Anyway, Novick’s critique of “adaptationism” must be heeded. With out explicitly weighing the prices of conceptual complexity towards the advantages, adaptationist hypotheses stay open to objection. There’ll all the time be the likelihood that some value has been neglected, some problem suppressed, within the service of the adaptationist narrative. Certainly, simply this appears to have occurred within the case of residing fossils. Right here what was neglected was the mischief attributable to the absence of shared evidential requirements for classifying residing fossils. This left open the likelihood that complexity developed by a type of conceptual drift, which enabled meanings to accrue not as a result of they had been helpful, however as a result of they weren’t actively dangerous.
Novick suggests in her paper that the majority ideas evolve on this neutralist style. Or at the least that we must always take severely the likelihood that they do. In her phrases, “Conceptual complexity might be web impartial or, extra exactly, almost impartial” (Novick 2022, 7). Which means it isn’t adaptive within the sense indicated above; however simply as considerably it isn’t deleterious. “Utilizing complicated ideas could also be barely useful or barely deleterious [depending on the concept]… however these (dis)benefits will not be so massive as to event a lot fear.” I discover myself questioning: is that this the place discussions of residing fossils are headed? Towards the conclusion that the advantages offered by conceptual complexity roughly stability out the prices? If that’s the case, we must say that the polysemous nature of “residing fossil” isn’t precisely useful, however neither is it a scientific catastrophe. Or maybe the scenario is extra critical than this, and the absence of a shared evidential framework actually does threaten the long-term viability of the idea. If an appropriate framework may be constructed, maybe the idea can dodge the sickle of purifying choice. If not it would most likely vanish, like so many sphenodontians within the forests and waterways of prehistory.
Carnal, M. 2016. Let’s make residing fossils extinct. The Guardian. July 6, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jul/06/why-its-time-to-make-living-fossils-extinct.
Casane, D. and Laurenti, P. 2013. Why coelacanths will not be “residing fossils.” BioEssays 35: 332–338.
Felice, R.N., Pol, D., and Goswami, A. 2021. Advanced macroevolutionary dynamics underlie the evolution of the crocodyliform cranium. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 20210919: doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.0919.
Herrera-Flores, J.A., Stubbs, T.L. and Benton, M.J. 2017. Macroevolutionary patterns in Rhynchocephalia: is the tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus) a residing fossil? Palaeontology 60:319–328.
Hopkins, M.J. and Lidgard, S. 2012. Evolutionary mode routinely varies amongst morphological traits inside fossil species lineages. Proceedings of the Nationwide Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 109:20520–20525.
Lidgard, S. and Kitchen, E. 2023. Revealing the rise of a residing fossil menagerie. Frontiers 11: doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2023.1112764.
Lidgard, S. and Love, A.C. 2018. Rethinking residing fossils. BioScience 68:760–770. https://tutorial.oup.com/bioscience/article/68/10/760/5065827.
Martínez, R.N., Simoes, T.R., Sobral, G. and Apesteguía, S. 2021. A Triassic stem lepidosaur illuminates the origin of lizard-like reptiles. Nature 597: doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03834-3.
Mathers, T.C., Hammond, R.L., Jenner, R.A., Hanfling, B. and Gomez, A. 2013. A number of international radiations in tadpole shrimps problem the idea of “residing fossils.” PeerJ 1 (artwork. e62). (17 January 2018; https://peerj.com/ articles/62).
Novick, R. 2023. The impartial idea of conceptual complexity. Philosophy of Science https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.25.
Rescher, N. 2000. Pluralism: towards the demand for consensus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Simoes, T.R., Kinney-Broderick, G., and Pierce, S.E. 2022. An exceptionally preserved Sphenodon-like sphenodontian reveals deep time conservation of the tuatara skeleton and ontogeny. Communications Biology 5:1–19.
Sterner, B. 2022. Explaining ambiguity in scientific language. Synthese 200:354. doi: 10.1007/s11229-022-03792-x.
Sterner, B. 2023. Norms of proof within the classification of residing fossils. Frontiers 11: https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2023.1198224.
Sterner, B. and Lidgard, S. 2021. Objectivity and underdetermination in statistical mannequin choice. British Journal for Philosophy of Science. doi: 10.1086/716243.
Vanschoenwinkel, B., Pinceel, T., Vanhove, M.P.M., Denis, C., Jocque, M., Timms, B.V. and Brendonck, L. 2012. Towards a worldwide phylogeny of the “residing fossil” crustacean order of the Notostraca. PLOS ONE 7 (artwork. e34998).