Distinction between Form and Biological Function

Consequences for the Radical Contingency Thesis

Authors

Keywords:

contingency, evolution, natural selection, biological functions

Abstract

The radical contingency thesis (RCT) claims that evolved biological traits are contingent in the sense that are unpredictable, because their evolution depends on the happenings of previous evolutive states, which, despite ending in some specific biological forms, could have derived in very different ones. This paper offers a new version about evolutive contingency, understood as the sharp distinction between function and biological form. There are enough elements for supporting the idea that, given the way natural selection works, in which the environment plays a key role, there is a clear distinction between biological form and function. This view implies contingency regarding the strategies that natural selection uses for accomplishing the varied required functions, but convergence in the general functions that traits are intended to fulfill. This view sheds light on the very nature of biological contingency in the sense that it shows that contingency is impossible if some general and basic functional effects are posited for every living organism.

References

Allen, C. & Bekoff M. (1995). Biological function, adaptation, and natural design. Philosophy of Science, 62(4), pp. 609-622. https://www.jstor.org/stable/188555

Bartlett, S., & Wong, M. (2020). Defining lyfe in the universe: From three privileged functions to four pillars. Life, 10(4), 42. http://doi.org/10.3390/life10040042

Beatty, J. (2006). Replaying life's tape. The Journal of Philosophy, 103(7), 336-362. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20619950

Caponi, G. (2010). Análisis funcionales y explicaciones seleccionales en biología. Una crítica de la concepción etiológica del concepto de función. Ideas y Valores, 59(143), 51-72. https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/idval/article/view/36654

Cummins, R. (1975). Functional analysis. The Journal of Philosophy, 72(20), 741-765. https://doi.org/10.2307/2024640

Darwin, C. R. (1872). The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life (6th ed.). Londres: John Murray. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

Emerson, S. B. (2001). A macroevolutionary study of historical contingency in the fanged frogs of Southeast Asia. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 73(1), 139–151 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2001.tb01352.x

Gould, S. J. (1989). Wonderful life: The Burgess Shale and the nature of history. New York: W. W Norton.

Gould S. J., & Vrba, E. S. (1982). Exaptation –a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8(1), 4-15. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0094837300004310

Griffiths, P. (1992). Adaptive explanation and the concept of a vestige. En P. Griffiths (Ed.), Trees of life: Essays in philosophy of biology (pp. 111-131). Londres: Springer.

Keijzer, F. A. (2017). Evolutionary convergence and biologically embodied cognition. Interface Focus, 7(3), 20160123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2016.0123

Losos, J. B., Jackman, T. R., Larson, A., de Queiroz, K., & Rodríguez-Schettino, L. (1998). Contingency and determinism in replicated adaptive radiations of island lizards. Science, 279(5359), 2115-2118. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.279.5359.2115

Neander, K. (1988) What does natural selection explain? Correction to Sober. Philosophy of Science, 55(3), 422-426. https://www.jstor.org/stable/187658

Neander, K. (1995). Pruning the tree of life, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 46(1), 59- 80

Powell, R., & Mariscal, C. (2015). Convergent evolution as natural experiment: The tape of life reconsidered. Interface Focus, 5(6), 20150040. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2015.0040

Rosenblum, E., Parent, C., & Brandt, E. (2014). The molecular basis of phenotypic convergence. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 45, 203-226. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091851

Starr, T. N., Picton, L. K., & Thornton, J. W. (2017). Alternative evolutionary histories in the sequence space of an ancient protein. Nature 549, 409–413. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23902

Sober, E. (1984). The nature of selection: Evolutionary theory in philosophical focus. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Sober, E. (2000). Philosophy of biology (2nd Ed.). Routledge.

Solé, R., & Goodwin, B. (2000). Signs of life: How complexity pervades biology. New York: Basic Books.

Travisano, M., Vasi, F., & Lenski, R. E. (1995). Long-Term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. III. Variation among the replicate populations in correlated responses to novel environments. Evolution, 49(1), 189-200. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1995.tb05970.x

Yedid, G., Ofria, C. A., & Lenski, R. E. (2008). Historical and contingent factors affect re-evolution of a complex feature lost during mass extinction in communities of digital organisms. Journal of Evolutionary Bibliology, 21(5), 1335–1357. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01564.x

Wong, T. Y. W. (2019). The evolutionary contingency thesis and evolutionary idiosyncrasies. Biology & Philosophy, 34(22). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-019-9684-0

Wright, L. (1973). Functions. The Philosophical Review, 82(2), 139-68. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183766.

Downloads

Published

2021-06-08

How to Cite

Distinction between Form and Biological Function: Consequences for the Radical Contingency Thesis. (2021). Epistemología E Historia De La Ciencia, 5(2), 82-104. https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/afjor/article/view/32434