{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0171939477303989, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.2388059701492535, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
HISTORICAL VERSUS SELECTIONIST EXPLANATIONS IN EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY

Abstract— Evolutionary changes require historical explanations, yet these are limited by the evolutionary processes we entertain and investigate. Using phylogenetic analysis, adaptation and natural selection can be tested as historical claims, but this is appropriate only in those special cases where change follows the scheme of one character‐one function, singled out in new environmental circumstances. Systematic treatment of the evolutionary origin of characters (in particular, origin through ecological and developmental flexibility) lies outside the scope of selectionist explanations. Structural hypotheses about regularities in the directions of change, also analyzed phylogenetically, expand the scope of historical explanation to include the origin of characters, yet retain the view of organisms as passive and constrained objects of evolutionary change. Historical biology needs to encompass both the active responses of organisms and the construction by organisms of their own environments. For this to be realized will require changes in the concepts and practices of evolutionary biology, including a re‐examination of the Lamarckian theme that the active responses of organisms have evolutionary significance—the rarity of individual‐to‐individual transmission of “acquired” characters does not disprove the possibility of their frequency increasing in a population.