Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A Critical Overview of Biological FunctionsFunction and Fitness

A Critical Overview of Biological Functions: Function and Fitness [This chapter focuses on the fitness-contribution theory of function, which holds, roughly, that the function of a trait consists in its typical contribution to the fitness of the organisms that possess it. I begin by surveying several different theories within this family, and I show why any plausible version must include a statistical element. I then pose three questions that any proponent of the fitness-contribution theory must answer. First, is fitness a relative notion? When one says a trait “contributes to fitness,” is one saying it contributes to fitness better than some alternative? If so, when we attribute a function to a trait, how do we specify the relevant alternatives? Second, is fitness relative to specific environments? If so, then when we attribute a function to a trait, how do we specify the relevant environments? Third, what precisely must a trait contribute to in order to have a function? Is it survival, reproduction, inclusive fitness, or something else? I then critically assess a major argument in its favor, namely, that it coheres well with the way biologists actually use the term. I consider three different interpretations of this claim and I argue that it does not, in fact, provide an advantage over the selected effects theory in this regard. I close by considering how well it satisfies the adequacy conditions set out in Chap. 1. Theorists disagree about whether the fitness-contribution theory can make sense of the explanatory and normative aspects of function and I survey those disagreements.] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

A Critical Overview of Biological FunctionsFunction and Fitness

Part of the SpringerBriefs in Philosophy Book Series
Garson, Justin
Springer Journals — Mar 31, 2016
Download PDF
13 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/a-critical-overview-of-biological-functions-function-and-fitness-T5y09A0kLO
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2016
ISBN
978-3-319-32018-2
Pages
67 –80
DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-32020-5_4
Publisher site
See Chapter on Publisher Site

Abstract

[This chapter focuses on the fitness-contribution theory of function, which holds, roughly, that the function of a trait consists in its typical contribution to the fitness of the organisms that possess it. I begin by surveying several different theories within this family, and I show why any plausible version must include a statistical element. I then pose three questions that any proponent of the fitness-contribution theory must answer. First, is fitness a relative notion? When one says a trait “contributes to fitness,” is one saying it contributes to fitness better than some alternative? If so, when we attribute a function to a trait, how do we specify the relevant alternatives? Second, is fitness relative to specific environments? If so, then when we attribute a function to a trait, how do we specify the relevant environments? Third, what precisely must a trait contribute to in order to have a function? Is it survival, reproduction, inclusive fitness, or something else? I then critically assess a major argument in its favor, namely, that it coheres well with the way biologists actually use the term. I consider three different interpretations of this claim and I argue that it does not, in fact, provide an advantage over the selected effects theory in this regard. I close by considering how well it satisfies the adequacy conditions set out in Chap. 1. Theorists disagree about whether the fitness-contribution theory can make sense of the explanatory and normative aspects of function and I survey those disagreements.]

Published: Mar 31, 2016

Keywords: Fitness-contribution functions; Boorse functions; Propensity functions; Biostatistical functions; Forward-looking functions

There are no references for this article.