The end of the adaptive landscape metaphor?
- Jonathan Kaplan
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
The concepts of adaptive/fitness landscapes and adaptive peaks are a central part of much of contemporary evolutionary biology; the concepts are introduced in introductory texts, developed in more detail in graduate-level treatments, and are used extensively in papers published in the major journals in the field. The appeal of visualizing the process of evolution in terms of the movement of populations on such landscapes is very strong; as one becomes familiar with the metaphor, one often develops the feeling that it is possible to gain deep insights into evolution by thinking about the movement of populations on landscapes consisting of adaptive valleys and peaks. But, since Wright first introduced the metaphor in 1932, the metaphor has been the subject of persistent confusion, from equivocation over just what the features of the landscape are meant to represent to how we ought to expect the landscapes to look. Recent advances—conceptual, empirical, and computational—have pointed towards the inadequacy and indeed incoherence of the landscapes as usually pictured. I argue that attempts to reform the metaphor are misguided; it is time to give up the pictorial metaphor of the landscape entirely and rely instead on the results of formal modeling, however difficult such results are to understand in ‘intuitive’ terms.
- The end of the adaptive landscape metaphor?
Biology & Philosophy
Volume 23, Issue 5 , pp 625-638
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Adaptive landscape
- Fitness landscape
- Holey landscape
- Peak shift
- Shifting balance theory
- Bateson-Dobzhansky-Muller model
- Jonathan Kaplan (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Philosophy Department, Oregon State University, 208 Hovland Hall, Corvallis, OR, 97331-3902, USA