It is part of what is sometimes called the adaptationist program. ❋ Unknown (2009)
This strategy of research ” the so-called adaptationist program ” is the heart of Darwinian biology, and the fervent, singular credo of the ultras. ❋ Gould, Stephen Jay (1997)
A discussion of exaptation could also lead to a discussion of spandrels in evolution, which gets at the heart of the "pan-adaptationist" viewpoint held by many evolutionary biologists and virtually all ID supporters. ❋ Unknown (2009)
Stephen Jay Gould (along with Richard Lewontin) was also a critic of the pan-adaptationist viewpoint in EB and ID, which is not surprising since he was first and foremost a paleontologist, who (as I mentioned above) had to figure out what the various structures in a fossil were "for" (including, of course, the idea that they were "for" nothing at all). ❋ Unknown (2009)
I believe that this was Gould's view, which he tempered somewhat to mollify the intensely adaptationist viewpoint taken by the Neo-Darwinian "mainstream". ❋ Unknown (2009)
And once again we see that no matter what is observed, there is a Darwinian adaptationist just-so story told by those oblivious to the teleological nature of their own stories. ❋ M_francis (2009)
Lewontin 1979 The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. ❋ Unknown (2010)
But then, I suspect that if I were a biologist, I would be considered an extreme adaptationist. ❋ Unknown (2010)
This research demonstrates the utility of examining early-in-the-stream social cognition through the functionalist lens of adaptationist thinking. ❋ Unknown (2008)
Adaptationism gets a point on my scoresheet after we figure out why an adaptationist like Richard Dawkins did not think that conservation meant there might be function. ❋ Unknown (2007)
Working from an ID (or a strict adaptationist) position that the majority of non-coding DNA is functional, Allium ursinum should require roughly five times more DNA than Allium altyncolicum. ❋ Unknown (2007)
Chris said: Working from an ID (or a strict adaptationist) position that the majority of non-coding DNA is functional ... the IDist (and strict adaptationist) positions are untenable. ❋ Unknown (2007)
The man's mind is completely conformed to the adaptationist view. ❋ Unknown (2007)
The dismissal of “junk DNA” never happened in any significant way and even if it did it could only have been between about 1983-1994, and the reason is that adaptationist assumptions led people to expect functions for any DNA that is so abundant. ❋ Unknown (2009)
No, Richard Dawkins is not an insignificant outlier in the adaptationist camp. ❋ Unknown (2007)
The predominant adaptationist perspective had to give way to one that allowed for neutrality, contingency, ecology, and structural constraints. ❋ Unknown (2007)
Before I give a point to the adaptationist camp, I want to know why Oxford's Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science misunderstood the science of natural selection, and why the virtual champion of Natural Selection broke ranks. ❋ Unknown (2007)
