As I have said, the idea that organisms typically act to maximise their inclusive fitness—to the best of their understanding and ability—is a central explanatory principle in evolutionary biology.
That some organisms fail to maximise their actual fitness—due to mutations, due to being in an unfamiliar environment, due to resource limitations, or due to bad luck is not relevant evidence against this idea.
The Tooby and Cosmides dichotomy between Adaptation-Executers and Fitness-Maximizers that this blog post is about is a mostly a false one—based on muddling up “how” and “why” levels of explanation. Maximising their expected fitness is why organisms behave as they do. Executing adaptations is how they do it. These different types of explanations are complimentary, and are not mutually-exclusive.
@Z. M. Davis:
As I have said, the idea that organisms typically act to maximise their inclusive fitness—to the best of their understanding and ability—is a central explanatory principle in evolutionary biology.
That some organisms fail to maximise their actual fitness—due to mutations, due to being in an unfamiliar environment, due to resource limitations, or due to bad luck is not relevant evidence against this idea.
The Tooby and Cosmides dichotomy between Adaptation-Executers and Fitness-Maximizers that this blog post is about is a mostly a false one—based on muddling up “how” and “why” levels of explanation. Maximising their expected fitness is why organisms behave as they do. Executing adaptations is how they do it. These different types of explanations are complimentary, and are not mutually-exclusive.