Abstract
Two partly overlapping dichotomous systems of explanations exist in morphology, namely: (a) nomological-deductive versus historical-narrative explanations; and, (b) functional versus evolutionary. Evolutionary explanations cause the partial overlap between these systems as they can be either nomological-deductive or historical-narrative depending on the particular conclusion being advocated. Complete or full explanations must include both parts of either dichotomy, but this is not possible in many instances. Most explanations in morphology are functional ones, but, although incomplete, these are perfectly sensible and usable contrary to the claims of some evolutionists. Historical evolutionary explanations must be established on prior nomological functional explanations, but this has not been done in many discussion of the evolutionary history of morphological features in comparative anatomical and paleontological texts. Unfortunately such historical, morphological explanations, no matter how ingenious they may be, are vacuous. Moreover, excellent functional explanations in morphology do not automatically lead to correct historical evolutionary explanations. What is needed in morphology is the proper blend of functional and historical evolutionary explanations to arrive at persuasive full explanations. With this broad-based approach, a true evolutionary morphology will emerge with great advances in derived phylogenetic and classificatory analyses.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.