Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 155–159 | Cite as

Introduction: A Primer on Adaptationism

  • Patrick ForberEmail author
Article

Thirty years ago Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin published a article called “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme.” This article initiated the debate over the fate of adaptationism. While the prevalence and exact nature of adaptationism were not immediately clear in 1979, the target of Gould and Lewontin’s critique was: the practice of accepting adaptation hypotheses too quickly based on little or no evidence. The critique generated a discussion of lasting influence, a discussion still relevant to both evolutionary biology and philosophy. Indeed, the reach of the Spandrels article is such that Rose and Lauder (1996, pp. 1–8) claim that one task of contemporary evolutionary biology is to articulate a viable “post-spandrels adaptationism.” This special issue commemorates both the seminal article and the literature it inspired. The contributions here provide extensions and elaborations of many threads woven into this...

Keywords

Natural Selection Sufficient Explanation Current Utility Evolutionary Developmental Biology Explanatory Adaptationism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I owe a significant debt to Kim Sterelny for the opportunity to prepare this special issue, and for invaluable help with both the content and the editorial process. I would also like to thank everyone who expressed positive interest in the production of an issue commemorating the Spandrels article, especially (but certainly not limited to) the contributors herein.

References

  1. Amundson R (1988) Logical adaptationism. Behav Brain Sci 11:505–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amundson R (1994) Two concepts of constraint: adaptationism and the challenge from developmental biology. Philos Sci 61:556–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amundson R (1996) Historical development of the concept of adaptation. In Rose MR, Lauder GV (eds) Adaptation. San Diego, Academic Press, pp 11–53Google Scholar
  4. Amundson R (2007) The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: roots of Evo Devo. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Beatty J, Desjardins EC (2009) Natural selection and history. Biol PhilosGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandon R, Rausher MD (1996) Testing adapationism: a comment on Orzack and Sober. Am Nat 148:189–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dawkins R (1986) The blind watchmaker. New York, WW NortonGoogle Scholar
  8. Dennett DC (1995) Darwin’s dangerous idea. New York, Simon and SchusterGoogle Scholar
  9. Dupré J (1987) The latest on the best: essays on evolution and optimality. Cambridge, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Forber P (2009) Spandrels and a pervasive problem of evidence. Biol PhilosGoogle Scholar
  11. Godfrey-Smith P (2001) Three kinds of adaptationism. In Orzack SH, Sober E (eds) Adaptationism and optimality. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp 335–357Google Scholar
  12. Godfrey-Smith P, Wilkins JF (2008) Adaptationism. In Sarkar S, Plutynski A (eds) A companion to the philosophy of biology. Oxford, Wiley-BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  13. Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, Belknap, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Gould SJ, Lewontin RC (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 205:581–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Houston AI (2009) San Marco and evolutionary biology. Biol PhilosGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewens T (2009) Seven types of adaptationism. Biol PhilosGoogle Scholar
  18. Love A (2006) Evolutionary morphology and evo-devo: Hierarchy and novelty. Theor Biosci 124:317–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maynard Smith J, Burian RM, Kauffman S, Alberch P, Campbell J, Goodwin B, Lande R, Raup D, Wolpert L (1985) Developmental constraints and evolution: a perspective from the mountain lake conference on development and evolution. Q Rev Biol 60(3):265–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mayr E (1983) How to carry out the adaptationist program? Am Nat 121(3):324–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Müller GB, Wagner GP (2003) Innovation. In Hall BK, Olson WM (eds) Keywords and concepts in evolutionary developmental biology. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, pp 218–227Google Scholar
  22. Orr HA (2005) The genetic theory of adaptation: a brief history. Nat Rev Genet 6:119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Orzack SH, Sober E (1994) Optimality models and the test of adaptationism. Am Nat 143:361–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Orzack SH, Sober E (1996) How to formulate and test adaptationism. Am Nat 148(1):202–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Orzack SH, Sober E (2001) Adaptationism and optimality. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  26. Pigliucci M, Kaplan J (2000) The fall and rise of Dr Pangloss: adaptationism and the Spandrels paper 20 years later. Trends Ecol Evol 15(2):66–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Potochnik A (2009). Optimality modeling in a suboptimal world. Biol PhilosGoogle Scholar
  28. Raff RA (1996) The shape of life: genes, development, and the evolution of animal form. Chicago, University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Rose MR, Lauder GV (1996) Adaptation. San Diego, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  30. Roughgarden J (1998) Primer of ecological theory. Upper Saddle River, Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  31. Sober E (1987) What is adaptationism? In Dupré J (eds) The latest on the best. Cambridge, MIT Press, pp 105–118Google Scholar
  32. Sober E (1996) Evolution and optimality: feathers, bowling balls, and the thesis of adaptationism. Philos Exch 26:41–55Google Scholar
  33. Van Valen L (2009) How ubiquitous is adaptation? A critique of the epiphenomenist program. Biol PhilosGoogle Scholar
  34. Wagner G (2001) The character concept in evolutionary biology. San Diego, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  35. Wagner GP, Altenberg L (1996) Complex adaptations and the evolution of evolvability. Evolution 50:967–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilkins JF, Godfrey-Smith P (2009) Adaptationism and the adaptive landscape. Biol PhilosGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentTufts UniversityMedfordUSA

Personalised recommendations