Methodological Problems in Evolutionary Biology. XII. Against Evolutionary Ethics

Evolutionary ethics has recently become popular again. Some of its representatives elaborate new attempts to derive ethics from evolutionary biology. The attempts, like previous ones, fail because they commit the naturalistic fallacy. Premises from evolutionary biology together with normative premises also do not justify ethical principles. Other representatives argue that evolutionary considerations imply that ethics cannot be justified at all. Their arguments presuppose an unacceptable form of foundationalism. In principle, evolutionary biology might explain some aspects of morality, but in practice explanations are hard to come by. All this does not imply that evolutionary theory is irrelevant in normative settings. To the contrary, it may help us devise guidelines in environmental policy and health care policy. It is to be hoped that evolutionary ethicists will divert their research efforts to the elaboration of such guidelines.     

Methodological Problems in Evolutionary Biology. XIII. Evolution and Knowledge

Evolutionary epistemologists aim to explain the evolution of cognitive capacities underlying human knowledge and also the processes that generate knowledge, for example in science. There can be no doubt that our cognitive capacities are due in part to our evolutionary heritage. But this is an uninformative thesis. All features of organism have indeed been shaped by evolution. A substantive evolutionary explanation of cognition would have to provide details about the evolutionary processes involved. Evolutionary epistemology has not provided any details. Considering progress of theorizing in science, evolutionary epistemologists have proposed many different analogies between natural selection and selection in science. As yet, the analogies have not been fruitful. The entire program of evolutionary epistemology is programmatic. Evolutionary epistemologists have also moved beyond explanation to justification, the primary issue in traditional epistemology. It turns out that their program presupposes that we can justify knowledge claims in traditional ways. Evolutionary biology is not a proper tool for the justification of beliefs.     

Heuristics and Biases in Evolutionary Biology

Approaching science by considering the epistemological virtues which scientists see as constitutive of good science, and the way these virtues trade-off against one another, makes it possible to capture action that may be lost by approaches which focus on either the theoretical or institutional level. Following Wimsatt (1984) I use the notion of heuristics and biases to help explore a case study from the history of biology. Early in the 20th century, mutation theorists and natural historians fought over the role that isolation plays in evolution. This debate was principally about whether replication was the central scientific virtue (and hence the ultimate goal of science to replace non-experimental evidence with experimental evidence) or whether consilience of inductions was the central virtue (and hence, as many kinds of evidence as possible should be pursued).     

Evolutionary Developmental Biology: the Interaction of Developmental Biology,Evolutionary Biology,Paleontology, and Genomics

Paleontological Journal - Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) formed due to the interactions of evolutionary biology, paleontology, and comparative genomics, analyzes the interrelations...     

Diachronic Biology Meets Evo-Devo: C. H. Waddington's Approach to Evolutionary Developmental Biology

Conrad Hal Waddington (1905–1975) did not respect thetraditional boundaries established between genetics, embryology,and evolutionary biology. Rather, he viewed them together asa "diachronic biology." In this diachronic biology, evolutionarychange was caused by heritable alterations in development. Stabilizingselection within the embryo was followed by normative selectionon the adult. To explain evolution, Waddington had to inventmany concepts and terms, some of which have retained their usageand some of which have not. In this paper I seek to explicateWaddington's ideas and evaluate their usefulness for contemporaryevolutionary developmental biology.     

History of Evolutionary Developmental Biology

Russian Journal of Developmental Biology - Foundations of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) were laid by K. von Baer, the author of the law of embryonic similarity in various animal...     

Methodological Problems in Evolutionary Biology. XI. Optimal Foraging Theory Revisited

Optimality theory, particularly optimal foraging theory (OFT), has spurned controversy over decades. I argue that the controversy results from conceptual pitfalls. The focus in this article is on pitfalls underlying the concept of constraint. Constraints in OFT models are a means to distinguish between possible and impossible behaviours. I argue that the seemingly innocuous notion of (im)possibility is tricky. It is indeed linked here with troublesome philosophical problems concerning free will. To steer away from such problems in OFT, we need to distinguish between hard and soft constraints. Such a distinction is necessarily context-dependent. This implies that OFT, to a large extent, should take the form of natural history rather than general theory.     

动物线粒体假基因的识别及其在进化生物学中的应用

在真菌、昆虫、无脊椎动物和脊椎动物等许多分类单元中,都已发现mtDNA序列的核转座现象。在PCR扩增时,往往同时扩增出mtDNA和细胞核中线粒体假基因(Numts),Numts混淆系统发育和群体遗传研究,得出错误的结果。本文综述了Numts的检查和避免的方法,以及在进化生物学研究中的应用进展。     

Methodological Problems in Evolutionary Biology. X. Natural Selection Without Selective Agents

On a common view of evolution, natural selection is the major force that produces evolutionary change. Selection is thought to operate on different types (genotypes or phenotypes) in populations so as to generate differential reproductive survival of these types. This should engender changes in population composition. The conception of selection as a "force" should be considered as a convenient shorthand that easily misleads us. Selection is not a factor over and above items such as temperature regimes, predators, and so forth. These items do causal work in evolutionary processes. The term "selection" is merely an abstract placeholder for them. Differential reproductive survival thus appears to depend on particular environmental items that influence different types in different ways. Such items are properly regarded as the selective agents. On the face of it, selection processes must always be due to the operation of such agents. I argue that this is a mistaken assumption. Processes of selection may well occur in the absence of selective agents. That is because environmental factors may contribute to differential reproductive survival even if they do not affect different genotypes or phenotypes in different ways. Considering the role of the environment in selection, we should distinguish between selective agents and contributive agents.     

发育重演律与生物进化

发育重演律是生物个体发育的一般规律,该规律认为生物个体的发育是类囊胚不断形成和演化的过程,并认为生物进化亦是类囊胚不断形成和演化的过程.因类囊胚层级不断增加而导致的生物体结构复杂程度提高的演化为纵向进化,而不能提高生物体复杂程度的演化为横向演化,生物的纵向进化具有周期性.生物种系进化与个体发育之间具有严格的对应关系,一个物种经历的纵向进化的周期数与该物种所属个体完成发育所经历的细胞分化的周期数相等.