Darwinian populations and natural selection

By P. Godfrey‐Smith. 2009

904 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: History and Philosophy of Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/42fcbc4f9c149aecbfbf6807711e9b55cfc837e3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In History and Philosophy of Science

Citations in the corpus

Holobionts and the ecology of organisms: Multi-species communities or integrated individuals? (2016, background): “Reproduction can be collective, simple, or scaffolded (Godfrey-Smith 2009).”
Explanation in Biology: Reduction, Pluralism, and Explanatory Aims (2011, neutral): “Moreover, given that heritable phenotypic variation is sufficient for evolutionary change, one may wonder whether it matters for evolutionary explanations what the basis of heritable phenotypic variation is (Godfrey-Smith 2009).”
The Relation between Kin and Multilevel Selection: An Approach Using Causal Graphs (2016, background): “7 For discussion of this point see (Hamilton [1975]; Grafen [1985]; Queller [1992], [2011]; Sober and Wilson [1998]; McIlreath and Boyd [2007]; Okasha [2008]; Birch [2014]).”
It’s the song, not the singer: an exploration of holobiosis and evolutionary theory (2017, background): “…inherited) from parent macrobe to offspring macrobe, or when biofilms replicate by multispecies bits breaking off, then such a process entails ''material overlap'' (Griesemer 2000), involves some ''bottlenecking'' (Bonner 1974), and might meet common criteria of reproduction (Godfrey-Smith 2009).”
Biological individuality: the case of biofilms (2012, background): “To handle such cases, Godfrey-Smith (2009) distinguishes three types of reproducers: collective, simple, and scaffolded.”
Holobionts as Units of Selection and a Model of Their Population Dynamics and Evolution (2018, background): “…and that at least some material overlapping parts convey or confer developmental capacities on offspring via transfer of parts—a propagule generation or “progeneration” (Griesemer 2000a), which includes retroviruses, contra Godfrey-Smith’s claims (Godfrey-Smith 2009, 2011; Griesemer 2016).”
Minds: extended or scaffolded? (2010, background): “In his Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection, Peter Godfrey-Smith introduces a very useful analytic tool that I shall co-opt (see Godfrey-Smith 2009).”
Organisms or biological individuals? Combining physiological and evolutionary individuality (2016, background): “More recently, Godfrey-Smith (2009), building more directly on Lewontin’s work (Lewontin 1970), has rejected the replicator/interactor view and suggest we conceive of evolutionary individuality in relation to the notion of a Darwinian individual.”
A New Foundation for the Propensity Interpretation of Fitness (2013, background): “18 Of course, there are manifold issues concerning individuality in evolutionary biology, and it thus may not always clear when an ‘organism’ is to count as a ‘descendant’ (Godfrey-Smith [2009]).”
Biological Organization and Cross-Generation Functions (2011, background): “In recent years, the philosophical debate on the concept of biological function has been enriched by the development of a new approach, aimed at integrating the two mainstream views – the ‘etiological’ (Wright [1973]; Millikan [1984], [1989]; Neander [unpublished], [1991]; Godfrey-Smith [1994]) and ”
The Problem of Biological Individuality (2010, background): “…a biological individual is that there is a reproductive division of labor so that some parts are sterile and carry out only somatic functions, i.e., behaviors necessary for survival and growth, but not reproduction (Buss 1983, 1987; Michod 1999, 2007; Michod and Nedelcu 2003; Godfrey-Smith 2009).”