Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T16:17:30.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Adaptations of Organisms and the Fitness of Types

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Lia Ettinger ,
Eva Jablonka  and
Peter McLaughlin
Lia Ettinger
Affiliation:
Edelstein Center for the History and Philosophy of Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Eva Jablonka
Affiliation:
Edelstein Center for the History and Philosophy of Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Peter McLaughlin
Affiliation:
Edelstein Center for the History and Philosophy of Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We claim that much of the confusion associated with the “tautology problem” about survival of the fittest is due to the mistake of attributing fitness to individuals instead of to types. We argue further that the problem itself cannot be solved merely by taking fitness as the aggregate cause of reproductive success. We suggest that a satisfying explanation must center not on logical analysis of the concept of general adaptedness but on the empirical analysis of single adapted traits and their causal relationship to changes in allele frequencies.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , September 1990 , pp. 499 - 513
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brandon, R. (1978), “Adaptation and Evolutionary Theory”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 9: 181–206. Also in: Sober (1984a), pp. 58–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burian, R. M. (1983), “Adaptation”, in M. Grene (ed.), Dimensions of Darwinism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 287–314.Google Scholar
Chao, L., Vargus, C., Spear, B. B., and Cox, E. C. (1983), “Transposable Elements as Mutator Genes in Evolution”, Nature 303: 633–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, J. F. and Simmons, M. J. (1983), “The Mutation Load in Drosophila”, in vol. 3c. The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila, (Ashburner, M., Carson, H. L., and Thompson, J. N. Jr. eds.), New York: Academic Press, pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1976), The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1982), The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as the Unit of Selection. Oxford and San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Doolittle, W. F. and Sapienza, C. (1980), “Selfish Genes, the Phenotype Paradigm and Genome Evolution”, Nature 282: 601–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dover, G. (1982), “Molecular Drive: A Cohesive Mode of Species Evolution”, Nature 299: 111–117.10.1038/299111a0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eigen, M. and Schuster, P. (1977), “The Hypercycle: A Principle of Natural Self-organization”, Die Naturwissenschaften 64: 541–565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ettinger, L. (1986), “Meiosis: a Selection Stage Preserving the Genome's Pattern of Organization”, Evolutionary Theory 8: 17–26.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1958), The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Hartl, D. L., Dykhuizen, D. E., and Dean, A. M. (1985), “Limits of Adaptation: The Evolution of Selective Neutrality”, Genetics 111: 655–674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kettlewell, H. B. D. (1973), The Evolution of Melanism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kimura, M. (1983), The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. L. (1984), “Selectively Neutral Alleles with Significant Phenotypic Effects: A Steady-state Model”, Evolutionary Theory 7: 73–79.Google Scholar
Krimbas, C. B. (1984), “On Adaptation, Neo-Darwinian Tautology and Population Fitness”, Evolutionary Biology 17: 1–58.Google Scholar
Lambert, D. M., Millar, C. D., and Hughes, T. J. (1986), “On the Classic Case of Natural Selection”, Rivista di Biologia—Biology Forum 79: 11–49.Google ScholarPubMed
Lewontin, R. C. (1978), “Adaptation”, Scientific American 239: 213–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewontin, R. C. (1984), “Adaptation”, in Sober (1984a), pp. 235–251.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1970), Population, Species and Evolution. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mills, S. K. and Beatty, J. H. (1979), “The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness”, Philosophy of Science 46: 263–286. Also in Sober (1984a), pp. 36–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orgel, L. E., and Crick, F. H. C. (1980), “Selfish DNA: The Ultimate Parasite”, Nature 282: 604–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, D. S. (1983), “Evolutionary Theory and its Consequences for the Concept of Adaptation”, in M. Grene (ed.), Dimensions of Darwinism. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 315–327.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1985), The Structure of Biological Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, M. (1973), The Philosophy of Biology. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Scriven, M. (1959), “Explanation and Prediction in Evolutionary Theory”, Science 130: 477–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sober, E. (ed.) (1984a), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, Mass.: Bradford Books, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (ed.) (1984b), The Nature of Selection. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. and Lewontin, R. C. (1982), “Artifact, Cause and Genic Selection”, Philosophy of Science 49: 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddington, C. H. (1975), The Evolution of an Evolutionist. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1966), Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar