Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:11:35.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Selection and Drift Might Be Distinct

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Jessica Pfeifer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, it is argued that selection and drift might be distinct. This contradicts recent arguments by Brandon (2005) and Matthen and Ariew (2002) that such a distinction “violates sound probabilistic thinking” (Matthen and Ariew 2002, 62). While their arguments might be valid under certain assumptions, they overlook a possible way to make sense of the distinction. Whether selection and drift can be thought of as causally distinct, I argue, depends on the source of probabilities in natural selection. In particular, if the probabilities used in defining fitness values are at least partly a result of abstracting from or ignoring certain features of the environment, then selection and drift might in fact be causally distinct.

Type
Natural Selection and Evolution
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 72 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2004 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers , December 2005 , pp. 1135 - 1145
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 Jim Thomas, Roberta Millstein, and the members of the D.C. History and Philosophy of Biology Group, especially Lindley Darden, Eric Saidel, Ilya Farber, and Jason Baker.

References

Beatty, John (1984), “Chance and Natural Selection”, Chance and Natural Selection 51:183–211.Google Scholar
Brandon, Robert (1990), Adaptation and Environment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, Robert (2005), “The Difference between Drift and Selection: A Reply to Millstein”, The Difference between Drift and Selection: A Reply to Millstein 20:153–170.Google Scholar
Brandon, Robert, and Carson, Scott (1996), “The Indeterministic Character of Evolutionary Theory: No ‘No Hidden Variables Proof’ but No Room for Determinism Either”, The Indeterministic Character of Evolutionary Theory: No ‘No Hidden Variables Proof’ but No Room for Determinism Either 63:315–337.Google Scholar
Glymour, Bruce (2001), “Selection, Indeterminism, and Evolutionary Theory”, Selection, Indeterminism, and Evolutionary Theory 68:518–535.Google Scholar
Graves, Leslie, Horan, Barbara, and Rosenberg, Alex (1999), “Is Indeterminism the Source of the Statistical Character of Evolutionary Theory?”, Is Indeterminism the Source of the Statistical Character of Evolutionary Theory? 66:140–157.Google Scholar
Kimura, Motoo (1968), “Evolutionary Rate at the Molecular Level”, Evolutionary Rate at the Molecular Level 217:624–626.Google ScholarPubMed
Matthen, Mahon, and Ariew, Andre (2002), “Two Ways of Thinking about Fitness and Natural Selection”, Two Ways of Thinking about Fitness and Natural Selection 99:55–83.Google Scholar
Millstein, Roberta (2002), “Are Random Drift and Natural Selection Conceptually Distinct?”, Are Random Drift and Natural Selection Conceptually Distinct? 17:33–53.Google Scholar
Millstein, Roberta (2005), “Selection vs. Drift: A Response to Brandon’s Reply”, Selection vs. Drift: A Response to Brandon’s Reply 20:171–175.Google Scholar
Scriven, Michael (1959), “Explanation and Prediction in Evolutionary Theory”, Explanation and Prediction in Evolutionary Theory 130:477–482.Google ScholarPubMed
Sklar, Lawrence (1970), “Is Probability a Dispositional Property?”, Is Probability a Dispositional Property? 67:355–366.Google Scholar
Elliott, Sober (1984), The Nature of Selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stamos, David (2001), “Quantum Indeterminism and Evolutionary Biology”, Quantum Indeterminism and Evolutionary Biology 68:164–184.Google Scholar
Sterelny, Kim, and Kitcher, Philip (1988), “The Return of the Gene”, The Return of the Gene 85:339–361.Google Scholar