Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. How to Be a Function Pluralist.Justin Garson - 2018 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69 (4):1101-1122.
    I distinguish two forms of pluralism about biological functions, between-discipline pluralism and within-discipline pluralism. Between-discipline pluralism holds that different theories of function are appropriate for different subdisciplines of biology and psychology. I provide reasons for rejecting this view. Instead, I recommend within-discipline pluralism, which emphasizes the plurality of function concepts at play within any given subdiscipline of biology and psychology.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   24 citations  
  • The role of constrained self-organization in genome structural evolution.Richard von Sternberg - 1996 - Acta Biotheoretica 44 (2):95-118.
    A hypothesis of genome structural evolution is explored. Rapid and cohesive alterations in genome organization are viewed as resulting from the dynamic and constrained interactions of chromosomal subsystem components. A combination of macromolecular boundary conditions and DNA element involvement in far-from-equilibrium reactions is proposed to increase the complexity of genomic subsystems via the channelling of genome turnover; interactions between subsystems create higher-order subsystems expanding the phase space for further genetic evolution. The operation of generic constraints on structuration in genome evolution (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • (1 other version)The sociobiology of genes: the gene’s eye view as a unifying behavioural-ecological framework for biological evolution.Alexis De Tiège, Yves Van de Peer, Johan Braeckman & Koen B. Tanghe - 2017 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 40 (1):6.
    Although classical evolutionary theory, i.e., population genetics and the Modern Synthesis, was already implicitly ‘gene-centred’, the organism was, in practice, still generally regarded as the individual unit of which a population is composed. The gene-centred approach to evolution only reached a logical conclusion with the advent of the gene-selectionist or gene’s eye view in the 1960s and 1970s. Whereas classical evolutionary theory can only work with fitness differences between individual organisms, gene-selectionism is capable of working with fitness differences among genes (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • (1 other version)The sociobiology of genes: the gene’s eye view as a unifying behavioural-ecological framework for biological evolution.Alexis De Tiège, Yves Van de Peer, Johan Braeckman & Koen B. Tanghe - 2018 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 40 (1):1-26.
    Although classical evolutionary theory, i.e., population genetics and the Modern Synthesis, was already implicitly ‘gene-centred’, the organism was, in practice, still generally regarded as the individual unit of which a population is composed. The gene-centred approach to evolution only reached a logical conclusion with the advent of the gene-selectionist or gene’s eye view in the 1960s and 1970s. Whereas classical evolutionary theory can only work with (genotypically represented) fitness differences between individual organisms, gene-selectionism is capable of working with fitness differences (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations