Evolution and Two Popular Proposals for the Definition of Function |
| |
Authors: | Robert Arp |
| |
Institution: | (1) Southwest Minnesota State University, 1501 State Street, Marshall, 56258, MN, USA |
| |
Abstract: | Summary In the biological realm, a complete explanation of a trait seems to include an explanation in terms of function. It is natural
to ask of some trait, “What is its function?” or “What purpose in the organism does the particular trait serve?” or “What
is the goal of its activity?” There are several views concerning the appropriate definition of function for biological matters.
Two popular views of function with respect to living things are Cummins’ organizational account and the Griffiths/Godfrey-Smith
modern history account. Whereas Cummins argues that a trait functions so as to contribute to the general organization of some
organism’s present structure, Griffiths, and Godfrey-Smith argue that a trait functions because of its fitness with respect
to the organism’s recent evolutionary history. In this paper, I show how these accounts can be made compatible and compliment
one another. Given that structure, organization, operational flexibility, function, and evolutionary history are all factors
to be considered in an organism’s makeup, we should expect that the traits of an organism function the way they do because
such traits presently contribute to the overall organization of the organism (Cummins) as well as were selected for in the
organism’s species’ recent ancestry (Griffiths/Godfrey-Smith). |
| |
Keywords: | adaptation cummins evolution function Godfrey-Smith Griffiths |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|