The gene's-eye view of evolution

I'm reveiwing some of the contributions to Evolutionary Biology: Contemporary and Historical Reflections Upon Core Theory. In this post I want to cover Arvid Ågren's contribution on the gene's-eye view of evolution.

Ågren starts out by reminding us that Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene was voted the most influential science book of all time in a 2017 Royal Society poll. He goes on to say,

Regardless of one's views on the poll results—or the book's argument—the far reaching sway of The Selfish Gene means that anyone interested in the history and future of evolutionary theory has no choice but to grapple with its ideas. Chief among these is the so-called gene's-eye view of evolution. This is the approach to biology originally introduced by George Williams in Adaptation and Natural Selection and elaborated and popularized by Dawkins, that it is the genes, and not organisms as Darwin originally envisaged, that deserve the status as the unit of selection in evolution. Emerging in the decades succeeding the Modern Synthesis, the gene's-eye view of evolution has become an emblem of orthodoxy in biology.

Ironically, The Selfish Gene is barely mentioned in this 640 page book on the history of evolution. That's because most evolutionary biologists don't give a damn. The main reason why Dawkins gets any attention at all is because his ideas about the gene-centric view serve as a convenient whipping boy for critics like Denis Nobel. [see The illusions of Denis Noble]

Arvid Ågren doesn't have the option of ignoring Dawkins if he's going to defend the gene's-eye view of evolution. Ågren wants to make two points: (1) the gene's eye view is an adaptionist and gene-centric version of the Modern Synthesis, and (2) it does not eliminate the role of the organism in evolutionary theory.

None of this is new. He has covered it much more thoroughly in his book The Gene's-Eye View of Evolution. I'll have more to say about this in another post when I review Richard Dawkins' latest book.

Here are the main features of the gene's-eye view according to Arvid Ågren.

Adaptationism: It's a focus on adaptation. For those who adhere to this perspective, the most important problem in evolution is to explain the appearance of design. I think this rules out large parts of evolutionary biology, including most of molecular evolution.

Population Genetics: The gene's-eye view puts genes at the heart of adaptation. Proponents believe that it is genes that are selected and that this is a direct consequence of the work of Fisher, Haldane, and Wright on population genetics. They believe that evolution can be best described as a change in allele frequencies over time. In my view, the difference between the gene selectionists and others is that the gene's-eye view imagines that it is genes that are the fundmental unit of selection whereas others see changes in allele frequencies as a consequence of other events, such as selection of organisms on the basis of phenotype. The contrast can be more easily seen when we think of evolution by random genetic drift. The gene's-eye view would attribute the increase in frequency of a particular neutral allele to the propoerties of the allele itself whereas others would see it as an accidental result of other factors acting on the individuals in the population.

Rejection of group selection: Ågren thinks that the rejection of group selection is one of the defining features of the gene's-eye view.

The main focus of the articles in Evolutionary Biology: Contemporary and Historical Reflections Upon Core Theory is on whether the Modern Synthesis needs extensive revision. Ågren argues that inclusive fitness is "one of the most significant post-synthetic developments in evolutionary theory." He also argues that the gene-centric view and inclusive fitness are equivalent points of view and they represent a particular, presumably better, version of the Modern Synthesis.

---