Abstract
Stephen J. Gould’s concern for the wide variety of explanations for evolutionary change was one of his chief intellectual contributions. In one of his most famous papers, “The Spandrels of San Marco”, named in honor of Venice’s own most gloried church, and which he co-authored with Richard C. Lewontin, he emphasized the importance of historical, correlational, byproduct, and phyletic evolutionary explanations, and contrasted these with adaptationist explanations. In this Article, I take a more formal approach to discussing Gould’s analysis of evolutionary explanations, now 33 years later. My analysis rests on the “logic of research questions”, and contrasts a “methodological adaptationist” approach, to what I call the “evolutionary factors” approach. In the former, the key research question is: “What is the function of this trait?” while in the latter, the research question is: “what evolutionary factors account for the form and distribution of this trait?” I use my case study on the evolution of the female orgasm, which Gould defended in his column, and was one of his favorite examples, to illustrate how the methodological adaptationist approach can lead scientists astray. (Reports of a serious challenge to the byproduct account, based on recent poorly-designed twin studies, are unsupportable.) Biases induced by methodological adaptationism have led biologists to a failure to compare the byproduct hypothesis against an adaptive one with regard to the evidence. Perhaps, then, it is past time to take Gould’s advice, and reevaluate whether methodological adaptationism is truly as benign as it is commonly assumed to be.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alcock J (1987) Ardent adaptationism. Nat Hist 96:4
Alcock J (1998) Unpunctuated equilibrium and the natural history essays of Stephen Jay Gould. Evol Hum Behav 19:321–336
Baker R, Bellis M (1993) Human sperm competition: ejaculate manipulation by females and a function for the female orgasm. Anim Behav 46:887–909
Bancroft J (1989) Human sexuality and its problems. Churchill Livingstone, New York
Barash DP, Lipton JE (2009) How women got their curves and other just-so stories: evolutionary enigmas. Columbia University Press, New York
Dawood K, Kirk KM, Bailey JM, Andrew P, Martin N (2005) Genetic and environmental influences on the frequency of orgasm in women. Twin Res Hum Genet 8:27–33
Dewsbury DA (1992) On the problems studied in ethology, comparative psychology, and animal behavior. Ethology 92:89–107
Dunn KM, Cherkas LF, Spector TD (2005) Genetic influences on variation in female orgasmic function: a twin study. Biol Lett 1:260–263
Godfrey-Smith P (2001) Three kinds of adaptationism. In: Orzack SH, Sober E (eds) Adaptationism and optimality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 344–362
Gould SJ (1987) Freudian slip. Nat Hist 96:14–21
Gould SJ, Lewontin RC (1979) The spandrels of san Marco and the panglossian paradigm. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 205:581–598
Hosken DJ (2008) Clitoral variation says nothing about female orgasm. Evol Dev 10:393–395
Kinsey A, Pomeroy WB, Martin CE, Gebhard PH (1953) Sexual behavior in the human female. Indiana University Press, Indianapolis
Levin R (2010) Can the controversy about the putative role of the human female orgasm in sperm transport be settled with our current physiological knowledge of coitus? J Sex Med 8:1566–1578
Lindquist SJ (2006) When is an orgasm just an orgasm? Elisabeth Lloyd’s The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution. Metascience 15:411–419
Lloyd EA (2005) The case of the female orgasm: bias in the science of evolution. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Italian ed (2006) Il caso dell’orgasmo femminile: Pregiudizio nella scienza dell’evoluzione (Trans. Elisa Faravelli). Torino, Codice
Mayr E (1983) How to carry out the adaptationist program? Am Nat 121:324–334
Pomiankowski A, Møller AP (1995) A resolution to the lek paradox. Proc R Soc Lond B 260:21–29
Puts DA, Welling LLM, Burriss RP, Dawood K (2012) Men’s masculinity and attractiveness predict their female partners’ reported orgasm frequency and timing. Evol Hum Behav 33:1–9
Sherman P (1989) The clitoris debate and the levels of analysis. Anim Behav 37:697–698
Smith D (2005) A critic takes on the logic of female orgasm. New York Times, May 17, 2005, Science Section, pp 1–3
Thornhill R, Gangestad SW, Comer R (1995) Human female orgasm and mate fluctuating asymmetry. Anim Behav 50:1601–1615
Wallen K, Lloyd EA (2008a) Clitoral variability compared with penile variability supports nonadaptation of female orgasm. Evol Dev 10:1–2
Wallen K, Lloyd EA (2008b) Inappropriate comparisons and the weakness of cryptic choice: a reply to Vincent J Lynch and D.J. Hosken. Evol Dev 10:398–399
Wallen K, Lloyd EA (2011) Female sexual arousal: genital anatomy and orgasm in intercourse. Horm Behav 59:780–792
Wallen K, Myers PZ, Lloyd EA (2012) Zietsch & Santtila’s study is not evidence against the by-product theory of female orgasm. Anim Behav 84:e1–e4
Zietsch BP, Santtila P (2011) Genetic analysis of orgasmic function in twins and siblings does not support the by-product theory of female orgasm. Anim Behav 82:1097-1101
Zietsch BP, Miller GF, Bailey JM, Martin NG (2011) Female orgasm rates are largely independent of other tratis: implications for “female orgasmic disorder” and evolutionary theories of orgasm. J Sex Med 8:2305–2316
Acknowledgments
Special thank you to Trin Turner, Ryan Ketcham, Sebastiano Pedrocco, Telmo Pievani, and the organizers of the conference in honor of Stephen Jay Gould’s legacy.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Italia
About this paper
Cite this paper
Lloyd, E.A. (2013). Stephen J. Gould and Adaptation: San Marco 33 Years Later. In: Danieli, G., Minelli, A., Pievani, T. (eds) Stephen J. Gould: The Scientific Legacy. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-5424-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-5424-0_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Milano
Print ISBN: 978-88-470-5423-3
Online ISBN: 978-88-470-5424-0
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)