Advertisement

Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 471–492 | Cite as

Replicator II – Judgement Day

  • Paul E. Griffiths
  • Russell D. Gray
Article

Abstract

The Developmental Systems approach to evolution is defended against the alternative ’extended replicator‘ approach of Sterelny, Smith and Dickison (1996). A precise definition is provided of the spatial and temporal boundaries of the ’life-cycle‘ that DST claims is the unit of evolution. Pacé Sterelny et al., the extended replicator theory is not a bulwark against excessive holism. Everything which DST claims is replicated in evolution can be shown to be an ’extended replicator‘ on Sterelny et al.‘s definition. Reasons are given for scepticism about the heuristic value claimed for the extended replicator concept. For every competitive, individualistic insight the replicator theorist has a cooperative, systematic blindspot.

gene replicator unit of selection individuality development 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brandon, R.: 1988, ‘The Levels of Selection: A Hierarchy of Interactors’, in H. Plotkin (ed.), The Role of Behavior in Evolution, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 51–71.Google Scholar
  2. Brandon, R.: 1990, Adaptation and Environment, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  3. Brandon, R. and Antonovics, J.: 1996, ‘The coevolution of organism and environment’, in Brandon, Concepts and Methods in Evolutionary Biology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 161–178.Google Scholar
  4. Buss, L.W.: 1987, The Evolution of Individuality, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  5. Caporeal, L.R.: 1995, ‘Sociality: Coordinating Bodies, Minds and Groups’, Psycoloquy, Feb 20th 1995.Google Scholar
  6. Dawkins, R.: 1976, The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. Dawkins, R.: 1982, The Extended Phenotype Freeman, NY.Google Scholar
  8. Goode, R. and Griffiths, P.E.: 1995, ‘The Misuse of Sober's Selection of/Selection for Distinction’, Biology and Philosophy 10, 99–108.Google Scholar
  9. Gray, R.D.: 1992, ‘Death of the gene: developmental systems strike back’, in P. Griffiths (ed.), Trees of Life: Essays in the Philosophy of Biology, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 165–210.Google Scholar
  10. Griesemer, J.R.: 1992, ‘The informational gene and the substantial body: on the generalisation of evolutionary theory by abstraction’, in N. Cartwright and M. Jones (eds.), Varieties of Idealisation, Editions Rodopi, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Griffiths, P.E. and Gray, R.D.: 1994, ‘Developmental Systems and Evolutionary Explanation’, Journal of Philosophy 91, 277–304.Google Scholar
  12. Griffiths, P.E.: 1993, ‘Functional analysis & proper function’, British Journal for Philosophy of Science 44, 409–422.Google Scholar
  13. Harper, J.L.: 1977, Population Biology of Plants, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  14. Immelmann, K.: 1975, ‘Ecological significance of imprinting and early learning’, Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics 6, 15–37.Google Scholar
  15. Jablonka, E. and Lamb, M.J.: 1995, Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: The Lamarkian Dimension, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  16. Jablonka, E. and Szathmáry, E.: 1995, ‘The evolution of information storage and heredity’, TREE 10, 206–211.Google Scholar
  17. Janzen, D.H.: 1977, ‘What are dandelions and aphids?’, American Naturalist 111, 586–589.Google Scholar
  18. Johnston, T.D.: 1987, ‘The persistence of dichotomies in the study of behavioural development’, Developmental Review 7, 149–182.Google Scholar
  19. Keller, L. and Ross, K.G.: 1993, ‘Phenotypic plasticity and ‘cultural transmission’ in the fire ant solenopsis invicta’, Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 33, 121–129.Google Scholar
  20. Lehrman, D.S.: 1953, ‘Critique of Konrad Lorenz's theory of instinctive behaviour’, Quarterly Review of Biology 28, 337–363.Google Scholar
  21. Lenton, G.: 17 Feb 1983, ‘Wise owls flourish among the oil palms’, New Scientist, 17 Feb 1983, pp. 436–437.Google Scholar
  22. Margulis, L.: 1970, Origin of Eukaryotic Cells, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  23. Margulis, L.: 1981, Symbiosis in Cell Evolution: Life and its Environment on the Early Earth, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  24. Maynard Smith, J. and Szathmary, E.: 1995, The Major Transitions in Evolution, W.H. Freeman, Oxford, New York, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  25. Millikan, R.: 1989, ‘In defense of proper functions’, Philosophy of Science 56, 288–302.Google Scholar
  26. Moss, L.: 1992, ‘A kernel of truth? On the reality of the genetic program’, Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings 1992 1, 335–348.Google Scholar
  27. Neander, K.: 1991a, ‘Functions as selected effects: the conceptual analysts defence’, Philosophy of Science 58, 168–184.Google Scholar
  28. Neander, K.: 1991b, ‘The teleological notion of “function”’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 69, 454–468.Google Scholar
  29. Neander, K.: 1995, ‘Misrepresenting and Malfunctioning’, Philosophical Studies 79, 109–141.Google Scholar
  30. O'Hara, R.J.: 1993, ‘Systematic generalisation, historical fate & the species problem’, Systematic Biology 42, 231–246.Google Scholar
  31. Oyama, S.: 1985, The Ontogeny of Information, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  32. Smith, K.C.: 1992, ‘The new problem of genetics: a response to Gifford’, Biology and Philosophy 7, 331–348.Google Scholar
  33. Smith, K.C.: 1993, ‘The effects of temperature and daylength on the rosa polyphenism in the Buckeye Butterfly, Precis coenia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)’, Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 30, 225–236.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, K.C.: 1994, The Emperor's New Genes: The Role of the Genome in Development and Evolution, PhD Thesis, Duke University.Google Scholar
  35. Sober, E. and Wilson, D.S.: 1994a, ‘A critical review of philosophical work on the units of selection problem’, Philosophy of Science 61(4), 534–555.Google Scholar
  36. Sterelny, K. and Kitcher, P.: 1988, ‘The return of the gene’, Journal of Philosophy 85, 339–361.Google Scholar
  37. Sterelny, K., Smith, K.C. and Dickison, M.: 1996, ‘The extended replicator’, Biology and Philosophy 11, 377–403.Google Scholar
  38. Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L.: 1992, ‘The Psychological Foundations of Culture’, in J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmides and J. Tooby (eds.), The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, Oxford Univ. Press, NY and Oxford, pp. 19–136.Google Scholar
  39. Wilson, D.S. and Sober, E.: 1994b, ‘Re-introducing group selection to the human behavioural sciences’, Behavioural and Brain Sciences 17, 585–654.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul E. Griffiths
    • 1
  • Russell D. Gray
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations