This is a lengthy conversation between Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker. It took place in Boston at the Chevalier Theatre in September 2024. The video appeared on YouTube last month.
In my opinion, the important point is how deeply Pinker buys into the adaptationist perspective of Dawkins. He asks no challenging questions and he seems to be of the opinion that the Dawkins' view of evolution is the dominant view of evolutionary biologists. I'm an admirer of Richard Dawkins but I have not drunk the Kool-Aid.
Pinker has drunk the Kool-Aid and most of the video is him pontificating about his incorrect views of evolution.
Jerry Coyne published a few comments about the discussion between Dawkins and Pinker at: Dawkins and Pinker discuss evolution. Jerry also has very adaptationist leanings and he was most excited about the fact that both Dawkins and Pinker attack Lewontin and Gould. This is not a surprise. All three (Coyne, Dawkins, Pinker) are very sensitive about criticisms of adaptationism. That's fine but the very least they should do is to not misrepresent those criticisms.
And all three are more than happy to trash punctuated equilibria long after it has ceased to be an issue in evolutionary biology. (It's also notable that they still don't understand punctuated equilibria 50 years after it was first proposed. It has nothing to do with macromutations or hopeful monsters.)
This video is another example of the spread of misinformation in science. In this case it's mostly Pinker who is spreading misinformation—that's not surprising because he's very good at that. Dawkins knows better but he is not capable of direct confrontation so he never corrects Pinker's errors. That's a shame.
9 comments :
"It's also notable that they still don't understand punctuated equilibria 50 years after it was first proposed. It has nothing to do with macromutations or hopeful monsters."
Yikes. I only have a Grade 13 biology credit, but there's no way I could screw it up that badly. It just means that environmental conditions led to a more rapid pace of evolution for a (geologically) brief time. Or did I get it wrong?
Dave Bailey
@Dave Bailey
Here's a short video by Niles Eldredge.
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/08/niles-eldredge-explains-punctuated.html
@Dave Bailey
Here's the Wikipedia article. It explains the connection between punctuated equilibria and speciation by splitting (cladogenesis).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
PE was always a pattern in search of a mechanism. It began as an application of Ernst Mayr's ideas about "genetic revolution" in peripheral isolates, but was there ever a good explanation for stasis or for a linkage between punctuation and speciation? I would suggest that it's an artifact of a spotty fossil record and our inability to recognize species based on fossil data.
@John Harshman It's astonishing to me that after several decades of opposing punctuated equilibria you still don't understand it.
Let's just take one obvious example of your lack of understanding. The pattern of punctuated equilibria is based on extensive fossil records with thousands of fossils covering millions of years of deposits. That's the exact opposite of a "spotty fossil record." The idea is based on solid data, not lack of data.
Perhaps you've been reading too many creationist articles, or perhaps your hated of Gould is coloring your views?
The Wikipedia article isn't perfect but it's a good place to start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
Larry, I don't hate Gould. I just haven't drunk the Koolade. There are almost no continuous fossil records. Sedimentation and fossil preservation are highly episodic, and what looks rather like a continuous record generally contains many gaps, either of erosion or just hiatus, at many scales. One of Gould's major points, in fact, is that you can recognize stasis even when the record is spotty, though you may not be able to recognize punctuation.
It's quite possible that at least one of us doesn't understand PE, but we may disagree on who that is. But how much training in geology and paleontology have you had? How much of the literature have you read?
@John Harshman
You are right as to the pucntuations, but also remember that stasis is a fundamental tenet of PE, and it has been found to be pretty common (many more than phyletic gradualism). You even pointed out that stasis can't be explained by an incomplete fossil record only (and I'm glad this point is being raised).
And some fossil time series analysis found punctuations to be
more common than pg.
Also, there has been lots of results in support of speciational evolution for many evolving traits.
Furthermore, trait-dependent diversification is pretty common, which is entailed by PE suggestion of species as individuals.
As a paleontologist I have read a lot about the topic. PE is in much better state than its critics would be willing to admit.
Best,
João
Last comment I said study found punctuations to be more common than pg, but to be honest, I think they have similar frequency. I'd have to go through the papers to give numbers. But random walks and stasis are prevalent.
One more thing I would like to say about punctuations: I think we're on common ground when we say the main mode of speciation is geographic.
As the late Elisabeth Vrba (she died feb 05, 2025) once argued (not with this exact words), the punctuations should be considered the expectation, given what we know about speciation and stasis.
Here is the Vrba obituary Niles wrote to Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00778-w
Best regards,
João
João, I think it's a mistake to talk about phyletic gradualism, since it's a strawman that nobody has ever really proposed. We also have to separate stasis from punctuation, and especially from punctuated speciation. Every neontologist would agree that most speciation is allopatric (though not in Gould's sense, which we would call peripatric), i.e. preceded by geographic isolation. And I would suggest that morphological change may be punctuated, but speciation is less likely to be so and not very likely to be detectable from fossils. This is based on comparisons of extant sister species. Mind you, most of my experience is with birds, and birds all tend to look alike anyway. Thus I would suggest that speciation happens mostly during periods of what would look in the fossil record like stasis, with punctuated morphological change largely decoupled from speciation. And that punctuated change is an ordinary response to a change in selective regime, since rates of morphological evolution observed in the present are much higher than rates observed in fossils. The response to selection, in other words, is more or less instantaneous in geological time.
Post a Comment