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.

Why Trust Science?

Bruce Alberts,¹ Karen Hopkin, and Keith Roberts have published an essay on Why Trust Science.

In this essay, we address the question of why we can trust science—and how we can identify which scientific claims we can trust. We begin by explaining how scientists work together, as part of a larger scientific community, to generate knowledge that is reliable. We describe how the scientific process builds a consensus, and how new evidence can change the ways that scientists—and, ultimately, the rest of us—see the world. Last, but not least, we explain how, as informed citizens, we can all become “competent outsiders” who are equipped to evaluate scientific claims and are able to separate science facts from science fiction.

Most of the essay describes an idealized version of how science works with an emphasis on collaboration and rigorous oversight. They claim that the work of scientists can usually be trusted because it is self-correcting.

What is photosynthesis?

A recent commentary in Nature prompts me to revisit an old bugaboo. The commentary discusses some recent work on CO₂ fixation in plants [A genetic switch drove photosynthesis in plants¹]. It begins with,

Photosynthesis, which uses energy from the Sun and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to create carbohydrates, might be the most influential set of biochemical reactions on the planet.

Here's the problem. That's not a very good definition of photosynthesis. I discuss a much better definition in a post from seven years ago: Scientists confused about photosynthesis. A better definition is that photosynthesis is the process by which light energy is captured and converted to chemical energy. The direct products of photosynthesis are ATP and reducing equivalents such as NADPH. These cofactors are used to drive all sorts of reactions in the cell including DNA synthesis, protein synthesis, lipid synthesis, and carbohydrate synthesis.

This is very obvious when you examine photosynthetic bacteria but, unfortunately, photosynthesis was initially studied in large plants where much of the chemical energy produced by photosynthesis is used to fix CO₂ and make carbohydrates. This led to the widespread belief that photosynthesis is all about making carbohydrates.

---

1. I'm using the title from the printed version of the journal. The web version has a different title. (I don't know why.)

Guess what happens when Nature asks EES proponents to write reviews of books by other EES proponents?

There are a bunch of people who think that evolutionary theory needs to be extensively revised. They focus their attacks on a particular (incorrect) version of the Modern Synthesis and they promote a new version called the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES).

Most EES proponents have very little in common except that they see themselves as revolutionaries. They each have their own little hobbyhorse that is presumably being suppressed by classical evolutionary biologists. Some of them belong to a cult called The Third Way (of Evolution). They are very good at promoting their point of view through whatever means it takes to get attention. The media loves them.

Intelligent Design Creationists launch a new attack on junk DNA (are they getting worried?)

The Center for Science and Culture (sic) and the Discovery Institute (sic) have published another propaganda video on junk DNA. The emphasis is on their claim that ID predicted a functional genome and that prediction turned out to be correct! The difference between this video an previous attempts to rationalize their failures is that I now get a personal mention and a caricature in this latest video.

I think I understand the problem. The ID creationists are getting worried about junk DNA as they realize that more and more scientists are beginning to understand the real problems with the ENCODE data and previous claims of function. This is why they are attempting to rebut the science behind junk DNA. But the real problem is that they simply don't understand the science as you can see in the video.

Once again, we are faced with a question about whether Intelligent Design Creationists are stupid or lying (or both).

---

New Scientist promotes misinformation about evolution

The December 7th issue of New Scientist features a cover promoting an article by Kevin Lala, an evolutionary biologist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland (formerly Kevin Laland). The title of the article in the journal is DIY evolution but the online version is The extraordinary ways species control their own evolutionary fate.

It's interesting that the blurbs for the two version also differ ...

Natural selection of random genetic mutation isn't the only way to adapt, argues evolutionary biologist Kevin Lala.

(print version)

Natural selection isn't just something that happens to organisms, their activities also play a role, giving some species – including humans – a supercharged ability to evolve. (online version)

Kevin Lala is a proponent of the "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" (EES). His particular schtick is niche construction meaning that evolution is promoted by organisms that help create their own environment. This behaviorial characteristic of animals is supposed to call into question the fundamentals of modern evolutionary theory based on population genetics.

Recall that evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population and the main mechanisms of change are natural selection and random genetic drift. Variation (creation of alleles) is caused by mutation.