Department of Zoology, Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, Tartu University, Vanemuise 46, 51014 Tartu, Estonia.
Med Hypotheses. 2010 Apr;74(4):746-9. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2009.11.003. Epub 2009 Dec 5.
Evolutionary explanations, many of which have appeared on the pages of this journal, are becoming more pervasive and influential in medicine, so it is becoming more important to understand how these types of explanations differ from the proximate approach that is more common in medicine, and how the evolutionary approach can contribute to medicine. Understanding of any biological phenomenon can occur at four levels: (1) ontogeny (2) causation, (3) function and (4) evolution. These approaches are not mutually exclusive, and whereas the first two are more common in medical practice, a complete explanation requires all four levels of analysis. Two major differences among these approaches are the apparent degree of immediacy associated with them, and the extent to which they apply to individuals rather than populations. Criticisms of adaptive explanations often arise from a failure to understand the complementary nature of these four types of explanations. Other unwarranted criticisms result from a failure to appreciate that adaptive explanations often apply to populations, not individuals. A third type of criticism is driven by the mistaken belief that adaptive explanations somehow justify morally reprehensible behaviours. Finally, evolutionary explanations sometimes face the criticism of "personal incredulity". Adaptive explanations must be consistent with basic evolutionary concepts and must adhere to the physical reality of the phenomenon in question. Their value, however, comes not in devising a seemingly rational explanation, but in their predictions. Testable predictions must be explicitly stated and clearly articulated. They must differ from those of arising from other hypotheses and must not only be interesting to evolutionary biologists, but also useful to medical practitioners. Integration of the proximate and the ultimate approaches is possible and potentially beneficial to both evolutionists and physicians, but it requires some basic understanding of our differences and a desire to co-operate.
进化解释,其中许多已经出现在本杂志的页面上,在医学中变得越来越普遍和有影响力,因此,了解这些类型的解释与在医学中更为常见的近因方法有何不同,以及进化方法如何为医学做出贡献变得更加重要。对任何生物学现象的理解都可以在四个层次上发生:(1)个体发生(2)原因(3)功能和(4)进化。这些方法并不是相互排斥的,虽然前两种方法在医学实践中更为常见,但完整的解释需要对所有四个层次进行分析。这些方法的两个主要区别在于与它们相关的直接程度,以及它们适用于个体而不是群体的程度。对适应解释的批评往往源于未能理解这四种解释类型的互补性质。其他没有根据的批评源于未能认识到适应解释通常适用于群体,而不是个体。第三种批评是由错误的信念驱动的,即适应解释以某种方式为道德上应受谴责的行为辩护。最后,进化解释有时会面临“个人怀疑”的批评。适应解释必须与基本的进化概念一致,并且必须遵守所讨论现象的物理现实。然而,它们的价值不在于设计看似合理的解释,而在于它们的预测。可测试的预测必须明确陈述和清晰表达。它们必须与其他假设产生的预测不同,不仅对进化生物学家有意义,而且对医学从业者也有帮助。近因和终极方法的结合是可能的,并且对进化生物学家和医生都有潜在的好处,但需要对我们的差异有一些基本的了解,并愿意合作。