Advertisement

Acta Biotheoretica

, 57:11 | Cite as

In What Sense Does ‘Nothing Make Sense Except in the Light of Evolution’?

  • Paul Edmund GriffithsEmail author
Regular Article

Abstract

Dobzhansky argued that biology only makes sense if life on earth has a shared history. But his dictum is often reinterpreted to mean that biology only makes sense in the light of adaptation. Some philosophers of science have argued in this spirit that all work in ‘proximal’ biosciences such as anatomy, physiology and molecular biology must be framed, at least implicitly, by the selection histories of the organisms under study. Others have denied this and have proposed non-evolutionary ways in which biologists can frame these investigations. This paper argues that an evolutionary perspective is indeed necessary, but that it must be a forward-looking perspective informed by a general understanding of the evolutionary process, not a backward-looking perspective informed by the specific evolutionary history of the species being studied. Interestingly, it turns out that there are aspects of proximal biology that even a creationist cannot study except in the light of a theory of their effect on future evolution.

Keywords

Teleology Function Dobzhansky Millikan 

References

  1. Amundson R, Lauder GV (1994) Function without purpose: the uses of causal role function in evolutionary biology. Biol Philos 9(4):443–470. doi: 10.1007/BF00850375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bigelow J, Pargetter R (1987) Functions. J Philos 54:181–196. doi: 10.2307/2027157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bock WJ, von Wahlert G (1965) Adaptation and the form-function complex. Evolution 19:269–299. doi: 10.2307/2406439 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandon RN (1981) Biological teleology: questions and explanations. Stud Hist Philos Sci 12:91–105. doi: 10.1016/0039-3681(81)90015-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brigandt I (2002) Homology and the origin of correspondence. Biol Philos 17:389–407. doi: 10.1023/A:1020196124917 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brigandt I (2003) Homology in comparative, molecular and evolutionary biology. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 299B:9–17. doi: 10.1002/jez.b.36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burian RM (2005) The epistemology of development, evolution, and genetics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Canfield J (1964) Teleological explanation in biology. Br J Philos Sci 14:285–295. doi: 10.1093/bjps/XIV.56.285 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christensen W (1996) A complex systems theory of teleology. Biol Philos 11(3):301–319. doi: 10.1007/BF00128784 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clout MN, Elliott GP, Robertson BC (2002) Effects of supplementary feeding on the offspring sex ratio of kakapo: a dilemma for the conservation of a polygynous parrot. Biol Conserv 107(1):13–18. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00267-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cummins R (1975) Functional analysis. J Philos 72:741–765. doi: 10.2307/2024640 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cummins R (1983) The nature of psychological explanation. Bradford/MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Davies PS (2001) Norms of nature: naturalism and the nature of functions. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Dawkins MS, Halliday TR, Dawkins R (eds) (1991) The Tinbergen legacy. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Delancey C (2006) Ontology and teleofunctions. Synthese 150:69–98. doi: 10.1007/s11229-004-6257-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diamond J (1982) Big-bang reproduction and ageing in male marsupial mice. Nature 298(5870):115–116. doi: 10.1038/298115a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diamond J (1997) Guns, germs, and steel: the fates of human societies. W. W. Norton & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Dobzhansky T (1973) Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Am Biol Teach 35:125–129Google Scholar
  19. Dupré J (ed) (1987) The latest on the best: essays on optimality & evolution. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Edin BB (2008) Assigning biological functions: making sense of causal chains. Synthese 161(2):203–218. doi: 10.1007/s11229-007-9160-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gasking EB (1967) Investigations into generation, 1651–1828. Johns Hopkins Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  22. Gintis H (2007) Book Review: David J. Buller. 2005. Adapting minds: evolutionary psychology and the persistent quest for human nature. J Bioeconomics 9(2):191–200. doi: 10.1007/s10818-007-9023-4
  23. Godfrey-Smith P (1993) Functions: consensus without unity. Pac Philos Q 74:196–208Google Scholar
  24. Godfrey-Smith P (1994) A modern history theory of functions. Noûs 28:344–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Godfrey-Smith P (2000) Three kinds of adaptationism. In: Orzack S, Sober E (eds) Optimality and adaptation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 335–357Google Scholar
  26. Gould SJ, Lewontin R (1978) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 205:581–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gould JA, Vrba ES (1982) Exaptation—a missing term in science of form. Paleobiology 8:4–15Google Scholar
  28. Griffiths PE (1992) Adaptive explanation and the concept of a vestige. In: Griffiths PE (ed) Trees of life: essays in philosophy of biology. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 111–131Google Scholar
  29. Griffiths PE (1993) Functional analysis & proper function. Br J Philos Sci 44:409–422. doi: 10.1093/bjps/44.3.409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Griffiths PE (2006) Function, homology and character individuation. Philos Sci 73(1):1–25. doi: 10.1086/510172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Griffiths PE (2007a) The phenomena of homology. Biol Philos 22(5):643–658. doi: 10.1007/s10539-007-9090-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Griffiths PE (2007b) Evo-Devo meets the mind: towards a developmental evolutionary psychology. In: Sansom R, Brandon RN (eds) Integrating development and evolution. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 195–225Google Scholar
  33. Lewens T (2004) Organisms and artifacts: design in nature and elsewhere. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Lorenz KZ (1966) Evolution of ritualisation in the biological and cultural spheres. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 251:273–284. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1966.0011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mayr E (1961) Cause and effect in biology. Science 131:1501–1506. doi: 10.1126/science.134.3489.1501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McLaughlin P (2001) What functions explain: functional explanation and self-reproducing systems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Millikan RG (1984) Language, thought and other biological categories. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Millikan RG (2002) Biofunctions: two paradigms. In: Cummins R, Ariew A, Perlman M (eds) Functions new readings in the philosophy of psychology and biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 113–143Google Scholar
  39. Moore HDM, Martin M, Birkhead TR (1999) No evidence for killer sperm or other selective interactions between human spermatozoa in ejaculates of different males in vitro. Proc R Soc Biol Sci 266(1436):2343–2350. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0929 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nahvi A, Sudarsan N, Ebert MS, Zou X, Brown KL, Breaker RR (2002) Genetic control by a metabolite binding mRNA. Chem Biol 9(9):1043–1049. doi: 10.1016/S1074-5521(02)00224-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Neander K (1991a) Functions as selected effects: the conceptual analyst’s defense. Philos Sci 58:168–184. doi: 10.1086/289610 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Neander K (1991b) The teleological notion of “function”. Australas J Philos 69(4):454–468. doi: 10.1080/00048409112344881 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Neander K (2002) Types of traits: the importance of functional homologues. In: Ariew A, Cummins R, Perlman M (eds) Functions: new essays in the philosophy of biology and psychology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Orzack S, Sober E (eds) (2001) Optimality and adaptation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Papineau D (1987) Reality and representation. Blackwell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Pigliucci M, Kaplan JM (2006) Making sense of evolution: the conceptual foundations of evolutionary theory. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  47. Pittendrigh CS (1958) Adaptation, natural selection and behavior. In: Roe A, Simpson GG (eds) Behavior and evolution. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 390–416Google Scholar
  48. Rosenberg A (2001) The character concept: adaptationalism to molecular developments. In: Wagner GP (ed) The character concept in evolutionary biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 201–216Google Scholar
  49. Rosenberg A (2006) Darwinian reductionism or, how to stop worrying and love molecular biology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  50. Schlosser G (1998) Self re-production and functionality: a systems-theoretical approach to teleological explanation. Synthese 116:303–354. doi: 10.1023/A:1005073307193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sober E (1984) The nature of selection: evolutionary theory in philosophical focus. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Tinbergen N (1963) On the aims and methods of ethology. Z Tierpsychol 20:410–433Google Scholar
  53. Weber M (2005) Philosophy of experimental biology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. Wimsatt WC (1972) Teleology and the logical structure of function statements. Stud Hist Philos Sci 3:1–80. doi: 10.1016/0039-3681(72)90014-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wimsatt WC (2007) Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: piecewise approximations to reality. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. Winther RG (2006) Parts and theories in compositional biology. Biol Philos 21(4):471–499. doi: 10.1007/s10539-005-9002-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wouters A (1995) Viability explanation. Biol Philos 10(4):435–457. doi: 10.1007/BF00857593 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wouters A (2003) Four notions of biological function. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 34:633–668. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2003.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wouters A (2005a) The functional perspective in evolutionary biology. In: Reydon TAC, Hemerik L (eds) Current themes in theoretical biology. Springer, Berlin, pp 33–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wouters A (2005b) The functions debate in philosophy. Acta Biotheor 53:123–151. doi: 10.1007/s10441-005-5353-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wouters A (2007) Design explanation: determining the constraints on what can be alive. Erkenntnis 67(1):65–80. doi: 10.1007/s10670-007-9045-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations