Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T02:57:22.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biological Adaptation: A Reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Ronald Munson
Ronald Munson*
Affiliation:
University of Missouri, St. Louis
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Information

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , December 1972, pp. 529 - 532
Copyright
Copyright © 1972 by The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

[1] Bock, W. J. and von Wahlert, G. “Adaptation and the Form-Function Complex.” Evolution 19 (1965): 269–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Munson, R. “Biological Adaptation.” Philosophy of Science 38 (1971): 200–215.10.1086/288354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Ruse, M. “Discussion: Biological Adaptation.” Philosophy of Science 39 (1972): 525–528.10.1086/288477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Simpson, G. G. Horses. New York: Oxford University Press, 1951.Google Scholar
[5] Simpson, G. G. The Major Features of Evolution. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar