| Title |
Natural Selection and Drift as Individual-Level Causes of Evolution
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Acta Biotheoretica, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10441-018-9331-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pierrick Bourrat |
| Abstract |
In this paper I critically evaluate Reisman and Forber's (Philos Sci 72(5):1113-1123, 2005) arguments that drift and natural selection are population-level causes of evolution based on what they call the manipulation condition. Although I agree that this condition is an important step for identifying causes for evolutionary change, it is insufficient. Following Woodward, I argue that the invariance of a relationship is another crucial parameter to take into consideration for causal explanations. Starting from Reisman and Forber's example on drift and after having briefly presented the criterion of invariance, I show that once both the manipulation condition and the criterion of invariance are taken into account, drift, in this example, should better be understood as an individual-level rather than a population-level cause. Later, I concede that it is legitimate to interpret natural selection and drift as population-level causes when they rely on genuinely indeterministic events and some cases of frequency-dependent selection. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 33% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 17% |
| Psychology | 2 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 17% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 June 2019.
All research outputs
#16,728,456
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Acta Biotheoretica
#119
of 213 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,100
of 340,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Biotheoretica
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 213 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.