This blog post explores the question of whether genes drive evolution, focusing on the debate between Dawkins and Gould.
‘Darwin’s Table’ is a book capturing the fierce debate between Richard Dawkins and Stephen J. Gould, two giants of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory, once mocked by creationists, has now spread as the accepted scientific consensus among people over the past half-century. While their approaches differed, it is no exaggeration to say that the two most famous figures who contributed to shaping modern evolutionary theory are Dawkins and Gould. The book unfolds through vivid descriptions of their debates, where their differing views are sharply contrasted.
I support Dawkins. His position is to explain most of evolution solely through the concept of the ‘gene’. Simply put, the gene as Dawkins describes it can be defined as ‘a unique entity with the singular purpose of replicating itself and ensuring the survival of the species’. This seems sufficient to summarize his stance. He advocates adaptation through ‘natural selection’. As mentioned earlier, since the gene’s sole purpose is ‘species survival,’ it selects individuals (hosts) suited to their environment to ensure its own survival. Dawkins argues that genes create organisms in forms that facilitate survival, and these organisms adapt to their environment. However, the fundamental objection raised by Gould is that the gene’s singular purpose appears selfish and thus cannot explain altruistic behaviors among individuals. To this, Dawkins counters by reiterating the gene’s purpose: to sacrifice itself to preserve genes similar to its own. For example, offspring are likely to resemble their parents’ genes. Rescuing offspring in crisis would positively impact the species’ survival. The case of worker bees can also be explained by genes. Since worker bees share 75% genetic similarity, working for others benefits gene survival, thus explaining their lifelong altruistic behavior.
Dawkins advocates for gradual evolution. Speciation refers to the process where a small, geographically isolated group evolves into individuals with traits entirely different from the parent population through reproduction. This theory supports the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis that evolution can occur abruptly. Dawkins presents fossils showing trilobites underwent gradual evolutionary processes, arguing that slow evolution is possible alongside sudden evolution.
Dawkins contends that evolution can be described as progress when considering three aspects: complexity, adaptation, and evolutionary potential. Humans clearly possess more complex biological mechanisms than bacteria. Each of these biological mechanisms enabled more effective adaptation to a given environment than before evolution. This evolution is a necessary condition for the ability to generate new evolution. For these reasons, Dawkins asserts that evolution is progress.
Gould, a developmental biologist, raises several counterarguments against Dawkins’ claim that all evolution can be reduced to this concept of ‘genes’. Among these is the ‘role of environment’. Dawkins also mentioned the ‘phenotypic effect’ of genes in the debate about the relationship between environment and evolution. When a DNA strand replacement occurs in a gene, changes arise at the individual level. The argument is that if this change is more suitable for survival in a given environment, it will be easier to adapt and survive through natural selection compared to other genes. The ‘highly developed language ability of humans’ can be cited as an example here. Dawkins points out that all individuals communicate to some degree. Humans simply possess a more advanced form of it; language is merely one method among many for general communication. Dawkins argues that adaptation through selection occurred in nature where communication was necessary, and humans are simply a developed form of this. In other words, nature requires communication, so methods for it exist in each individual, and human advanced language is just one branch of this.
Gould counters that the natural selection Dawkins describes is limited to acting on ‘genes,’ arguing instead that the environment drives individual evolution. He contends that the environment can exert influence, leading to changes at the individual level alongside genes. Dawkins contends this is merely a difference in classification, both explanations being fundamentally the same. He further argues that “language ability is essentially a byproduct of the brain becoming larger or general intelligence developing.” Highly evolved linguistic intelligence is thus explained as merely a byproduct of a large brain. He asserts that ‘language ability’ arose due to environmental changes causing the brain to grow larger.
I wish to lend weight to Dawkins’ position that language arose as an ‘adaptation’ through ‘natural selection,’ rather than Gould’s argument that it was caused by the ‘large brain’ as a simple example. When stripped bare, humans are extremely vulnerable creatures within nature. We possess neither the powerful teeth of a lion nor the swift legs of a horse. Instead, we possess ‘sociality’. This sociality provides a means for multiple individuals to act collectively, protecting the genes within the ‘human’ organism. This too is likely one strategy for gene survival. To ensure survival, we had to strengthen our social nature, and this necessitated precise communication. We can explain that genes evolved, and through natural selection and adaptation, highly developed language abilities emerged. Alongside this, I believe, going further than Dawkins’ position, that the ‘burden of proof’ lies with Gould. Generally, when people say someone has ‘adapted’ to an environment, it means that person has adjusted their life to fit it. Consider, for example, a man who joins the military. He transitions from civilian to soldier; the common phrase ‘adapted to military life’ does not imply a change in his biological traits. It more accurately means the same individual ‘survives’ within the given environment. The environment influences the individual by shaping how they live within it, but it does not alter their fundamental biological characteristics. Since what we’re discussing is ‘evolution,’ we must focus on ‘changes in an individual’s traits.’ Suppose, as Gould argued, factors outside genes—like the environment—influence an individual’s evolution. How could such factors alter traits? Dawkins introduced natural selection at the genetic level to explain this. His argument is that even if environmental influences exist, the decisive principle is one governed by genes. Consider a robot running along a given straight line. The robot might sometimes move erratically, zigzagging instead of traveling in a straight line. While environmental influences can cause it to deviate, it can ultimately be likened to following the path determined by its genes. The meaning is that it is the ‘gene’ that fundamentally directs changes in an organism’s biological traits. Presenting the precise causal reason makes this argument appear grounded in a highly rational way of thinking. In contrast, Gould develops his argument relying on statistical results, unlike Dawkins’s effort to uncover the fundamental cause. To refute a fundamental principle, one needs theoretical grounds beyond statistical data to support their claim. Since Dawkins presented an explanation through genes, the burden of proof shifted to Gould, who failed to propose a fundamental principle.
Thus, Dawkins’ position, which reduces evolutionary theory to genes, appears more scientifically valid than Gould’s approach, which seeks proof through the behavior of living organisms. Dawkins’ theory, which seeks to identify causes and analyze the precise causal chain of effects, seems more valid than Gould’s theory, which observes behavior and infers influence without detailing the intermediate steps. While the explanation that genes determine the individual ‘I’ evokes a peculiar feeling, I believe his argument constitutes a sufficiently valid theory.
