"Each function has a bearer with a specific type of physical make-up. This is something which, in the biological case, the bearer is of a type which has naturally evolved to carry this function (as in a hypothalamus secreting hormones). In the artifact case, it is something which the bearer is of a type which is the result of design (as in an Erlenmeyer flask designed to hold liquid) or also (as in the case of penicillin) has been deliberately selected for"
My reading of this is that penicillin is both the result of design, and has been deliberately selected for. Neither is true. The penicillin biosynthesis pathway exists in nature, and the genes responsible arose through evolution, not design, and were not deliberately selected for. Of course, since its discovery, there have been many instances of the molecule produced via both total synthesis and industrial fermentation processes. Whilst these processes involve some aspect of human design, it is incorrect to say that a penicillin molecule (whether naturally produced or manufactured) is "of a type which is the result of design".
I think this is an interesting example and deserves further treatment (along with function of molecules in general). But the current cursory treatment in the reference document serves to confuse rather than elucidate.
I recommend removing OR linking to an external reference with a better treatment.
(or simply removing evolved function from BFO - evolved function should be separated into a domain ontology with input from experts. But that's for another discussion...)
From cmung...@gmail.com on December 09, 2012 20:33:24
p60 of the ref doc states:
"Each function has a bearer with a specific type of physical make-up. This is something which, in the biological case, the bearer is of a type which has naturally evolved to carry this function (as in a hypothalamus secreting hormones). In the artifact case, it is something which the bearer is of a type which is the result of design (as in an Erlenmeyer flask designed to hold liquid) or also (as in the case of penicillin) has been deliberately selected for"
My reading of this is that penicillin is both the result of design, and has been deliberately selected for. Neither is true. The penicillin biosynthesis pathway exists in nature, and the genes responsible arose through evolution, not design, and were not deliberately selected for. Of course, since its discovery, there have been many instances of the molecule produced via both total synthesis and industrial fermentation processes. Whilst these processes involve some aspect of human design, it is incorrect to say that a penicillin molecule (whether naturally produced or manufactured) is "of a type which is the result of design".
I think this is an interesting example and deserves further treatment (along with function of molecules in general). But the current cursory treatment in the reference document serves to confuse rather than elucidate.
I recommend removing OR linking to an external reference with a better treatment.
(or simply removing evolved function from BFO - evolved function should be separated into a domain ontology with input from experts. But that's for another discussion...)
Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=136