Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T01:53:48.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biological Function, Adaptation, and Natural Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Colin Allen and
Marc Bekoff
Colin Allen
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy Texas A&M University
Marc Bekoff
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental, Population, and Organismic Biology University of Colorado, Boulder
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recently something close to a consensus about the best way to naturalize the notion of biological function appears to be emerging. Nonetheless, teleological notions in biology remain controversial. In this paper we provide a naturalistic analysis for the notion of natural design. Many authors assume that natural design should be assimilated directly to function. Others find the notion problematic because it suggests that evolution is a directed process. We argue that both of these views are mistaken. Our naturalistic account does not simply equate design with function. We argue that the distinction between function and design is important for understanding the evolution of the physical and behavioral traits of organisms.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , December 1995, pp. 609 - 622
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

We thank our colleagues at Texas A&M and the University of Colorado, Boulder, for discussing these issues with us. Conversations with Ruth Millikan and Rob Cummins have also helped us enormously. Finally, we thank Lawrence Shapiro, Elliott Sober, John Fentress, Kim Sterelny, Susan Townsend, Robert Eaton, and Nick Thompson for helpful comments on earlier and less optimal versions of this work. Parts of this essay were adapted from Allen & Bekoff 1995. CA gratefully acknowledges the support of NSF fellowship SBR-9320214 during preparation of this manuscript; MB was supported by a sabbatical leave from the University of Colorado, Boulder.

‡

Send reprint requests to Colin Allen, Department of Philosophy, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843–4237, USA.

References

Achinstein, P. (1977), “Function Statements”, Philosophy of Science 44: 360–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alcock, J. (1993), Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach, 5th edition. New York: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Allen, C. and Bekoff, M. (1995), “Function, Natural Design, and Animal Behavior: Philosophical and Ethological Considerations”, in Thompson, N. S. (ed.), Perspectives in Ethology 11. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 1–46.Google Scholar
Allen, C. and Hauser, M. D. (1993), “Communication and Cognition: Is Information the Connection?”, PSA vol 2: 81–91.Google Scholar
Ayala, F. J. (1977), “Teleological Explanations”, in Dobzhansky, T. (ed.), Evolution. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., pp. 497–504.Google ScholarPubMed
Bekoff, M. (1977), “Social Communication in Canids: Evidence for the Evolution of a Stereotyped Mammalian Display”, Science 197: 1097–1099.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bekoff, M. (1982), “Functional Aspects of Play as Revealed by Structural Components and Social Interaction Patterns”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5: 156–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekoff, M. (1988), “Motor Training and Physical Fitness: Possible Short and Long Term Influences on the Development of Individual Differences in Behavior”, Developmental Psychobiology 21: 601–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekoff, M. (1989a), “Social Play and Physical Training: When ‘Not Enough’ May be Plenty”, Ethology 80: 330–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekoff, M. (1989b), “Behavioral Development of Terrestrial Carnivores”, in Gittleman, J. L. (ed.), Carnivore Behavior, Ecology, and Evolution. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 89–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekoff, M. and Byers, J. A. (1981), “A Critical Reanalysis of the Ontogeny and Phylogeny of Mammalian Social and Locomotor Play: An Ethological Hornet's Nest”, in Immelmann, K., Barlow, G. W., Petrinovich, L. and Main, M. (eds.), Behavioral Development: The Bielefeld Interdisciplinary Project. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 296–337.Google Scholar
Brown, J. L. (1975), The Evolution of Behavior. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Byers, J. A. and Bekoff, M. (1990), “Inference in Social Evolution Theory: A Case Study”, in Bekoff, M. and Jamieson, D. (eds.), Interpretation and Explanation in the Study of Animal Behavior: Vol. 2, Explanation, Evolution, and Adaptation. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 84–97.Google Scholar
Cummins, R. (1975/1984), “Functional Analysis”, Journal of Philosophy 72: 741–765. Reprinted with minor alterations in Sober, E. (ed.), (1984), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 386–407.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1986), The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Dennett, D.C. (1971), “Intentional Systems”, Journal of Philosophy 68: 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D.C. (1983/1987), “Intentional Systems in Cognitive Ethology: The Panglossian Paradigm Defended”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6: 343–390. Reprinted in Dennett, D. C., (1987), The Intentional Stance, pp. 237–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D.C. (1987), The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Drickamer, L. and Vessey, S. H. (1992), Animal Behavior: Mechanisms, Ecology, and Evolution, Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown.Google Scholar
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1975), Ethology: The Biology of Behavior. Second Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Fagen, R. (1981), Animal Play Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. (1994), “A Modern History Theory of Functions”, Noûs 28: 344–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golani, I. (1992), “A Mobility Gradient in the Organization of Movement: The Perception of Movement Through Symbolic Language”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 15: 249–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, D. M., Paul, R. E., and Thorpe, K. (1993), “What is the Function of Encounter Patterns in Ant Colonies?”, Animal Behaviour 45: 1083–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1980), The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. and Lewontin, R. (1978), “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme”, Proceedings of the Royal Society London. Reprinted in Sober, E. (ed.), (1984), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 252–270.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. and Vrba, E. S. (1982), “Exaptation—A Missing Term in the Science of Form”, Paleobiology 8: 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, P. (1992), “Adaptive Explanation and the Concept of a Vestige”, in Griffiths, P. (ed.), Trees of Life. Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, P. E. (1993), “Functional Analysis and Proper Functions”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44: 409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hass, C. C. and Jenni, D. A. (1993), “Social Play Among Juvenile Bighorn Sheep: Structure, Development, and Relationship to Adult Behavior”, Ethology 93: 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holley, A. J. F. (1993), “Do Brown Hares Signal to Foxes?”, Ethology 94: 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1988), “Progress in Ideas of Progress”, in Nitecki, M. H. (ed.), Evolutionary Progress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 27–48.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1993), “Function and Design”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy XVIII, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 379–397.Google Scholar
Leyhausen, P. (1979), Cat Behavior. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Manning, A. and Dawkins, M. S. (1993), An Introduction to Animal Behaviour. Fourth Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marler, P. and Hamilton, W. D. III (1966), Mechanisms of Animal Behavior. New York: Wiley.Google ScholarPubMed
Martin, P. and Caro, P. M. (1985), “On the Functions of Play and its Role in Behavioral Development”, Advances in the Study of Behavior 15: 59–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1974/1988), “The Multiple Meanings of Teleological”, reprinted with a new postscript in E. Mayr (1988) Towards a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 38–66.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. G. (1984), Language Thought and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. G. (1989), “An Ambiguity in the Notion of Function”, Biology and Philosophy 4: 172–176.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. G. (1993), White Queen Psychology and other essays for Alice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, S. (1993), “Dispositions or Etiologies? A Comment on Bigelow and Pargetter”, Journal of Philosophy 90: 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, E. (1961/1984), “The Structure of Teleological Explanations”, in Nagel, E. (ed.), The Structure of Science. Indianapolis: Hackett, pp. 401–427. Reprinted in Sober, E. (ed.), (1984), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 319–346.Google Scholar
Neander, K. (1991a), “The teleological notion of ‘function’”, Australian Journal of Philosophy 69(4): 454–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neander, K. (1991b), “Functions as Selected Effects: The Conceptual Analyst's Defence”, Philosophy of Science 58: 168–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitecki, M. H., (ed.), (1988), Evolutionary Progress, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ollason, J. G. (1987), “Foraging Theory and Design”, in Kamil, A. C., Krebs, J. R., and Pulliam, H. R. (eds.), Foraging Behavior. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 549–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellis, S. M. (1993), “Sex and the Evolution of Play Fighting: A Review and Model Based on the Behavior of Muroid Rodents”, Play Theory and Research 1: 55–75.Google Scholar
Rasa, O. A. E. (1973), “Prey Capture, Feeding Techniques, and their Ontogeny in the African Dwarf Mongoose Helogale Undulate Rufula”, Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 332: 449–488.Google Scholar
Reeve, H. K. and Sherman, P. W. (1993), “Adaptation and the Goals of Evolutionary Research”, Quarterly Review of Biology 68(1): 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, M. (1993), “Evolution and Progress”, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8(2): 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. (1993), Philosophy of Biology. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. (1952), “‘Derived’ Activities, Their Causation, Biological Significance and Emancipation During Evolution”, Quarterly Review of Biology 27: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tinbergen, N. (1963), “On Aims and Methods of Ethology”, Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 20: 410–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Parijs, P. (1982), Evolutionary Explanation in the Social Sciences: An Emerging Paradigm. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Watson, D. M. and Croft, D. B. (1993), “Playfighting in Captive Red-necked Wallabies, Macropus rofogriseus banksianus”, Macropus rofogriseus banksianus 126: 219–245.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1966), Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, L. (1973/1984), “Functions”, Philosophical Review 82: 139–168. Reprinted in Sober, E. (ed.), (1984), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 347–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, L. (1976), Teleological Explanations, Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar