Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
Several posts highlight key aspects of the article, including critiques of naive adaptationism and the introduction of spandrels as a concept in evolutionary biology. Phrases like 'highly recommended' and 'one of the papers that has had the most influence on me' illustrate the positive reception and impact of the publication. The tone is mostly supportive and inquisitive, reflecting a genuine interest in expanding on the ideas within the article.
Many discussions express support for the critique of adaptationism presented by Gould and Lewontin.
Posts reveal a strong curiosity about the implications of the article and its relevance to contemporary evolutionary biology.
While some users engage deeply with the article's concepts, the depth of some discussions varies.
Users generally perceive the publication as having a significant influence on evolutionary thought.
それにしてもヒトの鼻形状と嗅覚に関する既存学説を山ほど引用してて、そんなのあるのかって思ってたら 「進化の上で獲得した形状ならば、ヒトの鼻はメガネを支えるために進化したという仮説はともかく、」 なんだそれ https://t.co/fn8aC7HzBx スティーヴン・ジェイ・グールドだった
So far we know: 1) hummock Sphagnum species decompose slowly, 2) there is a phylogenetic signal to hummock hollow preference across the Sphagnum genus. Are these linked? Or is this an evolutionary spandrel? Darwin loved bogs, he would know. 10/ https://t.co/umwTICskB7
In last week's lab meeting @AnwaySarkar2 presented Gould and Lewontin's classic paper: The spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm.. https://t.co/gSlzK3mFbk This paper had an important impact on me as a student of #EvolutionaryBiology RIP Richard Lewontin
Nice thread that sent me down a rabbit hole at the end of which I found a wonderful description of Lewontin and Gould’s paper, “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Paradigm.” https://t.co/BIPthHo9kk https://t.co/juF7AXM3SA
Nuevamente desafiando a Darwin postuló junto a Stephen Jay Gould que ciertos caracteres no surgen como consecuencia de la selección natural, si no que surgen como subproducto de otros caracteres que sí estuvieron moldeados por la selección natural https://t.co/B8LSWcwKSy
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42062/
In this video, I discuss Stephen Jay Gould's extensive work, particularly his book The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Gould critiques the adaptationist program, advocating for a broader perspective that considers an…
This video explores the critique of traditional adaptationist perspectives in evolution, emphasizing the importance of viewing organisms as whole entities influenced by their evolutionary history. Discover insights from…
試したのはこの2報 Hutchinson, G. E., 1959. Homage to Santa Rosalia or why are there so many kinds of animals? S. J. Gould and R. C. Lewontin, 1979. The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme
1979: Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin publish influential paper (cited more than 4,000 times) "The Spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm", introducing idea of "spandrels" into evolutionary biology
Working on the reading list for my Evolution class in the Spring. I shall neither confirm nor deny that "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism" and ""The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme" are both on that list.
@MadamePlissee @martinlichtmesz @hrmthrs Gar keinem bzw der heutige Zweck kam erst später als Nutzbarmachung von Notwendigkeiten deren Ursachen in biologischen/mathematische Restriktionen liegen. Das wird sehr gut in diesem klassischen Artikel der Evolutionsbiologie dargelegt. https://t.co/437XVTGKWJ https://t.co/QmypToiH7a
@anitaleirfall No! Gould, Stephen Jay; Lewontin, Richard C. (21 September 1979). "The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme" (PDF). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 205 (1161): 581–598.
@Medical_Nemesis @anitaleirfall Yeah, but your caricature long dispelled: Gould; Lewontin (21 September 1979). "The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme" (PDF). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 205 (1161): 581–598.
New book arrived! Very excited to start reading it tonight. Picked this book up because it surveys some texts at the intersection of ecology & philosophy of science
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42062/
https://t.co/iLIWbBJcmT
What else is there? When Gould & Lewontin (1979) critiqued the adaptationist research program, they appealed vaguely to "constraints" as an alternative Since then, evobio has come a long way in terms of conceptual, theoretical, and empirical clarity 6/ https://t.co/A8B5f3waAE
@sokindling Antagonistic pleiotropy. But you've also got a poor framing here. "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme" would be a good read to address that.
@mastzellenhilfe Spandrels of San Marco! https://t.co/HWqGskIauS
The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme | Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences https://t.co/FlwHrWVft6
@KatLizu2 @furiadidonna You have a pretty common misunderstanding of evolution and adaptation. You might start here: https://t.co/hFudLrjAwX
"male tyrannosaurs may have used their diminutive front legs to titillate female partners, but this will not explain why they got so small" - The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. Gould and Lewontin, 1979
@dconroybeam Reading these two back-to-back might be fun: Gould & Lewontin's spandrels paper: https://t.co/1xIGzk5LJA McCullough's short piece on why one might care about natural selection: https://t.co/mQA9CVLLHa
Easily one of the most influential works in evolutionary biology which actually is just an opinion piece. https://t.co/mOc5FHvUsI https://t.co/v3QewyMe1W
"The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist program- " found this excellent article by S. J. Gould and R. C. Lewontin! #evolution #naturalselection #Gould #Lewontin https://t.co/RAbguRImlY
Over "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm" leer ik op YouTube, niet bij de publieke omroep. Dat geeft toch wel te denken. Een budgetkwestie is in het ieder geval niet.
@yoyospana The just-so story criticism, the spandrel critique (https://t.co/HpfhRAdpaL), the Fodor objection https://t.co/BLOHmGgChQ
@paleoludic @Assibad2 @JoshuaLWatson This argument was made by Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin in "The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme" (1979): https://t.co/B6J49EpiD7
On the risks of naive adaptationism: Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme.
With its biases, adaptation has always been the go-to concept when describing organisms. Steven Jay Gould and Lewontin challenged this concept. Question is: Have we found a way to discover organismal features that are not adaptive? Here's the paper: https://t.co/vmyMeJi2pS
@CoelhoPre Lenski, et al. 1991 Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. Am Nat 138: 1315-1341. Gould & Lewontin 1979 The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme...
Super interesting discussion happening here about ephaptic coupling and downward causation. Ephaptic coupling seems to be to neuroscience as epigenetics was to genetics/biology. (and I think people should read more SJ Gould https://t.co/m00XobyV0m and less R Dawkins...
Celui de Gould et Lewontin contre l’adaptationnisme et qui se réfère aux tympans de Saint-Marc est lisible ici : https://t.co/J7SgPh3cpm
@dynamicsoar これですかね… https://t.co/hvK8LLHPiz
@spiantado https://t.co/0JrpwDiXVJ
@philosophycacti The locus classicus: https://t.co/N258ntni09
RT @delikanli_e: "The evolution of evolvability" "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist…
"The evolution of evolvability" "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme" "The Selfish Gene" "The Blind Watchmaker" "Climbing Mount Improbable" "A Devil's Chaplain" بونلار ریچارد داوکینزین ۶ دانا مقالهلریدی قصدیم وار/
@Eran_Efrat זו דוגמא מצויינת להסבר פנגלוסי או ספאנדרלי שמחפש אדפטציה גם כשאין https://t.co/Cf0Enmq5UD
Spandrels of San Marco came up again recently, this time as an example of not using dry language in scientific writing. I had forgotten where it was published, apparently Proc B! Nice. https://t.co/9YucU83z75
@transplnt_mdphd Sure. Not everything hormonal has to have a role in adaptation or evolutionarily favored “benefit”.. some stuff about living organisms is just a byproduct of other stuff. Or just works ok as is— selection acting elsewhere https://t.co/u6AlEXf8sA
["The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme" https://t.co/KAW5Iv3zlu]
@AndrsTrece Aproveche y léase esta joya. https://t.co/su9ytEAJGP
@Johnfinney8 https://t.co/z0L0FahjTy
@Jess_A_Castillo I'm in your class! How do you feel about "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme" by Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin
@MindfulDamage @mr_ridds @umfpt @StonerDadMadRad @Wilbo_Bagginsis @dirk_fasshauer @DeanoMartino1 @_truthswordsa @SecularSmurf @ktibus @markpotter___ @MucusMucous @NHoomans @BrianNazarenus @illmakelamb @AmyrAli16 @Dlanorx @xxschlitzmaltxx @DarkCowboyGod @pussyfreewhtboy @SylvieDParris @kester_lowers @Melanie33720945 @timmbosliceeee @JMcCartney49 @AprilLigeia @megafant1 @liamdennehy @rkdoctr @orna_verum @WastedAerospace @RTheatheist @OnkelFester @th1rt3en_TM @hubie0 @omnimomo @spikeinthemidge @ei9iw @IngridIngwah @TessFromWessex @mirandaisrisen @HeathenWombat @Sidney1st @THHuxley1 @RavenLove69 @knitman57 @Cat_In_A_Box @remofjacob @WarrenSm2 That was the first Gould/Lewontin paper we had to read in my fist #Evolution-ary Biology class. I recommend it to everyone=--> https://t.co/nk6YckzWSa "The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist program
Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 205(1161), 581–598. doi:10.1098/rspb.1979.0086 https://t.co/wq3ph25ntq
@ishaank26 @SuryaGanguli This reminds me of Gould and Lewontin's evolutionary biology paper "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme". https://t.co/bUnDrj0KT4
@cabitzaf @emollick Very interesting, but why must such writing be soaked in the usual utilitarian thinking in terms of ‘benefits and harms’. That is a reductive neo-darwinist approach. Might it help to view prospection from e.g. key work by Lewontin and Gould https://t.co/Ou8oTpv6oQ
“#Organisms are limited by their past commitments with the #environment” This article taught me #logics, #parsimony/Occam’s razor’ #NaturalSelection #GeneticDrift and Voltaire. | New #tagomago #Blog Post on Gould/Lewontin 1979 article https://t.co/fdq69mKbV5 w/@borderlesscook
1/ A sweet Halloween throwback read on why natural selection cannot explain everything: https://t.co/vr8q9gt76X Why Halloween? So much cannibalism… And a few palatable take-aways:
@UrnovFyodor @OmicsOmicsBlog @mbeisen @BobbyDaretti The other problem with asserting "1. Not junk." is that it forces you into what Gould and Lewontin called the Adaptionist Programme - If one test of function fails, it surely must past some yet-to-be-tested function. Maybe, but maybe not. https://t.co/tGZm0xh5PG
@geostylegeo That trait can be an fitness advantage, a secondary product with no such effect, a trait that somehow hitchhikes but it doesn't significantly affects fitness, or can be somehow a recurring thing of epigenetic/cultural evolution. https://t.co/dIRDC6m3m9
The classic opinion piece by Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, too, used metaphor to attack prevailing evolutionary ideas. It has been cited more than 10,000 times. https://t.co/V78UVWtNQQ
@ThinkTrumpsFeel @JadziaBenntley @MarkWoodwardTN @NeasaLaKali That's not how causation works in regard to adaptations though. So you're just wrong, no matter how you try to spin it. You might start here: https://t.co/hFudLrADyX
@Merz @halvorz Help your colleagues avoid a paywall by accessing the article from their libraries: https://t.co/gBsvBqWnVS Simply add https://t.co/SXSePSXDsM to the DOI URL when sharing articles on Twitter and everywhere else!
@EpicFeil_ @Nick_Waterfield @cc7740 @wallischris10 @E_Carlen Here’s a classic paper on the pitfalls of assuming everything in nature are adaptive “The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme” S. J. Gould and R. C. Lewontin, 1979
@DavidAngeles13 The Spandrels of San Marco paper: https://t.co/yXVjywyWE1 I work in a field that isn't even remotely related to evolutionary biology, but this paper is a favorite for its outstanding demonstration of critical analysis, and just how beautifully the arguments have been crafted.
@icaille1 @SethBlackshaw Yes! To me structural and developmental constraints are a more parsimonious way of explaining than trying to find a positive or negative selection pressure. https://t.co/r1WtJLg9CK
RT @Genetics_Stuff: In 1979 Stephen Gould and Richard Lewontin argued that a holistic view of body plans takes precedent over adaptation fo…
In 1979 Stephen Gould and Richard Lewontin argued that a holistic view of body plans takes precedent over adaptation for a specific physical feature. #Evolution is complex, and it’s important not to oversimplify it. #SciComm https://t.co/BzfyWlSO3m
RT @fiddler_K: The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme https://t.co/IgsDRyq2LL
@NoamPrywes link to original essay: https://t.co/f7lQ36AWED https://t.co/tIwPRX7EeZ
@kevinfolta Sir Peter Medawar ‘Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud’? https://t.co/ZjsbgPXdc0 Lewontin & Gould ‘The Spandrels of San Marco’ https://t.co/zhkOOqlkHh
@evornithology https://t.co/8y1eo56U9m
We should all read is paper with SJ Gould.. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm... @royalsociety https://t.co/9mQ5Yjxh3o .. each time we simplistically state: "x is clearly the product of evolution to condition Y". https://t.co/WTH3AJSGAL
@Mammals_Suck Accompanying Proximate/Ultimate Causes chapter; Paper 1: "The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme" https://t.co/DKzZdBXiV5 No stats examined here. I have more to say about this reading downthread 9/14
@GotAkuY https://t.co/ao7H4noPi2 https://t.co/7ZeZEhkJEH Entre autres. Le but affiché et la méthode sont deux choses différentes. Comme dit quand vous faites que des hypothèses ad-hoc pour une conceptualiser une théorie, ça peut que mal se finir.
Link to the original spandrels paper by two of my personal intellectual heroes Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin. https://t.co/lc0Xvvlzoa
RT @queenofpeat: So far we know: 1) hummock Sphagnum species decompose slowly, 2) there is a phylogenetic signal to hummock hollow preferen…
Hace muchos años, un Dr. nos pidió revisar un artículo "The spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptionist programme". Algunas cosas en la evolución son meros subproductos, a quien le guste la biología debería leer este texto y a Gould.
So far we know: 1) hummock Sphagnum species decompose slowly, 2) there is a phylogenetic signal to hummock hollow preference across the Sphagnum genus. Are these linked? Or is this an evolutionary spandrel? Darwin loved bogs, he would know. 10/ https://t.co/umwTICskB7
@johnsalmond @HERO_Respondi @respeak_uk @GeorgeMonbiot Gould-Lewontin https://t.co/vVdVE4NeHz
The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme | Proceedings of… https://t.co/iupw5If1aP
The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme https://t.co/IgsDRyq2LL
@FeralN0is3 Here's a pdf of 1979 landmark paper by Stephen J Gould & Richard C. Lewontin The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme https://t.co/fxItotRnWf
RT @HallucigeniaOK: Nuevamente desafiando a Darwin postuló junto a Stephen Jay Gould que ciertos caracteres no surgen como consecuencia de…
@NYTScience RIP. A great thinker and marvelous writer. Gould and Lewontin (1979), The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme, is one of my favorites. Highly recommended.
@svannuccini Such a good one. https://t.co/KW2hMQ40XC https://t.co/WNt5DeXSpZ
@jvelosojr Isto aqui é um primor de texto https://t.co/0bO5JtvxBR
RT @MarxinHell: Nice thread that sent me down a rabbit hole at the end of which I found a wonderful description of Lewontin and Gould’s pap…
And here is his paper with another evolutionary theory giant, Stephen Gould, on the spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist program. https://t.co/276NMvnqjc #RichardCLewontin
"The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme" written with Gould (1979?) https://t.co/NBHJ9DxLoS
Nice thread that sent me down a rabbit hole at the end of which I found a wonderful description of Lewontin and Gould’s paper, “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Paradigm.” https://t.co/BIPthHo9kk https://t.co/juF7AXM3SA
Richard Lewontin's most cited work (9,646 times to date): "The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme." Interestingly, neither he nor Gould officially accepted the Neutral Theory. https://t.co/JzgCA15uWt
Nuevamente desafiando a Darwin postuló junto a Stephen Jay Gould que ciertos caracteres no surgen como consecuencia de la selección natural, si no que surgen como subproducto de otros caracteres que sí estuvieron moldeados por la selección natural https://t.co/B8LSWcwKSy
Ha muerto Richard Lewontin (1929-2021), biólogo evolucionista y también autor de esta maravilla junto a S.J. Gould: "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme". Rest in pants. https://t.co/0MNewqQ2VA https://t.co/t9Rjxuzga9
In last week's lab meeting @AnwaySarkar2 presented Gould and Lewontin's classic paper: The spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm.. https://t.co/gSlzK3mFbk This paper had an important impact on me as a student of #EvolutionaryBiology RIP Richard Lewontin
Lewontin & Krakauer (1973) https://t.co/YfSS1uWQ7R Gould & Lewontin (1979) https://t.co/hvK8LLpG4r Levins & Lewontin (1985) https://t.co/R4MAdZTzua https://t.co/Y88UeQubuq
@YordamKitap https://t.co/cOKvt6HzNG
Em 1979, junto com Steve Gould, publicou uma crítica ao paradigma adaptacionista panglossiano (Gould & Lewontin, 1979). https://t.co/FOJwfoVsHP
@jackcschultz I never had the privilege of meeting either Gould or Lewontin but their spandrels paper ⬇️ changed my scientific thought life. Since being introduced to it ~40 years ago I’ve passed it on to many others. https://t.co/zhkOOqlkHh
@vishuguttal @ragh_gadagkar Some more elegant classics: - Evolution and Tinkering, by François Jacob - The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme, by S. J. Gould & R. C. Lewontin - Bees: Their Vision, Chemical Senses, and Language, by Karl von Frisch
@ancetetere Not everything has to be adaptive... as in the enormously influential paper https://t.co/P02Ubv0d2Q
@Crst_C @Lunera_Luz @esparCiencia uhhh si no lo leíste, the spandrels of san marco: https://t.co/Jg7YNx2KLR
RT @ADHansonLab: @KamounLab @PlantEvolution Spandrel? https://t.co/zhkOOq3JiH
@KamounLab @PlantEvolution Spandrel? https://t.co/zhkOOq3JiH
@grouse_hollow We are all downstream. Also: spandrels! https://t.co/kn4VJdDiIa
@queensoxbiology @StuWest8 @AshleighGriffi6 Your question makes me think of the paper "The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme" by Gould and Lewontin. Still one of my favourite paper titles
here are a few options, I'd love some other ex of articles written by folks not from the US/Europe Kettlewell 1955: https://t.co/ZyXlJJdGK2 Gould & Lewontin 1979: https://t.co/TDxbZ3DNp6 Darwin & Wallace 1858: https://t.co/gxA33HgFbV West-Eberhard 1989: https://t.co/LH9jR0aW7v
@dandactylus Esse é um clássico que aborda esse assunto: https://t.co/nQWpo5tJAL Agora quanto a barra orbital, provavelmente é adaptativo sim, mas sempre bom ter evolução neutra como hipótese nula! ;-)
@SerenaTucci @big_data_kane Gould, Stephen Jay; Lewontin, Richard C. (21 September 1979). "The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 205 (1161): 581–598. =
If the title doesn't peak your curiousity (https://t.co/DLMvB3YZdN ), what about a quote from the abstract: "male tyrannosaurs may have used their diminutive front legs to titillate female partners, but this will not explain why they got so small" #evolution #adaptation
The article is here: https://t.co/UVIoy8pqci
@csangell11 Here is the germane section from Gould and Lewontin (1979; The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme). https://t.co/0efzRHZXbj
@alexeyguzey @wsdewitt @biorxivpreprint Like would the spandrels paper be rejected from biorxiv? Theory doesn't have to involve math exactly. https://t.co/tjQGRE18n1
@SteveStuWill You can't definitively conclude adaption from this list. This would be an adaptationists fallacy. For more: The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme - Gould and Lewontin (1979) https://t.co/WHtjaHSSj1
@peterboghossian @SteveStuWill You can't pull and ought from that, you can't even pull a designed for (or evolved for). For more: The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme - Gould and Lewontin (1979) https://t.co/WHtjaHSSj1
RT @jasoncrawford: @michaelcurzi @eigenrobot My answer is “adaptationist fallacy” https://t.co/95t2ZLz8Xx
@michaelcurzi @eigenrobot My answer is “adaptationist fallacy” https://t.co/95t2ZLz8Xx
And WRT evolution, papers don’t come any more evergreen than this one: “The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme” https://t.co/zhkOOqlkHh https://t.co/wAsuJmCX22 https://t.co/DMh2q6F24B
Play as a "Spandrel" Adaptations create opportunities (you might say ("affordances") https://t.co/4P4hnI2uOf https://t.co/9DVdKxWEAD
@Imningum1 @Race__Realist @TaniaArline The most compelling arguments against this kind of just-so-stories can be found here []https://t.co/LWHEFPbK6C and here []https://t.co/jZFd2E6T1z.
Abuso de la T. Selección Natural asignándo valor adaptativo ad infinitum, para sonar sofisticado y 'evolutivo'. La biología evolutiva se desprendió de ese error hace décadas->Paradigma Panglossiano "todo existe necesariamente para el mejor de los fines" https://t.co/KxPFpRIYSc https://t.co/vcq7FEFDWs
@Cataranea @Ibycter https://t.co/zAAIuTxpmH
@salazarafra Maybe this one: The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme https://t.co/RLfKjBJD2y
RT @Stfko_memero: @pitiklinov Los mismos argumentos absurdos e infalseables una y otra vez. Ya el '79 se echaron por el piso este tipo de…
@pitiklinov Los mismos argumentos absurdos e infalseables una y otra vez. Ya el '79 se echaron por el piso este tipo de explicaciones adaptacionistas, pero la iglesia psicoevolcionista aún no está lista para esta discusión https://t.co/LWHEFPbK6C
サンマルコのスパンドレル云々の古典の著者はグールドだったのか！ これ知らなかったのは恥ずかしいなー https://t.co/11BDXnqmw2
@AshWillmott @iamolivergibson @Tohelandback @Benedictduncan https://t.co/WMcbF73CKD
RT @mendel_random: @John_J_McGrath But everyone who hasn’t done so should read the source - one of the papers that has had the most influen…
@John_J_McGrath But everyone who hasn’t done so should read the source - one of the papers that has had the most influence on me of all time https://t.co/aMaQNLswm9
@NoahFierer Maybe time for lateral thinking? https://t.co/J2mSt4LH2y https://t.co/x2GQ8BfGCs
@funcaption @BirdingMagazine @ABA @AmOrnith @WFOrnithology @RTBrumfield @warblerchips @MarkyMutchler @runbirdgirl @AllThatWildlife @DanielBolnick @michaeljparr @MOBrien152 @skwinnicki https://t.co/zAAIuTxpmH
@TakeThatCDC @krebiozen @MeddlinMegs @Sheldon_Walker_ @GeoffSchuler @_mamadeb @silversynergy @mcfunny @KStateTurk @SMcwoof @RisetteMD @Rosewind2007 @TheWorldIsFla11 @chaoticsx2 @AngelaSNMF @TheFrankmanMN @TeddyFreddy11 @JaneEOpie @AquaVelvaBoy @fiski70 @regina1775 @mimetic_ @immunotoxPhD @ianfmusgrave @DetectorStalker @lunruj @FredFrobish @TinFoilAwards @doritmi @BlueLionBlog @ChrisJohnsonMD @BeckyJohnson222 @elv_22 @WendyOrent @BlotReport @Monstercoyliar @Plasticdoe @BGLTHMND @AlumiLynn @weaponizedword1 @tombarr26816936 @jkellyca @kfunk937 @lizzysawrusrex @SmutClyde @_CWN @misinfofox @Awithonelison @VaccineCourse In evolutionary terms, wouldn't curly hair be what Gould and Lewontin called a spandrel? https://t.co/ZNRQxO78nC
Chapter 5 has a nice discussion involving Gould & Lewontin (1979) paper on Spandrels and dr Pangloss (from Voltaire's Candide) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme https://t.co/GBjBwURXFC
The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme S. J. Gould and R. C. Lewontin https://t.co/eYxaaTrLTw https://t.co/2NzkppxtIY
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.1979.0086
RT @Kyukimasa: それにしてもヒトの鼻形状と嗅覚に関する既存学説を山ほど引用してて、そんなのあるのかって思ってたら 「進化の上で獲得した形状ならば、ヒトの鼻はメガネを支えるために進化したという仮説はともかく、」 なんだそれ https://t.co/fn8aC7…
RT @Kyukimasa: それにしてもヒトの鼻形状と嗅覚に関する既存学説を山ほど引用してて、そんなのあるのかって思ってたら 「進化の上で獲得した形状ならば、ヒトの鼻はメガネを支えるために進化したという仮説はともかく、」 なんだそれ https://t.co/fn8aC7…
RT @Kyukimasa: それにしてもヒトの鼻形状と嗅覚に関する既存学説を山ほど引用してて、そんなのあるのかって思ってたら 「進化の上で獲得した形状ならば、ヒトの鼻はメガネを支えるために進化したという仮説はともかく、」 なんだそれ https://t.co/fn8aC7…
RT @Kyukimasa: それにしてもヒトの鼻形状と嗅覚に関する既存学説を山ほど引用してて、そんなのあるのかって思ってたら 「進化の上で獲得した形状ならば、ヒトの鼻はメガネを支えるために進化したという仮説はともかく、」 なんだそれ https://t.co/fn8aC7…
RT @Kyukimasa: それにしてもヒトの鼻形状と嗅覚に関する既存学説を山ほど引用してて、そんなのあるのかって思ってたら 「進化の上で獲得した形状ならば、ヒトの鼻はメガネを支えるために進化したという仮説はともかく、」 なんだそれ https://t.co/fn8aC7…
RT @Kyukimasa: それにしてもヒトの鼻形状と嗅覚に関する既存学説を山ほど引用してて、そんなのあるのかって思ってたら 「進化の上で獲得した形状ならば、ヒトの鼻はメガネを支えるために進化したという仮説はともかく、」 なんだそれ https://t.co/fn8aC7…
RT @Kyukimasa: それにしてもヒトの鼻形状と嗅覚に関する既存学説を山ほど引用してて、そんなのあるのかって思ってたら 「進化の上で獲得した形状ならば、ヒトの鼻はメガネを支えるために進化したという仮説はともかく、」 なんだそれ https://t.co/fn8aC7…
RT @Kyukimasa: それにしてもヒトの鼻形状と嗅覚に関する既存学説を山ほど引用してて、そんなのあるのかって思ってたら 「進化の上で獲得した形状ならば、ヒトの鼻はメガネを支えるために進化したという仮説はともかく、」 なんだそれ https://t.co/fn8aC7…
RT @Kyukimasa: それにしてもヒトの鼻形状と嗅覚に関する既存学説を山ほど引用してて、そんなのあるのかって思ってたら 「進化の上で獲得した形状ならば、ヒトの鼻はメガネを支えるために進化したという仮説はともかく、」 なんだそれ https://t.co/fn8aC7…
RT @Kyukimasa: それにしてもヒトの鼻形状と嗅覚に関する既存学説を山ほど引用してて、そんなのあるのかって思ってたら 「進化の上で獲得した形状ならば、ヒトの鼻はメガネを支えるために進化したという仮説はともかく、」 なんだそれ https://t.co/fn8aC7…
RT @Kyukimasa: それにしてもヒトの鼻形状と嗅覚に関する既存学説を山ほど引用してて、そんなのあるのかって思ってたら 「進化の上で獲得した形状ならば、ヒトの鼻はメガネを支えるために進化したという仮説はともかく、」 なんだそれ https://t.co/fn8aC7…
RT @Kyukimasa: それにしてもヒトの鼻形状と嗅覚に関する既存学説を山ほど引用してて、そんなのあるのかって思ってたら 「進化の上で獲得した形状ならば、ヒトの鼻はメガネを支えるために進化したという仮説はともかく、」 なんだそれ https://t.co/fn8aC7…
それにしてもヒトの鼻形状と嗅覚に関する既存学説を山ほど引用してて、そんなのあるのかって思ってたら 「進化の上で獲得した形状ならば、ヒトの鼻はメガネを支えるために進化したという仮説はともかく、」 なんだそれ https://t.co/fn8aC7HzBx スティーヴン・ジェイ・グールドだった
@diego_castro_a Claro Diego, de todas maneras son rasgos que tienen una historia evolutiva pero eso no significa que tengan valor adaptativo y que hayan evolucionado por seleccion natural. No sé si leiste lo de Gould & Lewontin 1979. https://t.co/jTQDTZnBjZ