dkomo wrote:
> ErikW wrote:
>> dkomo wrote:
>>
>>>>I recently set out on a quest to familiarise myself on at least an
>>>>educated layman's level with various sciences, such as relativity,
>>>>quantum physics, evolutionary biology, and so on. A short while ago, I
>>>>read Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene", which I found eloquent, informative,
>>>>and intuitively convincing -- in short, I'll buy it -- but as a
>>>>scientist (although not a biologist), I keep my mind open to the
>>>>possibility that it (and I) may be wrong.
>>>>
>>>>I gather that back in the 1970's, when "The Selfish Gene" was first
>>>>published, it was rather controversial. Now, I am lead to understand
>>>>that the gene-centric evolution theory is widely accepted. However, I
>>>>should not blind myself to the fact that the sources I have come across
>>>>-- as a reader of, and frequent "agreer" with, Richard Dawkins -- may
>>>>be biased. As such I ask you, hopefully a representative cross-section
>>>>of the evolutionary biology community, the question: Am I safe in
>>>>regarding the gene-centric view laid out by Dawkins as a generally
>>>>accepted theory; that I may, within the boundaries of empirical
>>>>scientific uncertainty, regard as fact? Is there still controversy on
>>>>this topic? Is there something I should read -- some layman-accessible
>>>>literature that presents a reasonable, opposing viewpoint?
>>>>
>>>>I'm sorry to take up your time with such a non-technical question, but
>>>>I will nonetheless post this in the hope that you may think that
>>>>spreading the good word (and combating or preventing the spread of
>>>>misinformation) about evolutionary biology to an ignorant public may be
>>>>worthwhile. :-)
>>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't really see anything in section 8. What's the problem, that
>> traits are not coded by one particle? Too much emphasis on selection?
>> What is being critisized?
>>
>
> It is, after all, just a short summary. However, section 8 does say
> specifically:
>
> "Critics of the "Selfish Gene" point to the universally acknowledged
> dependence of genotypes on phenotypical expression, (which is seldom
> gene-specific)..."
This may sound like semantics but the quoted part itself says
"universally accepted" so that can't be a critisism against a gene
centric view, can it? What is a prediction by the gene centric view
that gets spoiled by "non-gene specific phenotypical expression"
(whatever is really meant by that, more than one gene I'd suppose).
I never got far in Dawkins "selfish gene" so I don't really know what
the gene centric view is (and the rest of the wikipedia entry is as
vague as section 8 IMO) but from the sound of the term gene centric it
sounds like I could agree with it. And that population genetics would
too.
>
> The fact that many organismic traits may involve the interaction of
> hundreds of genes, or that single genes may participate in the
> expressions of dozens of different traits should make us wonder about
> the utility of a gene-centric view of evolution, or whether such a
> viewpoint grossly distorts what goes on in evolution.
That is certainly worth thinking about but again I find that, as a
critisism, it's too vague to be useful. I don't understand what it
means. I could seem to say that many genes are unaccessible to
selection whereas sequence conservation would tell us that they aren't.
Or perhaps it says something else.
>
> But there are also other issues, such as adaptationism, or its
> hyper-active cousin, panadaptationism. Then there are issues
> surrounding the units of selection, particularly group selection and
> species selection. To explore these, use the links in the Wikipedia
> article as a take off point:
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptationism
>
> "Adaptationism is sometimes characterized by critics as an
> unsubstantiated assumption that all or most traits are optimal
> adaptations.
Well, is that what adaptionism is or not? If it is then I don't agree
(does anyone?), if it's not then the critisism is based on a
mischaracterization.
> Critics (most notably Richard Lewontin and Stephen J.
> Gould) contend that the adaptationsists (John Maynard Smith, W.D.
> Hamilton and Richard Dawkins being frequent examples) have
> over-emphasized the power of natural selection to have shape individual
> traits to an evolutionary optimum, and ignored the role of developmental
> constraints, and other factors to explain extant morphological and
> behavioural traits."
>
> Other relevant links are:
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_selection
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection
>
> There's more criticism of Dawkins et al. to be found in these articles.
>
> The advantage of hyperthreading one's way through Wikipedia is that it's
> quick and it's free. But for my money, you can't beat the three
> chapters in Sterelny and Griffiths that I cite below for a good succinct
> summary of the debate over gene-centrism.
I'd like to read it but it's in the department of philosophy and they
won't lend it to anyone.
ErikW
I've snipped the rest to save space.
