2. evolutionary theory
• two parts • Is NS a tautology?
• genealogy of species • Popper: tautology. the
reason for whatever
• theory of NS happens is that it
happens
• theory = mechanism
• the reason for whatever
• The mechanism can happens is that it
increases reproductive
only do what the
theory can! success (aka adaptive)
• not a tautology
3. 3 kinds of phenotypic
change
• adaptation
• free-rider
• maladaptation
• Every adaptation has • and some of these are
free-riders always locally
4. Natural Selection
• “Creatures are selected for their adaptive
traits”
• Connects phenotypic changes (adaptations)
with increased fitness (reproductive
success)
5. example
• The human heart pumps blood, but it also
makes heart noises
• According to NS:
• the blood pump is an adaptation and the
heart noises are free-riders
• There is no blood pump without heart
noises and vica versa
6. main argument
• For the theory it’s essential to distinguish
adaptations from free-riders
• If the theory (mechanism) cannot do it:
• “Creatures are selected for their adaptive
traits and their free-riders”
• What is adaptation then?
• Creatures are selected... » tautology
7. Selection for
• How can NS do that distinction? (1)
• “If there could have been blood pumps
without noises Mother Nature would
probably have selected them, but not vica
versa”
• appeals to relevant counterfactuals
(I)Guild and Lewontin asks how can we do it (epistemology)
8. Ways of counterfactual
supporting
• Intensionality: • Laws of selection:
• Intensional choosing • Is being big adaptive?
between two locally
coextensive traits requires a
mind, and NS doesn’t have
• “Is being smart adaptive?
Ask Hamlet.”
one
• Very context sensitive
• Still: Mother Nature, Blind
Watchmaker, Selfish Gene
etc. (and ID) • case by case ‘laws’ - they
don’t generalize over the
phenomena - are they laws
• They are metaphors but if at all? (It doesn't matter if
you can’t manage without they are statistical laws or
them not)
