The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Optimality Models and the Test of Adaptationism
Abstract
The use of optimality models in the investigation of adaptation remains controversial. Critics charge that advocates of the optimality approach assume that the traits they analyze are optimal. Advocates of the approach deny this but admit to assuming that the traits have adaptive explanations. This controversy is part of the ongoing debate about adaptationism. We believe that this controversy remains unresolved in part because of ambiguity in the definition of adaptationism. In this article, we clarify the thesis of adaptationism, show how the structure of optimality models relates to that thesis, and describe how the thesis of adaptationism is testable. In addition, we describe the types of analyses that are essential to a test of an optimality model if the optimality of the trait is to be assessed and if assessments of the success of specific models are to contribute to a test of adaptationism. These analyses allow one to distinguish between the hypothesis that natural selection has had some influence or an important influence on a trait and the hypothesis that the trait is optimal. At present, to our knowledge, there are only two sets of studies in evolutionary biology in which this critical distinction has been made.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme
Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.1979.0086 · Cited by 7,770 · cited 1×
“…as a result, the assumption of optimality need not be questioned (see Lewontin 1978; May- 365 OPTIMALITY MODELS AND ADAPTATIONISM nard Sinith 1978; Gould and Lewontin 1979; Mayr 1983; Sober 1988; Cain 1989; Mitchell and Valone 1990; and Parker and Maynard Smith 1990 for claims and counterclaims…”
BackgroundA Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection, Part V: Selection and Mutation
Haldane, J. B. S. (1927) · Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · doi:10.1017/s0305004100015644 · Cited by 1,326
Cited by
Idealization and the Aims of Science
Potochnik, A. (2017) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226507194.001.0001 · Cited by 421
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2001) · Adaptationism and Optimality · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609084.012 · Cited by 259
Mikhalevich, I., Powell, R., & Logan, C. (2017) · Interface Focus · doi:10.1098/rsfs.2016.0121 · Cited by 76
Convergent evolution and the limits of natural selection
Powell, R. (2012) · European Journal for Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s13194-012-0047-9 · Cited by 51
Stephens, C. L. (2001) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1023/a:1010358100423 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Orzack, S. H., & Sober, E.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1994-03
- Volume
- 143
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 361-380
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W2095426736
- Cited by
- 332
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Optimality Models and the Test of Adaptationism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/285608
- The paper
- Orzack, S. H., & Sober, E. (1994). Optimality Models and the Test of Adaptationism. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/285608
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.