Issues of terminology, gradient dynamics and the ease of sympatric speciation in Adaptive Dynamics.
Issues of terminology, gradient dynamics and the ease of sympatric speciation in Adaptive Dynamics.
复制标题
自适应动力学中的术语、梯度动力学和同域物种形成的难易度问题。
DOI：
10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.00953.x
复制
发表时间：
2005
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Gavrilets,S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Waxman,D;Gavrilets,S
已经明确指出，自适应动力学“不是一个科学理论，而是一个数学框架”（梅斯，2005）;它是一种“方法，但不是一个模型”（Kisdi & Gyllenberg，2005）。从完全实用主义的角度来看，进化生物学家只需要问一个问题：自适应动力学是解决问题的有用方法吗？14条评注提出了各种不同的观点，表明对这个问题的答案没有达成共识。事实上，我们认为前几页，包括目标审查和14个评论，作为一个更大的自适应动力学公共讨论的一部分，我们感谢其他作者对讨论的贡献。我们认为有必要承认，我们在目标审查问题6中的评论措辞（Waxman & Gavrilets，2005）关于“隐藏的限制和无意识或隐含的假设”不是最佳的。我们并不想暗示自适应动力学的限制和假设是由自适应动力学的实践者隐藏或无意识地做出的。相反，该声明是针对使用自适应动力学的生物学家，或者希望了解其数学结果的生物学含义，并且可能不知道潜在的限制和假设。我们认为，这些限制和假设在文献中没有得到充分强调，同样重要的是，违反这些限制和假设的后果也没有得到明确说明。Geritz & Gyllenberg（2005）的评注令人钦佩地清楚说明了这些限制是什么，但没有说明违反这些限制的后果。Abrams（2005），巴顿& Polechová（2005），Kokko（2005），Spencer & Feldman的评论
It has been plainly stated that Adaptive Dynamics is ‘not a scientific theory, but a mathematical framework’(Metz, 2005); it is a ‘method but not a model’(Kisdi & Gyllenberg, 2005). From a completely pragmatic point of view, there is, then, only one question that evolutionary biologists need to ask: Is Adaptive Dynamics a useful way of approaching problems? The 14 Commentaries present a variety of different views, indicating that there is no consensus in the answer to this question. Indeed, we view the previous pages, consisting of the Target Review and the 14 Commentaries, as a part of a much larger public discussion on Adaptive Dynamics, and we thank the other authors for their contributions to the discussion.We feel it necessary to acknowledge that the wording of our comment in Question 6 of our Target Review (Waxman & Gavrilets, 2005) concerning ‘hidden limitations and unconscious or implicit assumptions’ was not optimal. It was not our intention to imply that limitations and assumptions of Adaptive Dynamics are hidden or unconsciously made by practitioners of Adaptive Dynamics. Rather, the statement was intended for biologists who use Adaptive Dynamics, or who wish to understand the biological implications of its mathematical results, and may not be aware of the underlying limitations and assumptions. These limitations and assumptions are not, in our opinion, sufficiently emphasised in the literature and, equally importantly, the consequences of their violation are not made clear. The Commentary of Geritz & Gyllenberg (2005) makes it admirably clear what these limitations are but not the consequences of their violation. The Commentaries of Abrams (2005), Barton & Polechová (2005), Kokko (2005), Spencer & Feldman