Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 605–623 | Cite as

The rise and fall of the adaptive landscape?

Article

Abstract

The discussion of the adaptive landscape in the philosophical literature appears to be divided along the following lines. On the one hand, some claim that the adaptive landscape is either “uninterpretable” or incoherent. On the other hand, some argue that the adaptive landscape has been an important heuristic, or tool in the service of explaining, as well as proposing and testing hypotheses about evolutionary change. This paper attempts to reconcile these two views.

Keywords

Adaptive landscape Heuristic Metaphor Model Sewall Wright 

References

  1. Achinstein P (1964) Models, analogies and theories. Philosophy of Science 31:328–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell NR (1920) Physics: the elements. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Coyne JA, Orr HA (2004) Speciation. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  4. Dobzhansky T (1937/1951) Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Duhem P (1954) The aim and structure of physical theory (trans: Wiener PP). Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. Gavrilets S (2004) Fitness landscapes and the origin of species. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. Hesse M (1966) Models and analogies in science. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IndianaGoogle Scholar
  8. Kimura M (1983) The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Kirkpatrick M, Rousset F (2005) Wright meets AD: not all landscapes are adaptive. J Evol Biol 18:1166–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lande R (1976) Natural selection and random genetic drift in phenotypic evolution. Evolution 30:314–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lande R (1979) Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain: body size allometry. Evolution 33:402–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewontin RC (1978) Adaptation. Sci Am 239(3):157–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lewontin RC, White MJD (1960) Interaction between inversion polymorphisms of two chromosome pairs in the grasshopper, Moraba scurra. Evolution 14(1):116–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mayr E (1954) Change of genetic environment and evolution. In: Huxley J, Ford EB (eds) Evolution as a process. George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., London, pp 157–180Google Scholar
  15. Mayr E (1963) Animal species and evolution. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Moran PAP (1964) On the nonexistence of adaptive topographies. Annu Rev Human Genet Lond 27:383–393Google Scholar
  17. Morgan M, Morrison M (1999) Models as mediators: perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Pigliucci M, Kaplan J (2006) Making sense of evolution: the conceptual foundations of evolutionary biology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  19. Provine W (1986) Sewall Wright and evolutionary biology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. Ruse M (1990) Are pictures really necessary? The case of Sewall Wright’s adaptive landscapes. In: Fine A, Forbes M, Wessels L (eds) PSA 1990. pp 63–77Google Scholar
  21. Skipper R (2004) The heuristic role of Sewall Wright’s 1932 adaptive landscape diagram. In: Proceedings Philosophy of Science Assoc. 18th Biennial Mtg—PSA 2002: PSA 2002 Symposia, Milwaukee, WIGoogle Scholar
  22. Woody A (2004) More telltale signs: what attention to representation reveals about scientific explanation. PSA 2002 Proc Philos Sci 71:780–793Google Scholar
  23. Wright S (1931) Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16:97–159Google Scholar
  24. Wright S (1932) The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution. Proc 6th Int Congr Genet 1:356–366Google Scholar
  25. Wright S (1949) Adaptation and selection. In: Jepson GL, Simpson GG, Mayr E (eds) Genetics, paleontology, and evolution. pp 365−389Google Scholar
  26. Wright S (1967) “Surfaces” of selective value. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 58:165–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wright S (1969) Evolution and the genetics of populations, vol 2: the theory of gene frequencies. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations