Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T20:25:06.098Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Notion of Evolutionary Progress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Kai Hahlweg
Kai Hahlweg*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy Bond University
*
‡Send reprint requests to the author, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Bond University, Gold Coast, AUSTRALIA.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, I develop a naturalistic conception of evolutionary progress. I argue that the Waddingtonian notion of adaptability can be embedded meaningfully into a framework which views living things as nonequilibrium structures. This thermodynamic interpretation places great emphasis on the dynamics of environmental change, whereas the classical conceptions are based on equilibrium conceptions of the evolutionary process. What improves in evolution is the ability of living things to stay alive in increasingly heterogeneous environments.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , September 1991, pp. 436 - 451
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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

Footnotes

†

I learned a great deal from the discussion with many people during a lecture tour in the United States and Canada where I presented an earlier version of this paper. I am also grateful to Ron Amundson, Richard Arthur, Malcolm Forster and Judith Thomas for their helpful comments. This research was supported by ARGS Grant A18416058.

References

Ayala, F. J. (1988), “Can Progress Be Defined as a Biological Concept?”, in M. H. Nitecki (ed.), pp. 75–96.Google Scholar
Brooks, D. R. and Wiley, E. O. (1986), Evolution as Entropy: Toward a Unified Theory of Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Collier, J. (1986), “Entropy in Evolution”, Biology and Philosophy 1: 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupré, J. (ed.) (1987), The Latest on the Best: Essays on Evolution and Optimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1988), “On Replacing the Idea of Progress with an Operational Notion of Directionality”, in M. H. Nitecki (ed.), pp. 319–338.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. and Lewontin, R. C. (1984), “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Program”, in E. Sober (ed.), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology: An Anthology. (Originally published in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 205: 581–598.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 252–270.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J.; Gilinsky, N. L.; and German, R. Z. (1987), “Asymmetry of Lineages and the Direction of Evolutionary Time”, Science 236: 1437–1441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gould, S. J. and Vrba, E. S. (1982), “Exaptation—A Missing Term in the Science of Form”, Paleobiology 8: 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahlweg, K. (1981), “Progress Through Evolution? An Inquiry into the Thought of C. H. Waddington”, Acta Biotheoretica 30: 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1988), “Progress in Ideas of Progress”, in M. H. Nitecki (ed.), pp. 27–48.Google Scholar
Levins, R. (1968), Evolution in Changing Environments; Some Theoretical Explorations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levins, R. (1979), “Coexistence in a Variable Environment”, The American Naturalist 114: 765–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1978), “Adaptation”, Scientific American 239: 212–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewontin, R. C. (1982), “Organism and Environment”, in H. C. Plotkin (ed.), Learning, Development, and Culture: Essays in Evolutionary Epistemology. New York: Wiley & Sons, pp. 151–170.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1984), “Adattamento”, in E. Sober (ed.), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology: An Anthology. (Originally published in The Encyclopedia Einaudi. Milan: Einaudi.) Cambridge: Bradford/MIT Press, pp. 234–250.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1987), “The Shape of Optimality”, in J. Dupré (ed.), pp. 151–160.Google Scholar
Lovejoy, A. O. ([1936] 1964), The Great Chain of Being; A Study of the History of an Idea. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1988), “Evolutionary Progress and Levels of Selection”, in M. H. Nitecki (ed.), pp. 219–230.Google Scholar
Nitecki, M. H. (ed.) (1988), Evolutionary Progress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Prigogine, I. (1980), From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Prigogine, I. and Stengers, I. (1984), Order Out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. (1988), “Testing the Fossil Record for Evolutionary Progress”, in M. H. Nitecki (ed.), pp. 293–317.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (1986), Taking Darwin Seriously: A Naturalistic Approach to Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (1988), “Molecules to Men: Evolutionary Biology and Thoughts of Progress”, in M. H. Nitecki (ed.), pp. 97–126.Google Scholar
Waddington, C. H. (1969), “Paradigm for an Evolutionary Process”, in C. H. Waddington (ed.), Towards a Theoretical Biology, vol. 2. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 106–128.Google Scholar
Waddington, C. H. (1975), The Evolution of an Evolutionist. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Wiley, E. O. (1988), “Entropy, Evolution and Progress”, in M. H. Nitecki (ed.), pp. 275–291.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1982), “Natural Selection, Adaptation, and Progress”, in H. Plotkin (ed.), Learning, Development, and Culture: Essays in Evolutionary Epistemology. New York: Wiley & Sons, pp. 39–59.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. and Schank, J. C. (1988), “Two Constraints on the Evolution of Complex Adaptations and the Means of Their Avoidance”, in M. H. Nitecki (ed.), pp. 231–273.Google Scholar