PART A: Summary of the Adaptationist Programme
In their paper “The Spandrels of San Marco and The Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of The Adaptationist Programme”, S. J Gould and R.C. Lewontin offer a critique of a strand of the philosophy of science called “adaptationism” or the “adaptationist programme”. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, adaptation is “the action or process of adapting one thing to fit with another, or suit specified conditions, esp. a new or changed environment” (OED). In the context of evolutionary biology, Gould and Lewontin define an “adaptationist programme” as one that is “based on a faith in the power of natural selection as an optimizing agent” which breaks organisms into individual traits and then offers
…show more content…
The first step in the programme is to break down the organism into its individual traits and explain these individual structures as being perfectly designed by natural selection for their functions (585). Gould and Lewontin explain this adaptationist method through the example of a human chin. They say that adaptationists would use this first step to explain the origin of the human chin in terms of the function it serves to the human face instead of explaining it as a result of the biological interaction of two parts of the human face (585). Essentially, this step in the adaptationist method explains traits of organisms as existing as a result of adapting to a function or a phenomenon. In the second step of the adaptationist programme, Gould and Lewontin explain that if the first step has failed, adaptationists may suggest that a “trade-off” has occurred, and the traits of the organism are therefore interpreted as the best compromises among competing demands (585). As evident from the two steps that Gould and Lewontin point out here and from their explanation of the other adaptationist arguments, both Gould and Lewontin understand the adaptationist programme as one that does not acknowledge or accept any non-adaptationist alternatives …show more content…
One of the main reasons why their critique is successful is because they do not introduce too strong of an argument against adaptationism. For instance, one of the main faults that Gould and Lewontin find with the adaptationist programme is that it places too much emphasis on adaptation as the primary cause. What this does, they recognize, is it weakens the argument for adaptation so much that it is unable to withstand thought experiments that prove otherwise. Gould and Lewontin’s example of the spandrel and of the human chin demonstrates this problem very well because they both show that adaptation cannot possibly be the primary cause. By suggesting that adaptation is not the primary cause of a trait, but still recognizing that it is an important part of the evolution of organisms, they are able to reconcile adaptation with other evolutionary causes that seem more probable as the primary causes of traits. They are also successful in refuting the adaptationist programme by showing that it is necessary to look at organisms as wholes, instead of as individual parts. Their thought experiments with the spandrels and the human chin demonstrate the importance of looking at organisms as wholes because it shows that attempting to understand something in isolation of the whole
In the book, Your Inner Fish, by Neil Shubin he presents the notion of evolution and how we can trace parts that make up the human body back to jellyfish, worms, and even fish. The book not only discusses how we arose to be what we are today, but also the implications our ancestors had on our current body plan. In this essay, I will demonstrate that I have digested the entirety of Shubin’s book by convincing you (dear reader) that everything in our bodies is based on simple changes to already existing systems. To make this case, I will use the evidence of limb development in a vast array of organisms, the four arches found in the embryological stage of development, the structures inside our noses, and how our ears have come about all due to modifications.
Darwin: A Norton Critical Edition, Second Edition ; ed. by Philip Appleman; copyright 1979, 1970 by W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Darwin has two theories on the key principles of theory of evolution. One is the natural selection, a species that attains characteristics that are adapted to their environments (Darwin, Charles). The other one is survival of the fittest, which is when an individual best adapts to their environment survive to reproduce, and their genes are passed to later generat...
The second of Tinbergen’s questions Phylogeny looks at the evolutionary explanations of development, as opposed to just how behaviour has adapted, including mutations in response to environmental changes. Some of these mutations remain in species even after necessity has gone, and can influence future characteristics of that species. The third of Tinbergen’s questions looks at Causation,...
Darwin states that this struggle need not be competitive in nature and also entails a species’ efficiency at producing offspring. Natural selection works not as an active entity that seeks and exterminates species that are not suited for their environment; instead, it retains variations that heighten a species’ ability to dominate in the struggle for existence and discards those that are detrimental or useless to that species. Stephen J. Gould explains the case of r-selection in which a species’ chances of survival are most reliant on its ability to reproduce rapidly and not on its structure being ideally suited for its environment. Gould’s example shows the beneficial results of perceiving natural selection not as something that changes a species in accordance with its environment but as something that preserves characteristics beneficial in the s... ...
Anyone with even a moderate background in science has heard of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. Since the publishing of his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, Darwin’s ideas have been debated by everyone from scientists to theologians to ordinary lay-people. Today, though there is still severe opposition, evolution is regarded as fact by most of the scientific community and Darwin’s book remains one of the most influential ever written.
With this statement, Kramnick will explain it in his own way, so that, hopefully, you will learn the literature the correct way. In the reading, The Four Common Myths About Evolution, we read a completely different approach. The reading by Smith and Sullivan, state that they fully back up Literary Darwinism, but Kramnick is saying in his journal that there is not enough evidence to do so.Also, whether or not art is biological enough as evidence. "Literary Darwinism fails to make its case because it does not take the relation between the humanities and sciences seriously enough."(317) This quote is evidence that Kramnick believes that there is not enough evidence due to their lack of appreciation between humanities and sciences. In a way ,Kramnick is stating that Literary Darwinists are over thinking it. Like in this quote from page 318, from the words of E.O. Wilson, " The essence of the argument, is that the brain exists because it promotes the survival and multiplication of the genes that direct its traits and predispositions could be understood as adaptations in the same way as traits of the body." The Darwinists don't produce enough evidence due to overthinking.
Charles Darwin has five parts to his theory of natural selection, firstly the “Geometric increase” which claims that “all living things reproduce in great numbers”, meaning that species may survive but not all will survive because, the resources used for survival for instance ,food will not be enough for all living things. “The struggle for existence” because there is a limited number of resources and can only sustain some and not all, not all living things will survive, however the question lies in which living being will survive?. “Variation” is the third part of natural selection which claims that within those living things there are variations within them that will determine whic...
Evolutionists should wisely choose and incorporate information from different perspectives, so that the full picture of our evolutionary history is truly shown.
The. The “Challenging Darwin”. Bioscience. 2(2005). The 'Secondary' of the 'S 101, eLibrary.
Many of the most prominent critics of Evolutionary Psychology (Buller and Kaplan) are deeply skeptical of Evolutionary Psychology’s two defining tenets. The first tenet says the human mind is “massively modular,” composed of a myriad of independent, special purpose (“domain-specific”) modules, each evolved to help our ancestors survive and reproduce during the hunter-gather period of human evolution. The second tenet focuses on the idea that no subsequent cognitive adaptations to novel environments have occurred (Machery 2007; Rellihan 2012). According to prominent critic David Buller (2005), evolutionary psychologists think that humans are a le...
In the 1960’s, Marshall Sahlins and Elman Service, who were both students and colleagues of Leslie White and Julian Steward, wanted to find a resolution over this debate between unilineal evolution and multilinear evolution. Sahlins and Service concluded that cultural evolution can be seen as two different dimensions known as specific evolution and general evolution. (Erickson 1998:119) Specific evolution refers to the particular sequence of change and adaptation of a particular society in a given environment. (Ember 2011:23)
With the studies that Charles Darwin obtained he published his first work, “The Origin of Species.” In this book he explained how for millions of years animals, and plants have evolved to better help their existence. Darwin reasoned that these living things had gradually changed over time to help themselves. The changes that he found seemed to have been during the process of reproduction. The traits which would help them survive became a dominant trait, while the weaker traits became recessive. A good example of what Darwin was trying to explain is shown in giraffes. Long-necked giraffes could reach the food on the trees, while the short-necked giraffes couldn’t. Since long necks helped the giraffes eat, short-necked giraffes died off from hunger. Because of this long-necks became a dominant trait in giraffes. This is what Charles Darwin would later call natural selection.
Darwin writes on how a species will adapt to its environment given enough time. When an animal gains a genetic edge over its competitors, be they of the same species or of another genus altogether, the animal has increased its chance of either procreation or adaptation. When this animal has this beneficial variance, the advantage becomes his and because of this, the trait is then passed on to the animals offspring.
Without evolution, and the constant ever changing environment, the complexity of living organisms would not be as it is. Evolution is defined as a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations (8).Scientists believe in the theory of evolution. This belief is based on scientific evidence that corroborates the theory of evolution. In Figure 1 the pictures of the skulls depict the sequence of the evolution of Homo-sapiens. As the figure shows, man has evolved from our common ancestor that is shared by homo-sapiens. The change of diet of homo-sapiens over time has thought to contribute to the change in jaw structure and overall skull shape.