000			02100cab a2200253 a 4500
001			029907
003			UAHC_CL
005			20170803123139.0
008			110708s2011 us 000 eng
040			_aUAHC_CL _cUAHC_CL _dUAHC_CL
100	1		_aLansing, J. Stephen
245	1	4	_aThe domain of the replicators : _bselection, neutrality, and cultural evolution / _cJ. Stephen Lansing, Murray P. Cox.
260			_bUniversity of Chicago _aChicago _c2011
300			_app. 105-125
500			_aEn: Current Anthropology. Vol. 52, No. 1, 2011. pp. 105-125.
520			_aDo cultural phenomena undergo evolutionary change, in a Darwinian sense? If so, is evolutionary game theory (EGT) the best way to study them? Opinion on these questions is sharply divided. Proponents of EGT argue that it offers a unified theoretical framework for the social sciences, while critics even deny that Darwinian models are appropriately applied to culture. To evaluate these claims, we examine three facets of cultural evolution: (i) cultural traits that evolve by Darwinian selection, (ii) cultural traits that affect biological fitness, and (iii) coevolution of culture and biology, where selection in one affects evolutionary outcomes in the other. For each of these cases, the relevance of EGT depends on whether its assumptions are met. Those assumptions are quite restrictive: selection is constant, time horizons are deep, the external environment is not part of the game, and neutral processes such as drift are irrelevant. If these conditions are not met, other evolutionary models such as neutrality, coalescence theory, or niche construction may prove more appropriate. We conclude that Darwinian processes can occur in all three types of cultural or biological change. However, exclusive reliance on EGT can obscure the respective roles of selective and neutral processes.
650		4	_aORIGENES DE LAS ESPECIES
650		4	_aSELECCION NATURAL
650		4	_aEVOLUCION SOCIAL
700	1		_aCox, Murray P.
759			_aPP051
773	0		_tCurrent anthropology. _w029906
900			_aCURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY-01/11
942			_cREVA
999			_c29907 _d29907