Abstract
In a recent issue of Biology and Philosophy, Kenneth Waters argues that the principle of ”survival of the fittest” should be eliminated from the theory of natural selection, because it is an untestable law of probability, and as such, has no place in evolutionary theory. His argument is impressive, but it does not do justice to the practice of biology. The principle of “survival of the fittest” should not be eliminated from the theory of natural selection because it is important to biological practice: it plays an essential role in explanation and discovery, and in unffying the theory of natural selection.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brandon, R. N.: 1978, ‘Adaptation and Evolutionary Theory’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 9, 181–206.
Brandon, R. N.: 1980, ‘A Structural Description of Evolutionary Theory’, PSA 1980 2, 427–439.
Brandon, R. N. and J. Beatty: 1984, ‘Discussion: The Propensity Interpretation of “Fitness” — No Interpretation Is No Substitute’, Philosophy of Science 51, 342–347.
Eldridge, N.: 1985, Unfinished Synthesis, Oxford University Press, New York.
Endler, J.: 1986, Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Gould, S. J. and Lewontin, R. C.: 1979, ‘The Spandels and the Panglossian Paradigm: a Critique of the Adaptationist Programme,’ Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 205, 581–598.
Loomis, W. F.: 1967, ‘Skin Pigment of Vitamin-D Biosynthesis in Man,’ Science 157, 501.
Mills, S. K. and J. H. Beatty: 1979, ‘The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness,’ Philosophy of Science 46, 263–286.
Popper, K.: 1974, ‘Intellctual Autobiography’, in Schlipp (ed.), The Philosophy of Karl Popper, Open Court, LaSalle, Ill.
Rosenberg, A.: 1978, ‘The Supervenience of Biological Concepts,’ Philosophy of Science 45, 368–386.
Rosenberg, A.: 1982, ‘Discussion: On the Propensity Interpretation of Fitness,’ Philosophy of Science 49, 268–273.
Smart, J. J. C.: 1963, Philosophy and Scientific Realism, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London
Sober, E.: 1981, ‘Evolutionary Theory and the Ontological Status of Properties,’ Philosophical Studies 40, 147–176.
Sober, E.: 1984, The Nature of Selection, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Suppes, P: 1967, ‘What Is a Scientific Theory?’ in S. Morganbesser (ed.), Philosophy of Science Today Van Nostrand, New York.
van Fraassen, B. C.: 1980, The Scientific Image, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Waters, C. K.: 1986, ‘Natural Selection Without Survival of the Fittest,’ Biology and Philosophy 1, 207–225.
Williams, M. B.: 1970, ‘Deducing the Consequences of Evolution: A Mathematical Model,’ Journal of Theoretical Biology 29, 343–385.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
I am grateful to John Beatty, Robert Brandon, Susan Mills (Susan Finsen), William Lycan, Michael Resnik, Mary Williams, and Brad Wilson, and an anonymous reviewer for Biology and Philosophy for their helpful comments snd criticism.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Resnik, D.B. Survival of the fittest: Law of evolution or law of probability?. Biol Philos 3, 349–362 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00053659
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00053659