Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T02:21:11.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What's Wrong with the Received View of Evolutionary Theory?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2022

John Beatty
John Beatty*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This idea meant that heredity evolved—an evolution of the hereditary mechanism—an evolution of mitosis and meiosis. I had opened up an immense field of inquiry. I had to find out how the genes could control the chromosomes, how the chromosomes could control themselves at the same time that they were controlling the organism. I first discussed this problem in 1932. Formally anybody can repeat the idea and learn and write it down, but few have grasped its implications, as I think, for biology. (C. D. Darlington 1980, p. 74).

In the world of academic specialties and subspecialties, philosophy of biology certainly counts as a self-respecting, if not otherwise respected, field of study. It has its own exemplary works, its own lines of communication, etc. In this regard, philosophy of biology might be compared with philosophy of physics.

Type
Part VII. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1980 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1980 , 1980 , pp. 397 - 426
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 by 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.)

Footnotes

1

Thanks to my friends who keep me philosophically well behaved, in this case especially Robert Brandon, Roger Buck, David Hull, Ron Giere, Ernst Mayr, Mark Pastin, Michael Ruse, and Mary Williams.

References

Beatty, J. (1980). “Optimal-Design Models and the Strategy of Model Building in Evolutionary Biology.” Philosophy of Science 47: 532-561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, R.N. (1978). “Adaptation and Evolutionary Theory.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 9: 181-200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunge, M. (1979). “Some Topical Problems in Biophilosophy.” Journal of Social and Biological Structure 2: 155-172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, J. (1979). “Genes that Violate Mendel's Rules.” Scientific American 240(2): 134-146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darlington, CD. (1932). Recent Advances in Cytology. Philadelphia: Blakistons.Google Scholar
Darlington, CD. (1939). The Evolution of Genetic Systems, 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Darlington, CD. (1958). The Evolution of Genetic Systems. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Darlington, CD.,(1980). “The Evolution of Genetic Systems: Contributions of Cytology to Evolutionary Theory.” In Mayr and Provlne (1980). Pages 70-80.Google Scholar
Delbrück, M. (1952). “A Physicist Looks at Biology.” In Transactions of The Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 38. New Haven: Yale University Press. Pages 173-190. (As reprinted in Phage and the Origins of Molecular Biology* Edited by Cairns, J. et al. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 1966. Pages 9-22.)Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. (1970). Genetics of the Evolutionary Process. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T et al. (1977). Evolution. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Dunn, L.C. (1953). “Variations in the Segregation Ratio as Causes of Variations of Gene Frequency.” Acta Genetioa et Statistica Medica 4; 139-147.Google ScholarPubMed
Edwards, A.W.F. (1977). Foundations of Mathematical Genetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. and Gould, S.J. (1972). “Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism.” In Models in Paleobiology. Edited by Shopt, T.J.M.. San Francisco: Freeman. Pages 83-115.Google Scholar
Fisher, R.A. (1932). “The Evolutionary Modification of Genetic Phenomena.” In Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Genetics. Edited by Jones, D.F.. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Botanic Garden. Pages 165-172.Google Scholar
Giere, R. (1979). Understanding Scientific Reasoning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Gowen, J.W. (1933). “Meiosis as a Genetic Character in Drosophlla Melanogaster.” Journal of Experimental Zoology 65: 83-106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C.G. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1977). “A Logical Empiricist Looks at Biology” (review of Ruse 1973). British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 28: 181-189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1979). “Philosophy of Biology.” In Current Research in Philosophy of Science. Edited by Asquith, P.D. and Kyburg, H.E. Jr , East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association. Pages 421-435.Google Scholar
Kellogg, V.L. (1907). Darwinism Today. London: Bell.Google Scholar
Kneale, W. (1959). “Natural Laws and Contrary-to-Fact Conditionals.” Analysis 10: 121-125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, SmithJ., (1978). The Evolution of Sex. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1961). “Cause and Effect in Biology.” Science 134: 1501-1506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayr, E. (1963). Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1969). “Footnotes on the Philosophy of Biology.” Philosophy of Science 36: 197-202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1980). “The Role of Systematics in the Evolutionary Synthesis.” In Mayr and Provine (1980). Pages 123-136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E.and Provine, W.B. (eds.).(1980). The Evolutionary Synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, S.K. and Beatty, J. (1979). “A Propensity Interpretation of Fitness.” Philosophy of Science 46: 263-286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moulines, C.-U. (1975). “A Logical Reconstruction of Simple Equilibrium Thermodynamics.” Erkenntnis 9: 101-130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munson, R. (1975). “Is Biology a Provincial Science?” Philosophy of Science 42: 428-447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K.R., (1935). Logik der Forschuna. Vienna: J. Springer. (As Reprinted as The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic, 1959.)Google Scholar
Provine, W.B. (1971). The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (1971). “Is the Theory of Evolution Different?” Scientia 106: 765-783.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (1973). The Philosophy of Biology. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Ruse, M (1977). “Is Biology Different from Physics?” In Logic, Lawsf and Life. (University of Pittsburgh Series In the Philosophy of Science, Volume 6.) Edited by Colodny, R.. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Pages 89-127.Google Scholar
Ruse, M (1979). “Philosophy of Biology Today: No Grounds for Complacency.” Philosophia 8: 785-796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
L., Sandier and Novitski, E. (1957). Meiotic Drive as an Evolutionary Force.” American Naturalist 91: 105-110.Google Scholar
Sandier, L. and Novitski, E. et al.(1968). “Mutants Affecting Meiosis in Natural Populations of Drosophila Melanogaster.” Genetics 60: 525-558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scriven, M. (1961). “The Key Property of Physical Laws - Inaccuracy.” In Current Issues in the Philosophy of Science. Edited by Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. . New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Pages 91-101.Google Scholar
Sneed, J.D.. (1971). The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegmüller, W. (1976). The Structure and Dynamics of Theories. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, F. (1972). “The Search for Philosophic Understanding of Scientific Theories.” In The Structure of Scientific Theories. Edited by Suppe, F. . Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Pages 1-241.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1957). Introduction to Logic. New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Suppe, P. (1967a). “What is a Scientific Theory?” In Philosophy of Science Today. Edited by Morganbesser, S. . New York: Basic Books. Pages 55-67.Google Scholar
Suppe, P. (1967b). Set Theoretical Structures in Science. Mimeographed Manuscript.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1970). “On the Extension of Beth's Semantics to Physical Theories.” Philosophy of Science 37: 325-338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B.(1972). “A Formal Approach to the Philosophy of Science. In Paradigms and Paradoxes. (University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science. Volume 5.) Edited by Colodny, R.. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Pages 303-366.Google Scholar
Wessels, L. (1976). “Laws and Meaning Postulates (in van Fraassen's View of Theories).” In PSA 1974. Edited by Cohen, R.S. et al. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pages 215-235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, M.J.D. (1945). Animal Cytology and Evolution, 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, M.J.D. (1954). Animal Cytology and Evolution, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, M.J.D. (1973). Animal Cytology and Evolution, 3rd ed. London: Clowes.Google Scholar
Williams, G.C. (1975). Sex and Evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Williams, M.B. (1970). “Deducing the Consequences of Evolution: A Mathematical Model.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 29: 343-385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, M.B. (1973). “The Logical Status of Natural Selection and Other Evolutionary Controversies.” In The Methodological Unity of Science. Edited by Bunge, M.. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pages 84-102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M.B. (1980). vs Youth Thesis.” “Evolutionary Biology: Disreputability Thesis Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Williams, M.B., (1981). “Is Biology a Different Type of Science?” In Pragmatism and Purpose: Essays Presented to Thomas A. Goudge. Edited by Sumner, L. and Wilson, F.. Toronto:University of Toronto Press. Pages 278-289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar