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)..."
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.
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. 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.
--dkomo@
cris.com
>
>>Stephen J. Gould was the main critic of Dawkins' model of evolution.
>>
>>If you can find it, there's an excellent discusion of the pros and cons
>>of the Dawkins gene-centric model in
>>
>>_Sex and Death_, Sterelny and Griffiths, in
>>
>> Chapter 3 The Gene's Eye View of Evolution
>> Chapter 4 The Organism Strikes Back
>> Chapter 5 The Developmental Systems Alternative
>>
>>Beware that some people on this newsgroup, especially the academicians,
>>will attempt to feed you what Sterelny and Griffiths call, somewhat
>>sarcastically, the "received view" in evolutionary biology. Do not
>>swallow without chewing thoroughly. They will recommend only books that
>>channel this view.
>>
>>And to really broaden your outlook, read
>>
>>_Evolution in Four Dimensions_ by Jablonka and Lamb
>>
>>Although the title makes this sound like a New Age book, it's quite well
>>grounded in science, and is layman-accessible. The four dimensions are:
>>
>> 1. genetic
>> 2. epigenetic
>> 3. behavioral
>> 4. symbolic (in humans only)
>>
>>
>> --dkomo@
cris.com
>>
>>
>>"Back off, Man! I'm a SCIENTIST!" (tshirt slogan)
>
>
>
