I will argue that Gould and Lewontin fail to prove adaptationism is an unreasonable approach for which there is a potential alternative. Gould and Lewontin claim that adaptationists do not explore alternative solutions, but it is the job of an evolutionary biologist to consider the organism for all its traits in light of its evolutionary history. In other words, scientists do not research the spandrel without researching the architecture surrounding it. For this reason, many testable avenues are pursued, only when no other solution is found can it be concluded that an organism has evolved through genetic drift. After examining all courses of action, the only scientifically reasonable endeavor is to research adaptation. The intense focus on adaptation is reasonable because chance cannot be directly tested whereas adaption can. Gould and Lewontin want to see scientists testing other methods, but they do not specify at what point they should abandon their search for adaptive explanations and settle for the alternative. Lacking from Gould and Lewontin’s critique is a resolution to the problem. Gould and Lewontin fail to prove that adaptationism is an unreasonable approach for which there is an adequate and appropriate
I will argue that Gould and Lewontin fail to prove adaptationism is an unreasonable approach for which there is a potential alternative. Gould and Lewontin claim that adaptationists do not explore alternative solutions, but it is the job of an evolutionary biologist to consider the organism for all its traits in light of its evolutionary history. In other words, scientists do not research the spandrel without researching the architecture surrounding it. For this reason, many testable avenues are pursued, only when no other solution is found can it be concluded that an organism has evolved through genetic drift. After examining all courses of action, the only scientifically reasonable endeavor is to research adaptation. The intense focus on adaptation is reasonable because chance cannot be directly tested whereas adaption can. Gould and Lewontin want to see scientists testing other methods, but they do not specify at what point they should abandon their search for adaptive explanations and settle for the alternative. Lacking from Gould and Lewontin’s critique is a resolution to the problem. Gould and Lewontin fail to prove that adaptationism is an unreasonable approach for which there is an adequate and appropriate