Biological adaptation: A reply

Philosophy of Science 39 (4):529-532 (1972)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Michael Ruse [3] has criticized the distinction between biological function and evolutionary adaptation that I argued for in my article “Biological Adaptation” [2]. I shall show below that Ruse's criticisms are not, for the most part, well taken and that the distinction remains as I made it.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,100

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Biological adaptation.Michael Ruse - 1972 - Philosophy of Science 39 (4):525-528.
On semantic pitfalls of biological adaptation.Michael T. Ghiselin - 1966 - Philosophy of Science 33 (1/2):147-.
Biological adaptation.Ronald Munson - 1971 - Philosophy of Science 38 (2):200-215.
L'adaptation evolutive.J. T. Wiebes - 1982 - Acta Biotheoretica 31 (4):239-243.
Dreaming is not an adaptation.Owen Flanagan - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (6):936-939.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
207 (#97,421)

6 months
6 (#526,006)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

The function debate in philosophy.Arno Wouters - 2005 - Acta Biotheoretica 53 (2):123-151.
Función como concepto teórico.Santiago Ginnobili - 2011 - Scientiae Studia 9 (4):847-880.
Consciousness and Evolution.Irina-Gabriela Buda - 2009 - Forum Philosophicum: International Journal for Philosophy 14 (2):329-342.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Biological adaptation.Ronald Munson - 1971 - Philosophy of Science 38 (2):200-215.
Biological adaptation.Michael Ruse - 1972 - Philosophy of Science 39 (4):525-528.

Add more references