Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:42:56.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Non-Newtonian Newtonian Model of Evolution: The ZFEL View

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Robert N. Brandon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recently philosophers of biology have argued over whether or not Newtonian mechanics provides a useful analogy for thinking about evolutionary theory. For philosophers, the canonical presentation of this analogy is Sober's. Matthen and Ariew and Walsh, Lewins, and Ariew argue that this analogy is deeply wrong-headed. Here I argue that the analogy is indeed useful, however, not in the way it is usually interpreted. The Newtonian analogy depends on having the proper analogue of Newton's First Law. That analogue is what McShea and Brandon call the Zero Force Evolutionary Law (ZFEL). According to the ZFEL, change, not stasis, is the default state of evolutionary systems.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 77 , Issue 5 , December 2010 , pp. 702 - 715
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.)

References

Bamshad, M., and Wooding, S. P.. 2003. “Signatures of Natural Selection in the Human Genome.” Nature Reviews Genetics 4:99–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beatty, J. 1995. “The Evolutionary Contingency Thesis.” In Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences, ed. Wolters, G. and Lennox, J., 45–81. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Brandon, R. N. 1990. Adaptation and Environment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brandon, R. N.. 2005. “The Difference between Selection and Drift: A Reply to Millstein.” Biology and Philosophy 20:153–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, R. N.. 2006. “The Principle of Drift: Biology's First Law.” Journal of Philosophy 103:319–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, R. N., and Carson, S.. 1996. “The Indeterministic Character of Evolutionary Theory: No ‘No Hidden Variables Proof’ but No Room for Determinism Either.” Philosophy of Science 63:315–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, R. N., and Ramsey, G.. 2007. “What's Wrong with the Emergentist Statistical Interpretation of Natural Selection and Random Drift?” In The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy of Biology, ed. Ruse, M. and Hull, D. L.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1859/1964. On the Origin of Species. Facsimile of the 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Endler, J. A. 1986. Natural Selection in the Wild. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1991. “The Disparity of the Burgess Shale Arthropod Fauna and the Limits of Cladistic Analysis: Why We Must Strive to Quantify Morphospace.” Paleobiology 17:411–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesemer, J. R. 2000. “Reproduction and the Reduction of Genetics.” In The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution: Historical and Epistemological Perspectives, ed. Beurton, R. F. P. and Rheinberger, H. J., 240–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hamblin, M. T., Thompson, E. E., and DiRienzo, A.. 2002. “Complex Signatures of Natural Selection at the Duffy Blood Group Locus.” American Journal of Human Genetics 70:369–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreitman, M. 2000. “Methods to Detect Selection in Populations with Applications to the Human.” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 1:539–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewontin, R. C. 1970. “The Units of Selection.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M. 2007. The Origins of Genome Architecture. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Matthen, M., and Ariew, A.. 2002. “Two Ways of Thinking about Fitness and Natural Selection.” Journal of Philosophy 99:55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McShea, D. W. 1996. “Metazoan Complexity and Evolution: Is There a Trend?” Evolution 50:477–92.Google ScholarPubMed
McShea, D. W.. 2002. “A Complexity Drain on Cells in the Evolution of Multicellularity.” Evolution 56:441–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McShea, D. W., and Brandon, R. N.. 2010. Biology's First Law: The Tendency for Diversity and Complexity to Increase in Evolutionary Systems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millstein, R. 2002. “Are Random Drift and Natural Selection Conceptually Distinct?” Biology and Philosophy 17:33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1938. Experience and Prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. C. 1984. Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. 1984. The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stephens, C. 2004. “Selection, Drift, and the ‘Forces’ of Evolution.” Philosophy of Science 71 (4): 550–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, D. M. 2007. “The Pomp of Superfluous Causes: Interpreting the Modern Synthesis.” Philosophy of Science 74:281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, D. M., Lewens, T., and Ariew, A.. 2002. “Trials of Life: Natural Selection and Random Drift.” Philosophy of Science 69:452–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Z., and Bielawski, J. P.. 2000. “Statistical Methods for Detecting Molecular Adaptation.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15:496–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed