Why specific design is not the mark of the adaptational

Jerome C. Wakefield

    Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

    Abstract

    Andrews et al.'s analysis suffers from a series of conceptual confusions they inherit from Gould's work. Their proposal that adaptations can be distinguished from exaptations essentially by specific design criteria fails because exaptations are often maintained and secondarily adapted by natural selection and therefore, over evolutionary time, can come to have similar levels of design specificity to adaptations.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)532-533
    Number of pages2
    JournalBehavioral and Brain Sciences
    Volume25
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Aug 1 2002

    Fingerprint

    Genetic Selection

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
    • Physiology
    • Behavioral Neuroscience

    Cite this

    Why specific design is not the mark of the adaptational. / Wakefield, Jerome C.

    In: Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 25, No. 4, 01.08.2002, p. 532-533.

    Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

    Wakefield, Jerome C. / Why specific design is not the mark of the adaptational. In: Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2002 ; Vol. 25, No. 4. pp. 532-533.
    @article{8a9ee19274c144828c94127181176627,
    title = "Why specific design is not the mark of the adaptational",
    abstract = "Andrews et al.'s analysis suffers from a series of conceptual confusions they inherit from Gould's work. Their proposal that adaptations can be distinguished from exaptations essentially by specific design criteria fails because exaptations are often maintained and secondarily adapted by natural selection and therefore, over evolutionary time, can come to have similar levels of design specificity to adaptations.",
    author = "Wakefield, {Jerome C.}",
    year = "2002",
    month = "8",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1017/S0140525X02510098",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "25",
    pages = "532--533",
    journal = "Behavioral and Brain Sciences",
    issn = "0140-525X",
    publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
    number = "4",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Why specific design is not the mark of the adaptational

    AU - Wakefield, Jerome C.

    PY - 2002/8/1

    Y1 - 2002/8/1

    N2 - Andrews et al.'s analysis suffers from a series of conceptual confusions they inherit from Gould's work. Their proposal that adaptations can be distinguished from exaptations essentially by specific design criteria fails because exaptations are often maintained and secondarily adapted by natural selection and therefore, over evolutionary time, can come to have similar levels of design specificity to adaptations.

    AB - Andrews et al.'s analysis suffers from a series of conceptual confusions they inherit from Gould's work. Their proposal that adaptations can be distinguished from exaptations essentially by specific design criteria fails because exaptations are often maintained and secondarily adapted by natural selection and therefore, over evolutionary time, can come to have similar levels of design specificity to adaptations.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0038012265&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0038012265&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1017/S0140525X02510098

    DO - 10.1017/S0140525X02510098

    M3 - Comment/debate

    AN - SCOPUS:0038012265

    VL - 25

    SP - 532

    EP - 533

    JO - Behavioral and Brain Sciences

    JF - Behavioral and Brain Sciences

    SN - 0140-525X

    IS - 4

    ER -