Twenty years have passed since Gould and Lewontin published their critique of ‘the adaptationist program’ – the tendency of some evolutionary biologists to assume, rather than demonstrate, the operation of natural selection. After the ‘Spandrels paper’, evolutionists were more careful about producing just-so stories based on selection, and paid more attention to a panoply of other processes. Then came reactions against the excesses of the anti-adaptationist movement, which ranged from a complete dismissal of Gould and Lewontin’s contribution to a positive call to overcome the problems. We now have an excellent opportunity for finally affirming a more balanced and pluralistic approach to the study of evolutionary biology.
%0 Journal Article
%1 pigliucci_fall_2000
%A Pigliucci, Massimo
%A Kaplan, Jonathan
%D 2000
%J Trends in Ecology & Evolution
%K Adaptionism, Developmental Genetic Natural \_tablet, adaption, constraints, selection
%N 2
%P 66--70
%R 10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01762-0
%T The fall and rise of Dr Pangloss: adaptationism and the Spandrels paper 20 years later
%U http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534799017620
%V 15
%X Twenty years have passed since Gould and Lewontin published their critique of ‘the adaptationist program’ – the tendency of some evolutionary biologists to assume, rather than demonstrate, the operation of natural selection. After the ‘Spandrels paper’, evolutionists were more careful about producing just-so stories based on selection, and paid more attention to a panoply of other processes. Then came reactions against the excesses of the anti-adaptationist movement, which ranged from a complete dismissal of Gould and Lewontin’s contribution to a positive call to overcome the problems. We now have an excellent opportunity for finally affirming a more balanced and pluralistic approach to the study of evolutionary biology.
@article{pigliucci_fall_2000,
abstract = {Twenty years have passed since Gould and Lewontin published their critique of ‘the adaptationist program’ – the tendency of some evolutionary biologists to assume, rather than demonstrate, the operation of natural selection. After the ‘Spandrels paper’, evolutionists were more careful about producing just-so stories based on selection, and paid more attention to a panoply of other processes. Then came reactions against the excesses of the anti-adaptationist movement, which ranged from a complete dismissal of Gould and Lewontin’s contribution to a positive call to overcome the problems. We now have an excellent opportunity for finally affirming a more balanced and pluralistic approach to the study of evolutionary biology.},
added-at = {2017-01-09T13:57:26.000+0100},
author = {Pigliucci, Massimo and Kaplan, Jonathan},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2066fd2b87dfb80f40b35603b8c951ef6/yourwelcome},
doi = {10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01762-0},
interhash = {b599356856956e263b0baa58a6fa8958},
intrahash = {066fd2b87dfb80f40b35603b8c951ef6},
issn = {0169-5347},
journal = {Trends in Ecology \& Evolution},
keywords = {Adaptionism, Developmental Genetic Natural \_tablet, adaption, constraints, selection},
month = feb,
number = 2,
pages = {66--70},
shorttitle = {The fall and rise of {Dr} {Pangloss}},
timestamp = {2017-01-09T14:01:11.000+0100},
title = {The fall and rise of {Dr} {Pangloss}: adaptationism and the {Spandrels} paper 20 years later},
url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534799017620},
urldate = {2012-04-27},
volume = 15,
year = 2000
}