Hegel's Organizational Account of Biological Functions

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Edgar Maraguat
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Biological Function ◽  
The Other ◽  
Proper Function ◽  
Biological Functions ◽  
Real Work ◽  
Organizational Account ◽  
Philosophical Debates ◽  
Self Production

Abstract Two concepts have polarized the philosophical debates on functions since the 1970s. One is Millikan's concept of ‘proper function’, meant to capture the aetiology of biological organs and artefacts. The other is Cummins's concept of ‘dispositional function’, designed to account for the real work that functional devices perform within a system. In this paper I locate Hegel's concept of biological function in the context of those debates. Admittedly, Hegel's concept is ‘etiological’, since in his account the existence of purposive organs is explained by appeal to their purpose, yet, against Millikan's concept, Hegel's does not presuppose the phenomenon of natural selection nor derives the function of tokens from the function of types. So, my aim is, first, to present Hegel's approach to biological functions as one neither purely etiological nor purely dispositional. It will appear rather as an example of an organizational account (as those advocated today by McLaughlin, Mossio and others), that attributes function according to present performances (unlike etiological accounts) and emphasizes the role of functional parts in their self-production within the system they belong to (unlike dispositional accounts). Finally, I briefly discuss how Hegel's concept performs against common objections to organizational accounts.

scholarly journals Translating “natural selection” in Japanese: from “shizen tōta” to “shizen sentaku”, and back?

Bionomina ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taizo KIJIMA ◽  
Thierry HOQUET
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Other ◽  
First Finding ◽  
Restriction Policy ◽  
History Of ◽  
Japanese Translation ◽  
Over Time

This paper focuses on terminological issues related to the translation of Darwin’s concept of “natural selection” in Japanese. We analyze the historical fate of the different phrases used as translations, from the first attempts in the late 1870s until recent times. Our first finding is that the first part of the Japanese translations never changed during the period considered: “natural” was constantly rendered by “shizen”. By contrast, the Japanese terms for “selection” have dramatically changed over time. We identify some major breaks in the history of Japanese translations for “natural selection”. From the end of the 1870s to the early 1880s, several translations were suggested in books and periodicals: “shizen kanbatsu”, “shizen tōta”, “tensen”. Katō Hiroyuki adopted “shizen tōta” in 1882 and he undeniably played an important role in spreading this phrase as the standard translation for “natural selection”. The most common Japanese translation of the Origin during the first half of the 20th century (by Oka Asajirō in 1905) also used “shizen tōta”. Adramatic shift occurred after WWII, from “tōta” to “sentaku”. While a linear interpretation could suggest a move from a “bad” translation to a better one, a closer analysis leads to more challenging insights. Especially we stress the role of the kanji restriction policy, which specified which kanji should be taught in schools and thus should be used in textbooks: “tōta” was not included in the list, which may have led to the good fortune of “sentaku” in the 1950–1960s. We think the hypothesis of the influence of Chinese translations is not a plausible one. As to conceptual differences between “shizen tōta” and “sentaku”, they remain unconvincing as both terms could be interpreted as a positive or negative process: there is no clear reason to prefer one term over the other from the strict point of view of their meanings or etymology. Then, turning to the way terms are used, we compare translations of natural selection with translations of artificial or sexual selection. First we turn to the field of thremmatology (breeders): there, “tōta” (sometimes spelled in hiragana instead of kanji) often bore the meaning of culling; since 1917, breeders often used “sentaku” as a translation for “selection”. However, quite surprisingly, breeders used two different terms for selection as a practice (“senbatsu”), and “selection” as in “natural selection” (“shizen sentaku”). Finally, we compare possible translations for “sexual selection” and “matechoice”: here again, there are some good reasons to favour “tōta” over “sentaku” to avoid lexical confusion.

scholarly journals Gigantea: Uncovering New Functions in Flower Development

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudio Brandoli ◽  
Cesar Petri ◽  
Marcos Egea-Cortines ◽  
Julia Weiss
Keyword(s):  
Circadian Rhythm ◽  
Flower Development ◽  
Biological Function ◽  
Genome Structure ◽  
Floral Initiation ◽  
Biological Functions ◽  
Photoperiodic Flowering ◽  
Volatile Production ◽  
Hormone Signalling

GIGANTEA (GI) is a gene involved in multiple biological functions, which were analysed and are partially conserved in a series of mono- and dicotyledonous plant species. The identified biological functions include control over the circadian rhythm, light signalling, cold tolerance, hormone signalling and photoperiodic flowering. The latter function is a central role of GI, as it involves a multitude of pathways, both dependent and independent of the gene CONSTANS(CO) as well as on the basis of interaction with miRNA. The complexity of gene function of GI increases due to the existence of paralogs showing changes in genome structure as well as incidences of sub- and neofunctionalization. We present an updated report of the biological function of GI, integrating late insights into its role in floral initiation, flower development and flower volatile production.

Darwin’s legacy II: why biology is not physics, or why it has taken a century to see the dependence of genes on the environment

Genome ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rama S. Singh
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
The Other ◽  
Paradigm Change ◽  
Phenotypic Evolution ◽  
Direct Role ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
Genes And Environment ◽  
Teleological Interpretation

Genes and environment make the organism. Darwin stood firm in his denial of any direct role of environment in the modification of heredity. His theory of evolution heralded two debates: one about the importance and adequacy of natural selection as the main mechanism of evolution, and the other about the role of genes versus environment in the modification of phenotype and evolution. Here, I provide an overview of the second debate and show that the reasons for the gene versus environment battle were twofold: first, there was confusion about the role of environment in modifying the inheritance of a trait versus the evolution of that trait, and second, there was misunderstanding about the meaning of environment and its interaction with genes in the production of phenotypes. It took nearly a century to see that environment does not directly affect the inheritance of a phenotype (i.e., its heredity), but it is nevertheless the primary mover of phenotypic evolution. Effects of genes and environment are not separate but interdependent. One cannot separate the effect of genes from that of environment, or nature from nurture. To answer the question posed in the title, it is partly because the 20th century has been a century of unending progress in genetics. But also because unlike physics, biology is not colorblind; progress in biology has often been delayed beyond the Kuhnian paradigm change due to built-in interest in negating the influence of environment. Those who are against evolution, of course, cannot be expected to understand the role of environment in evolution. Those for it, many biologists included, believing in the supremacy of genes empowers them by giving adaptation a solely gene-directed (self-driven) “teleological” interpretation.

A Taxonomy of Functions

1996 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 493-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis M. Walsh ◽  
André Ariew
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
The Other ◽  
Evolutionary Significance ◽  
System Call ◽  
Biological Functions ◽  
Function Concept ◽  
Causal Contribution ◽  
Function Concepts ◽  
Evolutionary Function

There are two general approaches to characterising biological functions. One originates with Cummins. According to this approach, the function of a part of a system is just its causal contribution to some specified activity of the system. Call this the ‘C-function’ (or ‘Cummins function’) concept. The other approach ties the function of a trait to some aspect of its evolutionary significance. Call this the ‘E-function’ (or ‘evolutionary function’) concept. According to the latter view, a trait's function is determined by the forces of natural selection. The C-function and E-function concepts are clearly quite different, but there is an important relation between them which heretofore has gone unnoticed. The purpose of this paper is to outline that relation.This is not the first paper to discuss the relation of C-function and E-function. Previous attempts all follow either one of two strategies. The first proposes that the two concepts are ‘unified.’ The other proposes that they are radically distinct and apply to wholly different fields within biology.

scholarly journals Targeting Mitochondrial Proteases for Therapy of Acute Myeloid Leukemia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinrong Xiang ◽  
Rui Bao ◽  
Yu Wu ◽  
Youfu Luo
Keyword(s):  
Acute Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Cancer Metabolism ◽  
Biological Function ◽  
Biological Functions ◽  
Acute Myeloid

Targeting cancer metabolism has emerged as an attractive approach to improve therapeutic regimens in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Mitochondrial proteases are closely related to cancer metabolism, but their biological functions have not been well characterized in AML. According to different catogory, we comprehensively reviewed the role of mitochondrial proteases in AML. This review highlights some ‘powerful’ mitochondrial protease targets, including their biological function, chemical modulators, and applicative prospect in AML.

scholarly journals Gigantea: Uncovering New Functions in Flower Development

Genes ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 1142
Author(s):  
Claudio Brandoli ◽  
Cesar Petri ◽  
Marcos Egea-Cortines ◽  
Julia Weiss
Keyword(s):  
Circadian Rhythm ◽  
Flower Development ◽  
Biological Function ◽  
Genome Structure ◽  
Floral Initiation ◽  
Biological Functions ◽  
Flower Production ◽  
Photoperiodic Flowering ◽  
Hormone Signalling

GIGANTEA (GI) is a gene involved in multiple biological functions, which have been analysed and are partially conserved in a series of mono- and dicotyledonous plant species. The identified biological functions include control over the circadian rhythm, light signalling, cold tolerance, hormone signalling and photoperiodic flowering. The latter function is a central role of GI, as it involves a multitude of pathways, both dependent and independent of the gene CONSTANS(CO), as well as on the basis of interaction with miRNA. The complexity of the gene function of GI increases due to the existence of paralogs showing changes in genome structure as well as incidences of sub- and neofunctionalization. We present an updated report of the biological function of GI, integrating late insights into its role in floral initiation, flower development and volatile flower production.

scholarly journals Automated Quantitative Assessment of Proteins' Biological Function in Protein Knowledge Bases

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Gabriele Mayr ◽  
Günter Lepperdinger ◽  
Peter Lackner
Keyword(s):  
Functional Data ◽  
Biological Function ◽  
Sequence Data ◽  
Knowledge Bases ◽  
Computer Assisted ◽  
Biological Functions ◽  
Comprehensive Collection ◽  
Quantitative Score ◽  
Protein Sequence Data

Primary protein sequence data are archived in databases together with information regarding corresponding biological functions. In this respect, UniProt/Swiss-Prot is currently the most comprehensive collection and it is routinely cross-examined when trying to unravel the biological role of hypothetical proteins. Bioscientists frequently extract single entries and further evaluate those on a subjective basis. In lieu of a standardized procedure for scoring the existing knowledge regarding individual proteins, we here report about a computer-assisted method, which we applied to score the present knowledge about any given Swiss-Prot entry. Applying this quantitative score allows the comparison of proteins with respect to their sequence yet highlights the comprehension of functional data. pfs analysis may be also applied for quality control of individual entries or for database management in order to rank entry listings.

scholarly journals A framework to quantify phenotypic and genotypic parallel evolution

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maddie E. James ◽  
Melanie J. Wilkinson ◽  
Henry L. North ◽  
Jan Engelstädter ◽  
Daniel Ortiz-Barrientos
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Parallel Evolution ◽  
Model Organisms ◽  
Biological Functions ◽  
Narrow Sense ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Common Framework ◽  
Repeated Evolution ◽  
The Way

AbstractThe independent and repeated adaptation of populations to similar environments often results in the evolution of similar forms. This phenomenon creates a strong correlation between phenotype and environment and is referred to as parallel evolution. However, there is ongoing debate as to when we should call a system either phenotypically or genotypically ‘parallel.’ Here, we suggest a novel and simple framework to quantify parallel evolution at the genotypic and phenotypic levels. Our framework combines both traditional and new approaches to measure parallel evolution, and categorizes them into broad- and narrow-sense scales. We then apply this framework to coastal ecotypes of an Australian wildflower, Senecio lautus, that have evolved in parallel. Our findings show that S. lautus populations inhabiting similar environments have evolved strikingly similar phenotypes. These phenotypes have arisen via mutational changes occurring in different genes, although many share the same biological functions. Our work paves the way towards a common framework to study the repeated evolution of forms in nature.Author summaryWhen organisms face similar ecological conditions, they often evolve similar phenotypic solutions. When this occurs in closely related taxa, it is referred to as parallel evolution. Systems of parallel evolution provide some of the most compelling evidence for the role of natural selection in evolution, as they can be used as natural replicates of the adaptation process. However, there is debate as to when we should call a system ‘parallel’. This debate stems back to the mid 1900s, and although there have been multiple attempts within the literature to clarify terminology, controversy still remains. In this study, we propose a novel framework to quantify phenotypic and genotypic parallel evolution within empirical systems, partitioning parallelism into broad- and narrow-sense components. Our framework is applicable to non-model organisms and provides a common set of analyses to measure parallel evolution, enabling researchers to compare the extent of parallel evolution across different study systems. In turn, this helps to reduce confusion surrounding the term ‘parallel evolution’ at both the phenotypic and genotypic levels. We then apply our framework to two coastal ecotypes of an Australian plant, Senecio lautus. We show that similar phenotypes within each ecotype have evolved via mutational changes in different genes, though some are involved in similar biological functions. Our research not only helps to consolidate the field of parallel evolution, but paves the way to understanding the role of natural selection in the repeated evolution of similar phenotypes within nature.

Is Consciousness a Spandrel?

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 365-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
ZACK ROBINSON ◽  
COREY J. MALEY ◽  
GUALTIERO PICCININI
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Biological Function ◽  
Phenomenal Consciousness ◽  
Evolutionary Explanation ◽  
Biological Functions ◽  
Mental Processes ◽  
Evolution By Natural Selection

ABSTRACT:Determining the biological function of phenomenal consciousness appears necessary to explain its origin: evolution by natural selection operates on organisms’ traits based on the biological functions they fulfill. But identifying the function of phenomenal consciousness has proven difficult. Some have proposed that the function of phenomenal consciousness is to facilitate mental processes such as reasoning or learning. But mental processes such as reasoning and learning seem to be possible in the absence of phenomenal consciousness. It is difficult to pinpoint in what way phenomenal consciousness enhances these processes or others like them. In this paper, we explore a possibility that has been neglected to date. Perhaps phenomenal consciousness has no function of its own because it is either a by-product of other traits or a (functionless) accident. If so, then phenomenal consciousness has an evolutionary explanation even though it fulfills no biological function.

Plasma Levels of Protein S, Protein C, and Factor X: Effects of Sex, Hormonal State and Age

1995 ◽  
Vol 74 (05) ◽  
pp. 1271-1275 ◽  
Author(s):  
C M A Henkens ◽  
V J J Bom ◽  
W van der Schaaf ◽  
P M Pelsma ◽  
C Th Smit Sibinga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Postmenopausal Women ◽  
Protein C ◽  
Blood Donors ◽  
Premenopausal Women ◽  
Protein S ◽  
The Other ◽  
Factor X ◽  
Normal Ranges

SummaryWe measured total and free protein S (PS), protein C (PC) and factor X (FX) in 393 healthy blood donors to assess differences in relation to sex, hormonal state and age. All measured proteins were lower in women as compared to men, as were levels in premenopausal women as compared to postmenopausal women. Multiple regression analysis showed that both age and subgroup (men, pre- and postmenopausal women) were of significance for the levels of total and free PS and PC, the subgroup effect being caused by the differences between the premenopausal women and the other groups. This indicates a role of sex-hormones, most likely estrogens, in the regulation of levels of pro- and anticoagulant factors under physiologic conditions. These differences should be taken into account in daily clinical practice and may necessitate different normal ranges for men, pre- and postmenopausal women.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document