Exaptation Revisited: Changes Imposed by Evolutionary Psychologists and Behavioral Biologists
Exaptation Revisited: Changes Imposed by Evolutionary Psychologists and Behavioral Biologists
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s13752-016-0258-y
复制
发表时间：
2017-03-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Gould, Stephen Jay
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lloyd, Elisabeth A.;Gould, Stephen Jay
一些方法论上的适应主义者（也许是无意识的）劫持了“外适应”一词，并利用史蒂芬·杰伊·古尔德的一次口误来证实它具有进化上“设计”的功能，是适应的一种版本，而它绝对不是。其他人提供了一个标准的证据exaptation是不适当的，并根据适应主义的世界观。本文旨在对这些情况进行分析和纠正。古尔德和伊丽莎白弗尔巴最初提出的术语“exaptation”和“aptation”是非常有用的，不像方法论适应主义者对“exaptation”的淡化适应主义者的回应，这使得这个术语不连贯。我们将讨论外适应与功能、适应和适应的关系，包括初级的和次级的。由于进化心理学家的错误定义和误用，这些想法实际上已经变得毫无用处。
Some methodological adaptationists (perhaps unconsciously) hijacked the term "exaptation," and took an occasion of Stephen Jay Gould's misspeaking as confirmation that it possessed an evolutionarily "designed" function and was a version of an adaptation, something it was decidedly not. Others provided a standard of evidence for exaptation that was inappropriate, and based on an adaptationist worldview. This article is intended to serve as both an analysis of and correction to those situations. Gould and Elisabeth Vrba's terms, "exaptation" and "aptation," as originally introduced, are very useful, unlike the faded adaptationist echo of "exaptation" devised by the methodological adaptationists, which has made the term incoherent. We will discuss how exaptation relates to function, to aptation, and to adaptation, both primary and secondary. These ideas have been rendered practically useless through their mistaken definitions and misapplications by evolutionary psychologists.