Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:30:49.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Problems for Natural Selection as a Mechanism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Abstract

Skipper and Millstein analyze natural selection and mechanism, concluding that natural selection is not a mechanism in the sense of the new mechanistic philosophy. Barros disagrees and provides his own account of natural selection as a mechanism. This discussion identifies a missing piece of Barros's account, attempts to fill in that piece, and reconsiders the revised account. Two principal objections are developed: one, the account does not characterize natural selection; two, the account is not mechanistic. Extensive and persistent variability causes both of these difficulties, so further attempts to describe natural selection as a mechanism are also unlikely to succeed.

Type
Research Article
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.)

Footnotes

Thanks to William Bechtel, Nancy Cartwright, Marta Halina, Eric Martin, Roberta Millstein, and Jacob Stegenga for assistance with this project throughout the stages of its development. A version of this discussion was presented at the 2009 meeting of the International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology in Brisbane, Australia. Thanks to the audience for very helpful discussion, as well as to the conference organizers for supporting graduate student travel.

References

Barros, D. Benjamin. 2008. “Natural Selection as a Mechanism.” Philosophy of Science 75:306–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunnander, Björn. 2007. “What Is Natural Selection?Biology and Philosophy 22:231–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, Lindley. 2005. “Relations among Fields: Mendelian, Cytological, and Molecular Mechanisms.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36:349–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, Lindley, and Cain, Joseph A.. 1989. “Selection Type Theories.” Philosophy of Science 56:106–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, Lindley, and Craver, Carl. 2002. “Strategies in the Interfield Discovery of the Mechanism of Protein Synthesis.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 33:128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, Charles. 1859/1964. On the Origin of Species. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel. 1996. Darwin's Dangerous Idea. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Futuyma, Douglas J. 1986. Evolutionary Biology. 2nd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Glennan, Stuart. 2002. “Rethinking Mechanistic Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 69:S342S353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartl, Daniel L., and Clark, Andrew G.. 1989. Theoretical Population Genetics. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Machamer, Peter, Darden, Lindley, and Craver, Carl F.. 2000. “Thinking about Mechanisms.” Philosophy of Science 67:125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roughgarden, Joan. 1996. Theory of Population Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology: An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Seeley, Robin Hadlock. 1986. “Intense Natural Selection Caused a Rapid Morphological Transition in a Living Marine Snail.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 83:68976901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skipper, Robert A. Jr., and Millstein, Roberta L.. 2005. “Thinking about Evolutionary Mechanisms: Natural Selection.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36:327–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 1984. The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stephens, Christopher. 2004. “Selection, Drift, and the ‘Forces’ of Evolution.” Philosophy of Science 71:550–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar