Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):523-524 (2002)

Andrews et al. present a clear discussion of the various criteria needed to identify adaptations. However, they also imply a history of the debate between adaptationists and their critics that is incomplete. The history implied is one of only genuine scientific disagreement. This neglects the role of nonscientific motives and strawman arguments on behalf of the critics of adaptationists.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0140525X02410096
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,091
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
23 ( #492,661 of 2,506,156 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,984 of 2,506,156 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes