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.
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.
16 comments :
I would argue that sexual selection would be an example of "inclusive" fitness and it is certainly not new. It is adapationist but not gene-centric since it is driven by what happens to the animal and its behavior
I haven't read this book, but I wonder at the emphasis on Richard Dawkins as the main proponent of the "gene's eye view". He was, the main *popularizer* of it. But the major proponent and developer of kin selection was William D. Hamilton, who published two theoretical population genetics papers on it in 1964 in Journal of Theoretical Biology. There was further work by John Maynard Smith and other theoretical population genetics during the 12 years between then and the publication of The Selfish Gene. Other gene-centric phenomena where the gene's spread did not reflect benefit to the organism included meiotic drive (T alleles in mice and Sd in Drosophia, for example). There was debate about group selection mechanisms in the late 1960s. Kin selection explanations for the evolution of altruistic behaviors were publicized widely by E. O. Wison in his book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis in 1975. A Dawkins-centric view of the history of thinking about levels of selection is wrong.
Typo correction: ... and other population geneticists ...
This is the most ubfluencial book EVER in science!! All that has been done or explained in all the accomplishment of people in science and this book wins?! Take that Newton and everyone. I say its not important or influential or name the patents and royalities from it. i say its not even science where its based on guesses about the past or future or things happening today. It says something however about polls and motivations.
Have you even read the book, lol?
Check out Svensson and Futuyma's chapter in the same book, and then get back to me.
It's an excellent book Joe, and I assure you won't get regret after reading it. Particularly, Svensson's and Futuyma's chapters in the same book are awesome. :)
It's important to understand that this is a very expensive book. The hardcover version costs $321.50 CDN or $219.99 USD on Amazon.
I do not recommend buying it at that price. Even the Kindle version is $167.20 USD. There are only two articles worth reading (Svensson and Futuyma) and neither of those authors say anything in this book that they haven't said elsewhere.
I’m glad to hear the book is good. I was reacting to Larry’s criticism that they had ignorrd Dawkins.
This whole debate starts to get a bit porous as soon as you try to really precisely define what constitutes a gene. Dawkins defined it as ‘a piece of a chromosome which is sufficiently short for it to last, potentially, for long enough for it to function as a significant unit of natural selection’ - which in the case of a Y chromosome could contain literally thousands of separate genes (if we use a molecular genetics definition).
Once you see this trick, you realise that all he’s ended up doing is simultaneously defining the unit of selection as the gene and the gene as the unit of selection. The underlying processes continue no matter what we call them.
@Peter Ellis: It's clear that they are using "gene" in the Mendelian sense. It's the same as "allele."
I've mailed you a couple of days ago, Joe. Can you please check it out. :)
I would really like to hear the opinions of Prof Moran and some of the regular commenters on this Darwin Day lecture by Dr. Charles Breeze. He is an Honorary Assistant Professor at University College London who is a member of the encyclopedia of DNA elements (ENCODE) and International Human Epigenome Consortium (IHEC).
Not a lot of sign that he's aware of, or willing to acknowledge, the scientific debate about the importance of junk DNA.
https://youtu.be/QYwlBnOPrDI?si=PUfwId0oGvtpaHB6
Problem is there isn't any official Darwin Day lecture. Every year hundreds of people appear randomly to give Darwin Day lecture, so we all have to compromise on quality over quantity. There should be an official Darwin Day lecture organized by Linnean Society, and guests must be invited after proper scrutiny.
The problem with having an "official" Darwin Day meeting with "proper scrutiny" his that organizations like the Linnean Society have failed that test before. I am thinking of the Royal Society meeting in 2016, which was pushed by Denis Noble and his co-thinkers. The result was a disappointment. I have heard that RS members who were expert on evolution tried, behind the scenes, to have the meeting stopped. They failed, because the RS leadership, which was *not* expert on evolution, thought the meeting would be exciting, stimulating, and controversial. Larry actually attended that meeting and reported on it twice at Sandwalk. He was disappointed in it. See his posts:
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2016/12/kevin-lalands-new-view-of-evolution.html
and
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-extended-evolutionary-synthesis.html
Joe, let me tell you something interesting. Denis Noble’s younger brother, Ray Noble, is actually my friend on Facebook. He’s also a physiologist, and he often complains there about how the so-called “Synthesis gatekeepers” tried hard to stop their 2016 RS meeting because they were afraid, dogmatic, and so on. He also claims that during the meeting, the “Synthesis gatekeepers” were clueless, while their side was clearly victorious.
I’ve tried several times to correct him, pointing out that their obsession with The Selfish Gene and Dawkins is misplaced. Even the architects of the Modern Synthesis, like Sewall Wright and Ernst Mayr, criticized the gene-centric view long before they came along. But he never listens. After a few days, he’s back at it again—attacking The Selfish Gene and claiming they’ve overturned the paradigm.
He also says that COVID pandemic was enough to debunk " Neo-Darwinian " dogma because we saw how organisms were actively influencing their own genome that clearly contradicts central dogma of molecular biology. :)
Well, the basic issue seems to be names. When new stuff comes along, should we rename the current evolutionary theory? Say, every two years? Will that promote understanding? And did the evolutionary synthesis really tell us for 100 years that development, phenotypes, and behavior were not involved?
Post a Comment