Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:35:17.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forces and Causes in Evolutionary Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Christopher Stephens
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The traditional view of evolutionary theory asserts that we can usefully understand natural selection, drift, mutation, migration, and the system of mating as forces that cause evolutionary change. Recently, Denis Walsh and Robert Brandon have objected to this view. Walsh argues that the traditional view faces a fatal dilemma and that the force analogy must be rejected altogether. Brandon accepts the force analogy but argues that drift, rather than the Hardy-Weinberg law, is the best candidate for a zero-force law. Here I defend the traditional view against these objections.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 77 , Issue 5 , December 2010 , pp. 716 - 727
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrams, Marshall. 2007. “How Do Natural Selection and Random Drift Interact?” Philosophy of Science 74:666–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, John. 1984. “Chance and Natural Selection.” Philosophy of Science 51:183–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, Robert. 2006. “The Principle of Drift: Biology's First Law.” Journal of Philosophy 103:319–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, Arthur, and Sheppard, Philip. 1950. “Selection in the Polymorphic Land Snail Cepaea nemoralis.” Heredity 4:275–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forber, Patrick, and Reisman, Kenneth. 2007. “Can There Be Stochastic Evolutionary Causes?” Philosophy of Science 74:616–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haug, Matthew. 2007. “Of Mice and Metaphysics: Natural Selection and Realized Population–Level Properties.” Philosophy of Science 74:431–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamotte, Maxime. 1952. “Le rôle des fluctuations fortuites dans la diversité des populations naturelles de Cepaea nemoralis (L.).” Heredity 6:333–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthen, Mohan, and Ariew, André. 2002. “Two Ways of Thinking about Fitness and Natural Selection.” Journal of Philosophy 119:55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthen, Mohan, and Ariew, André. 2009. “Selection and Causation.” Philosophy of Science 76:201–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millstein, Roberta. 2002. “Are Random Drift and Natural Selection Conceptually Distinct?” Biology and Philosophy 17:33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millstein, Roberta. 2008. “Distinguishing Drift and Selection Empirically: ‘The Great Snail Debate’ of the 1950s.” Journal of the History of Biology 41:339–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisman, Kenneth, and Forber, Patrick. 2005. “Manipulation and the Causes of Evolution.” Philosophy of Science 72:1113–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridley, Mark. 1996. Evolution. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Blackwell Science.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Larry, and Sober, Elliott. Forthcoming. “Epiphenomenalism—the Do's and the Don'ts.” In Studies in Causality: Historical and Contemporary, ed. Wolters, G. and Machamer, Peter. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 1984. The Nature of Selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stephens, Christopher. 2004. “Selection, Drift, and the ‘Forces’ of Evolution.” Philosophy of Science 71:550–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, Denis. 2007. “The Pomp of Superfluous Causes: The Interpretation of Evolutionary Theory.” Philosophy of Science 74:281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, Denis, Lewens, Tim, and Ariew, André. 2002. “The Trials of Life: Natural Selection and Random Drift.” Philosophy of Science 69:452–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar