Advertisement

Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 673–696 | Cite as

The Structure of Evolution by Natural Selection

  • Richmond Campbell
  • Jason Scott Robert
Article

Abstract

We attempt a conclusive resolution of the debate over whether the principle of natural selection (PNS), especially conceived as the `principle' of the `survival of the fittest', is a tautology. This debate has been largely ignored for the past 15 years but not, we think, because it has actually been settled. We begin by describing the tautology objection, and situating the problem in the philosophical and biology literature. We then demonstrate the inadequacy of six prima facie plausible reasons for believing that the tautology debate has been satisfactorily resolved (the PNS is strictly a methodological principle; scientific theories can contain tautologies; the scope of the PNS has been reduced; theories should be understood as models and not exceptionless laws; the widespread acceptance of the propensity interpretation of fitness; and the abandonment of operationalism and verificationism). We proceed to a detailed discussion of Brandon's law (D) describing the PNS, and show that law (D) seriously misrepresents the structure of evolution by natural selection. In the final sections, we provide and defend a novel reinterpretation of the structure of the principle (or, we prefer, model) of evolution by natural selection.

Keywords

natural selection Darwin evolution tautology testability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Antonovics, J., Bradshaw, A.D., Turner, R.C. 1971Heavy metal tolerance in plantsAdv. Ecol. Res.7185Google Scholar
  2. Bock, W.J., Wahlert, G. 1965Adaptation and the form-function complexEvolution19269299Google Scholar
  3. Brandon, R.N. 1978Adaptation and evolutionary theoryStud. Hist. Philos. Sci.9181206 1996, As reprinted in Brandon R.N. 1996. Concepts and Methods in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 3–29Google Scholar
  4. Brandon R.N. 1980. (1996) A Structural Description of Evolutionary Theory. PSA 1980, vol. II (1981), pp. 427–439. As reprinted in Brandon R.N. 1996. Concepts and Methods in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 46–57.Google Scholar
  5. Brandon, R.B. 1990Adaptation and EnvironmentPrinceton University PressPrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. Cain, A.J., Sheppard, P.M. 1950Selection in the polymorphic land Snail Cepaea nemoralisHeredity4275294Google Scholar
  7. Cain, A.J., Sheppard, P.M. 1954Natural selection in CepaeaGenetics3989116Google Scholar
  8. Darwin, C. 1859/1968The origin of SpeciesPenguin ClassicsNew York, NYGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawkins, R. 1983Universal DarwinismBendall, D.S. eds. Evolution from Molecules to ManCambridge University PressCambridge403425Google Scholar
  10. Dawkins, R. 1986The Blind WatchmakerNortonNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Dawkins, R. 1996Climbing Mount ImprobableNortonNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Gallagher, K.T. 1989‘Natural Selection’: a Tautology?Int. Philos. Quart.291731Google Scholar
  13. Gould, S.J. 1977Ever Since DarwinW.W. NortonNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Gould, S.J., Lewontin, R.C. 1979The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programmeP. Roy. So. Lond.B 205581589Google Scholar
  15. Grant, P.R. 1986Ecology and Evolution of Darwin’s FinchesPrinceton University PressPrincetonGoogle Scholar
  16. Hooper, J. 2002Of Moths and Men: IntrigueTragedy, and the Peppered MothFourth EstateLondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Hull, D.L. 1999The use and abuse of Sir Karl PopperBiol. Philos.14481504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson, P. 1991Darwin on TrialRegneryWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Kitcher, P. 1982Abusing Science: The Case Against CreationismMIT PressCambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  20. Krimbas, C.B. 2004On fitnessBio. Philos.19185203Google Scholar
  21. Lloyd, E.A. 1988The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary TheoryGreenwood PressWestport CTGoogle Scholar
  22. Majerus, M. 1998Melanism: Evolution in ActionOxford University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Matthen, M., Ariew, A. 2002Two ways of thinking about fitness and natural selectionJ. Philos.995583Google Scholar
  24. Popper, K.R. 1963Conjectures and RefutationsHarperNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Popper, K.R. 1972Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary ApproachClarendon PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Popper, K.R. 1974Darwinism as a metaphysical research programmeSchilpp, P.A. eds. The Philosophy of Sir Karl PopperOpen CourtLasalle IL133143Google Scholar
  27. Popper, K.R. 1977Natural selection and its scientific statusDavid, M. eds. Popper SelectionsPrinceton University Press, 1985Princeton239246Google Scholar
  28. Raff, R.A. 2001The Creationist Abuse of Evo-DevoEvol. Dev.3373374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosenberg, A. 1983FitnessJ. Philos.80457473Google Scholar
  30. Ruse, M. 1982Darwinism DefendedAddison-WesleyLondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Sober, E. 1984The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical FocusBradford/MIT PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Sober, E. 1993Philosophy of BiologyWestview PressBoulderGoogle Scholar
  33. Sober, E. 1998Six sayings about adaptationismDavid, H.Michael, R. eds. The Philosophy of BiologyOxford University PressNew York7286Google Scholar
  34. Stove, D. 1996Darwinian FairytalesAvebury/AshgateBurlington, VTGoogle Scholar
  35. Waters, C.K. 1986Natural selection without survival of the fittestBiol. Philos.1207225Google Scholar
  36. Wells, J. 2000Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is WrongRegneryWashington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.Center for Biology and Society and School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations