Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Adaptation and Evolutionary Theory.Robert N. Brandon - 1978 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 9 (3):181.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   197 citations  
  • The Evolution of an Evolutionist.C. H. Waddington - 1977 - Journal of the History of Biology 10 (2):369-370.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   82 citations  
  • The propensity interpretation of fitness.Susan K. Mills & John H. Beatty - 1979 - Philosophy of Science 46 (2):263-286.
    The concept of "fitness" is a notion of central importance to evolutionary theory. Yet the interpretation of this concept and its role in explanations of evolutionary phenomena have remained obscure. We provide a propensity interpretation of fitness, which we argue captures the intended reference of this term as it is used by evolutionary theorists. Using the propensity interpretation of fitness, we provide a Hempelian reconstruction of explanations of evolutionary phenomena, and we show why charges of circularity which have been levelled (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   202 citations  
  • The Selfish Gene. [REVIEW]Gunther S. Stent & Richard Dawkins - 1977 - Hastings Center Report 7 (6):33.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1735 citations  
  • Philosophy of Biology. [REVIEW]Michael Ruse - 1998 - International Studies in Philosophy 30 (4):150-151.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   83 citations  
  • Artifact, cause and genic selection.Elliott Sober & Richard C. Lewontin - 1982 - Philosophy of Science 49 (2):157-180.
    Several evolutionary biologists have used a parsimony argument to argue that the single gene is the unit of selection. Since all evolution by natural selection can be represented in terms of selection coefficients attaching to single genes, it is, they say, "more parsimonious" to think that all selection is selection for or against single genes. We examine the limitations of this genic point of view, and then relate our criticisms to a broader view of the role of causal concepts and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   132 citations