You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Defending Evo‐Devo: A Response to Hoekstra and Coyne*
Lindsay R. Craig
Philosophy of Science
Vol. 76, No. 3 (July 2009), pp. 335-344
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/649808
Page Count: 10
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Biological evolution, Genes, Divergent evolution, Evolution, Phenotypic traits, Gene duplication, Genetics, Biology, Phenomena, Species
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
The study of evolutionary developmental biology (“evo‐devo”) has recently experienced a dramatic surge in popularity among researchers and theorists concerned with evolution. However, some biologists and philosophers remain skeptical of the claims of evo‐devo. This paper discusses and responds to the recent high profile criticisms of evo‐devo presented by biologists Hopi E. Hoekstra and Jerry A. Coyne. I argue that their objections are unconvincing. Indeed, empirical research supports the main tenets of evo‐devo, including the claim that morphological evolution is the result of cis‐regulatory change and the distinction that evo‐devo draws between morphological and physiological traits.
Copyright 2009 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved.