Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 429–437 | Cite as

Is it a revolution?

  • Peter Godfrey-Smith
Article

Abstract

Jablonka and Lamb's claim that evolutionary biology is undergoing a ‘revolution’ is queried. But the very concept of revolutionary change has uncertain application to a field organized in the manner of contemporary biology. The explanatory primacy of sequence properties is also discussed.

Keywords

Inheritance Evolution Central Dogma Epigenetics Revolution 

References

  1. Crick FHC (1970) Central dogma of molecular biology. Nature 227: 561–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Godfrey-Smith P (2003) Theory and reality: an introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. Jablonka E, Lamb M (2005) Evolution in four dimensions: genetic, epigenetic, behavioral and symbolic variation in the history of life. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Kuhn TS (1970) Structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd edn. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Lolle SJ, Victor JL, Young JM, Pruitt RE (2005) Genome-wide non-mendelian inheritance of extra-genomic information in arabidopsis. Nature 434: 505–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Olby Robert (1994) The path to the double helix (enlarged edition). Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Oyama S, Griffiths PE, Gray RD (eds) (2001) Cycles of contingency: developmental systems and evolution. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Richerson P, Boyd R (2005) Not by genes alone. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  9. Sterelny K (2004) Symbiosis, evolvability and modularity. In: G. Schlosser and G. Wagner (eds) Modularity in development and evolution. University of Chicago Press, pp 490–516Google Scholar
  10. Tomasello M (1999) The cultural origins of human cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  11. Toulmin S (1970) Does the distinction between normal and revolutionary science hold water? In: Lakatos I, Musgrave A (eds) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge pp 39–47Google Scholar
  12. Waters CK (2000) Molecules made biological. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4(214): 539–564Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations