Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 4 - Common Ancestry

  • Elliott Sober, University of Wisconsin, Madison
  • Book:
    The Philosophy of Evolutionary Theory
    Published online:
    01 February 2024
    Print publication:
    08 February 2024, pp 77-109

  • Summary

    ● Darwin thought that (a) similarities (“matches”) are evidence for common ancestry, but that (b) adaptive similarities provide only weak evidence while neutral or deleterious similarities provide evidence that is stronger. These two ideas about evidence are assessed by using the Law of Likelihood, which is explained and defended. ● Standard assumptions about the evolutionary process suffice to provide a justification for (a). ● Models of different types of evolution process are considered that allow conclusions to be drawn about Darwin’s (b); an example is described in which an adaptive similarity provides stronger evidence for common ancestry than a neutral similarity provides. ● The Law of Likelihood has a symmetry property: if matches favor common ancestry over separate, then “mismatches” must have the opposite evidential significance. This raises the question of how similarities and differences can simultaneously be taken into account. ● An answer is developed by using the concept of correlation, once Reichenbach’s principle of the common cause is shown to be too strong.