have to be overcome if we are to properly implement it. 1. Introduction There are two fundamentally different ways to interpret Darwinian evolutionary theory. Charles Darwin’s original framework grounds the process of evolution on 2 the individual’s struggle for existence (Darwin, 1859).
    [Show full text]
  • Fritz Allhoff
    Philosophies of the Sciences Philosophies of the Sciences A Guide Edited by Fritz Allhoff A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication This edition first published 2010 © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing program has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical, and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell. Registered Office John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom Editorial Offices 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell. The right of Fritz Allhoff to be identified as the author of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners.
    [Show full text]
  • European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, VI-1 | 2014 Popular Science, Pragmatism, and Conceptual Clarity 2
    European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy VI-1 | 2014 The Reception of Peirce in the World Popular Science, Pragmatism, and Conceptual Clarity Oliver Belas Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/514 DOI: 10.4000/ejpap.514 ISSN: 2036-4091 Publisher Associazione Pragma Electronic reference Oliver Belas, « Popular Science, Pragmatism, and Conceptual Clarity », European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy [Online], VI-1 | 2014, Online since 08 July 2014, connection on 16 March 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/514 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/ejpap.514 This text was automatically generated on 16 March 2020. Author retains copyright and grants the European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Popular Science, Pragmatism, and Conceptual Clarity 1 Popular Science, Pragmatism, and Conceptual Clarity Oliver Belas Introduction 1 One of popular science’s primary functions is to make what would otherwise be inaccessible, specialist knowledge accessible to the lay reader. But popular science puts its imagined reader in something of a dilemma, for one does not have to look very far to find bitter argument among science writers; argument that takes place beyond the limits of the scientific community: witness the ill-tempered exchanges between Mary Midgley and Richard Dawkins in the journal Philosophy in the late seventies and early eighties; or, from the mid-nineties, the surly dialogue of Stephen Jay Gould, Daniel Dennett, and others in The New York Review of Books (see below and Works Cited).
    [Show full text]
  • Stephen J. Gould's Legacy
    STEPHEN J. GOULD’S LEGACY NATURE, HISTORY, SOCIETY Venice, May 10–12, 2012 Organized by Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti in collaboration with Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia ABSTRACTS Organizing Committee Gian Antonio Danieli, Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti Elena Gagliasso, Sapienza Università di Roma Alessandro Minelli, Università degli studi di Padova and Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti Telmo Pievani, Università degli studi di Milano Bicocca and Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti Maria Turchetto, Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia Chairpersons Bernardino Fantini, Université de Genève Marco Ferraguti, Università degli studi di Milano Elena Gagliasso, Sapienza Università di Roma Giorgio Manzi, Sapienza Università di Roma Alessandro Minelli, Università degli studi di Padova and Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti Telmo Pievani, Università degli studi di Milano Bicocca and Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti Maria Turchetto, Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia Invited speakers Guido Barbujani, Università degli studi di Ferrara Marcello Buiatti, Università degli studi di Firenze Andrea Cavazzini, Université de Liège Niles Eldredge, American Museum of Natural History, New York T. Ryan Gregory, University of Guelph Alberto Gualandi, Università degli studi di Bologna Elisabeth Lloyd, Indiana University Giuseppe Longo, CNRS; École Normale Supérieure, Paris Winfried Menninghaus, Freie Universität Berlin Alessandro Minelli, Università degli studi di Padova and Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti Gerd Müller, Konrad Lorenz Institute, Vienna and Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti Marco Pappalardo, McGill University, Montreal Telmo Pievani, Università degli studi di Milano Bicocca and Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti Klaus Scherer, Université de Genève Ian Tattersall, American Museum of Natural History, New York May 20, 2012 will be the tenth anniversary of Stephen Jay Gould’s death.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Defense of Adaptationism
    Prepared for the Northwest Philosophy Conference, Fall 2002 A new defense of adaptationism Mark A. Bedau Reed College, 3203 SE Woodstock Blvd., Portland OR 97202 503-517-7337 http://www.reed.edu/~mab [email protected] Abstract The scientific legitimacy of adaptationist explanations has been challenged by Gould and Lewontin in “The Spandrals of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm.” The canonical response to this challenge is weak, because it concedes that the presupposition that an adaptationist explanation is needed cannot be tested empirically. This paper provides a new kind of defense of adaptationism by providing such a test. The test is described in general terms and then illustrated in the context of an artificial system—a simulation of self-replicating computer code mutating and competing for space in computer memory. It is a cliché to explain the giraffe’s long neck as an adaptation for browsing in tall tree. But the scientific legitimacy of such adaptive explanations is controversial, largely because of the classic paper “The Spandrals of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme” published by Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin in 1979. The controversy persists, I believe, in part because the fundamental challenge raised by Gould and Lewontin has not yet been met; in fact, it is rarely even acknowledged. This paper addresses this challenge and defends the scientific legitimacy of adaptive explanations in a new and deeper way. First, some terminology.1 I will refer to claims to the effect that a trait is an adaptation as an adaptive hypothesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Stephen Jay Gould Papers M1437
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt229036tr No online items Guide to the Stephen Jay Gould Papers M1437 Jenny Johnson Department of Special Collections and University Archives August 2011 ; revised 2019 Green Library 557 Escondido Mall Stanford 94305-6064 [email protected] URL: http://library.stanford.edu/spc Guide to the Stephen Jay Gould M1437 1 Papers M1437 Language of Material: English Contributing Institution: Department of Special Collections and University Archives Title: Stephen Jay Gould papers creator: Gould, Stephen Jay source: Shearer, Rhonda Roland Identifier/Call Number: M1437 Physical Description: 575 Linear Feet(958 boxes) Physical Description: 1180 computer file(s)(52 megabytes) Date (inclusive): 1868-2004 Date (bulk): bulk Abstract: This collection documents the life of noted American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, Stephen Jay Gould. The papers include correspondence, juvenilia, manuscripts, subject files, teaching files, photographs, audiovisual materials, and personal and biographical materials created and compiled by Gould. Both textual and born-digital materials are represented in the collection. Preferred Citation [identification of item], Stephen Jay Gould Papers, M1437. Dept. of Special Collections, Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, Calif. Publication Rights While Special Collections is the owner of the physical and digital items, permission to examine collection materials is not an authorization to publish. These materials are made available for use
    [Show full text]
  • Adaptationism for Human Cognition: Strong, Spurious Or Weak? Scott Atran
    Adaptationism for Human Cognition: Strong, Spurious or Weak? Scott Atran To cite this version: Scott Atran. Adaptationism for Human Cognition: Strong, Spurious or Weak?. Mind and Language, Wiley, 2005, 20 (1). ijn_00000574 HAL Id: ijn_00000574 https://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ijn_00000574 Submitted on 1 Feb 2005 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Adaptationism for Human Cognition: Strong, Spurious or Weak? SCOTT ATRAN Abstract: Strong adaptationists explore complex organic design as task-specific adapta- tions to ancestral environments. This strategy seems best when there is evidence of homology. Weak adaptationists don’t assume that complex organic (including cognitive and linguistic) functioning necessarily or primarily represents task-specific adaptation. This approach to cognition resembles physicists’ attempts to deductively explain the most facts with fewest hypotheses. For certain domain-specific competencies (folkbiol- ogy) strong adaptationism is useful but not necessary to research. With group-level belief systems (religion) strong adaptationism degenerates into spurious notions of social function and cultural selection. In other cases (language, especially universal grammar) weak adaptationism’s ‘minimalist’ approach seems productive. 1. Introduction In a sense, everyone who isn’t a creationist and who thinks that Darwin’s theory of natural selection isn’t moonshine is an adaptationist when it comes to explaining the origins of human cognition.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwinism, Disvalues and Design Taylor & Francis. Not for Distribution
    Chapter Six Darwinism, Disvalues and Design Section 1: Darwinism It is time to say more about Darwinism, partly to explain its coherence and cogency, partly to introduce its implications for the Teleological Argument, and partly to illustrate and appraise the problem of natural evil which, as we have seen, contributed to Darwin’s own loss of belief in God. Darwinism will be discussed in the current section, together with some of its grounds and some of its varieties, to which we revert in later chapters. Its possible implications in the area of sociobiology will also be considered. In later sections of this chapter its bearing will be considered on the Design Argument, as will subsequently its compatibility with belief in God’s goodness. The theory of evolution by natural selection provides the backdrop for contemporary environmental concern, and several of the themes of this chapter will thus prove relevant to the scope and limits of environmental stewardship, discussed in the final two chapters of this book. Darwin’s theory asserts, in part, that life on Earth has evolved from a common ancestry1 and from relatively simple to relatively complex forms of life.2 Michael Ruse summarizes Darwin’s evidence as including grounds from palaeontology (the fossil record), bio-geography (for evolution best explains the distribution of bird and reptile species in places such as the Galapagos Islands), anatomical similarities across diverse species (for evolution from common ancestors best explains such ‘homologies’), and from systematics, for common ancestry best explains the way species can be ordered in a hierarchy of groups, which seem to call for an explanation of such a nature.3 In view of this and additional evidence (like that from embryology), the evolution of species was soon recognized as a fact.4 Darwin further argued that a major cause of the adaptedness of organisms that facilitates their evolution was natural selection.
    [Show full text]
  • Teleology and Biology: a Defense of Teleological Thinking in Biology
    Teleology and Biology: a defense of teleological thinking in biology Marcelo Domingos de Santis * Abstract: Teleological language refers to a forward-looking discourse, and var- ious biologists are troubled with this issue. In this paper, I will discuss the mis- understandings that both philosophers of science and biologists have made against teleology. Among these misunderstandings, I can mention its relation- ship to anthropomorphism (i.e., a planning agent external to the world refer- ence) and reference to a force immanent to the organisms (“vitalism”) beyond the reach of empirical investigation. I will argue that they are misconceptions and that teleology has shifted its meaning and focus from its pre-evolutionary form. Now it is in the position that it can be used and maintained without vio- lating the principles of modern science. Using an example of the adaptation and function debate, I will discuss how the teleological language is the best interpre- tation of these issues. Key-words: adaptation; evolutionary biology; philosophy of science; teleology Teleologia e Biologia: uma defesa do pensamento teleológico na biologia Resumo: A linguagem teleológica pode ser definida como um discurso pros- pectivo, e isto tem preocupado biólogos em torno desse problema. Neste artigo, discutirei os mal-entendidos que filósofos da ciência e biólogos tiveram acerca da teleologia. Por exemplo, afirmam que a teleologia sofre de antropomorfismo (isto é, um agente de planejamento externo à referência mundial) e se refere a uma força imanente aos organismos (forças vitais ou “vitalismo”) além do al- cance da investigação empírica. Argumentarei que eles estão equivocados e que a teleologia mudou seu significado e foco de sua forma pré-evolutiva, e agora pode ser usada e mantida sem violar os princípios da ciência moderna.
    [Show full text]
  • Adaptationism and the Logic of Research Questions: How to Think Clearly About Evolutionary Causes
    Biol Theory (2015) 10:343–362 DOI 10.1007/s13752-015-0214-2 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Adaptationism and the Logic of Research Questions: How to Think Clearly About Evolutionary Causes Elisabeth A. Lloyd1 Received: 20 March 2015 / Accepted: 29 May 2015 / Published online: 9 July 2015 Ó Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research 2015 Abstract This article discusses various dangers that popular methods, despite its benign reputation. In ‘‘The accompany the supposedly benign methods in behavioral Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm,’’ evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology that fall Gould and Lewontin (1979) drew attention to several under the framework of ‘‘methodological adaptationism.’’ dangers in using this method. In this article, I present a A ‘‘Logic of Research Questions’’ is proposed that aids in framework for analysis that makes their worries clearer. I clarifying the reasoning problems that arise due to the also warn of further risks of this methodological frame- framework under critique. The live, and widely practiced, work, expanding on the dangers it poses to scientific rea- ‘‘evolutionary factors’’ framework is offered as the key soning in evolutionary biology. At the same time, I comparison and alternative. The article goes beyond the emphasize that I am not attacking the notion of looking for traditional critique of Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. adaptations in evolutionary studies: I am not anti-adapta- Lewontin, to present problems such as the disappearance of tion. The issues concern which framework is most appro- evidence, the mishandling of the null hypothesis, and priate and fruitful. failures in scientific reasoning, exemplified by a case from As evolutionary biology is usually taught and con- human behavioral ecology.
    [Show full text]
  • The Structure of Evolutionary Theory: Beyond Neo-Darwinism, Neo
    1 2 3 The structure of evolutionary theory: Beyond Neo-Darwinism, 4 Neo-Lamarckism and biased historical narratives about the 5 Modern Synthesis 6 7 8 9 10 Erik I. Svensson 11 12 Evolutionary Ecology Unit, Department of Biology, Lund University, SE-223 62 Lund, 13 SWEDEN 14 15 Correspondence: [email protected] 16 17 18 19 1 20 Abstract 21 The last decades have seen frequent calls for a more extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) that 22 will supposedly overcome the limitations in the current evolutionary framework with its 23 intellectual roots in the Modern Synthesis (MS). Some radical critics even want to entirely 24 abandon the current evolutionary framework, claiming that the MS (often erroneously labelled 25 “Neo-Darwinism”) is outdated, and will soon be replaced by an entirely new framework, such 26 as the Third Way of Evolution (TWE). Such criticisms are not new, but have repeatedly re- 27 surfaced every decade since the formation of the MS, and were particularly articulated by 28 developmental biologist Conrad Waddington and paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. 29 Waddington, Gould and later critics argued that the MS was too narrowly focused on genes and 30 natural selection, and that it ignored developmental processes, epigenetics, paleontology and 31 macroevolutionary phenomena. More recent critics partly recycle these old arguments and 32 argue that non-genetic inheritance, niche construction, phenotypic plasticity and developmental 33 bias necessitate major revision of evolutionary theory. Here I discuss these supposed 34 challenges, taking a historical perspective and tracing these arguments back to Waddington and 35 Gould. I dissect the old arguments by Waddington, Gould and more recent critics that the MS 36 was excessively gene centric and became increasingly “hardened” over time and narrowly 37 focused on natural selection.
    [Show full text]
  • Organism and Mechanism
    ORGANISM AND MECHANISM A Critique of Mechanistic Thinking in Biology Submitted by Daniel James Nicholson to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy In September 2010 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signature: ………………………………………………………….. ABSTRACT In this thesis I present a critical examination of the role played by mechanistic ideas in shaping our understanding of living systems. I draw on a combination of historical, philosophical, and scientific resources to uncover a number of problems which I take to result from the adoption of mechanistic thinking in biology. I provide an analysis of the historical development of the conflict between mechanistic and vitalistic conceptions of life since the seventeenth century, and I argue that the basic terms of this conflict remain central to current disputes over the nature of the organism as well as the question of how far the theories, concepts, and methods of physics, chemistry, and engineering can ultimately take us in the explanation of life. I offer a detailed critique of the machine conception of the organism, which constitutes the central unifying idea of mechanistic biology. I argue that this notion, despite its undeniable heuristic value, is fundamentally inadequate as a theory of the organism due to a number of basic differences between organisms and machines.
    [Show full text]