| Title |
Conceptual Barriers to Progress Within Evolutionary Biology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Foundations of Science, November 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10699-008-9153-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kevin N. Laland, John Odling-Smee, Marcus W. Feldman, Jeremy Kendal |
| Abstract |
In spite of its success, Neo-Darwinism is faced with major conceptual barriers to further progress, deriving directly from its metaphysical foundations. Most importantly, neo-Darwinism fails to recognize a fundamental cause of evolutionary change, "niche construction". This failure restricts the generality of evolutionary theory, and introduces inaccuracies. It also hinders the integration of evolutionary biology with neighbouring disciplines, including ecosystem ecology, developmental biology, and the human sciences. Ecology is forced to become a divided discipline, developmental biology is stubbornly difficult to reconcile with evolutionary theory, and the majority of biologists and social scientists are still unhappy with evolutionary accounts of human behaviour. The incorporation of niche construction as both a cause and a product of evolution removes these disciplinary boundaries while greatly generalizing the explanatory power of evolutionary theory. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 2% |
| Germany | 2 | 2% |
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| Czechia | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 86 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 25 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 44 | 44% |
| Philosophy | 9 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 6% |
| Psychology | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 12 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 September 2012.
All research outputs
#18,314,922
of 22,678,224 outputs
Outputs from Foundations of Science
#219
of 273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,603
of 165,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Foundations of Science
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,678,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 273 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 165,012 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them