This blog post compares the evolutionary approaches of Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, exploring why they held differing views on the speed and direction of evolution.
This book creates a fictional debate using the opposing views of Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould on Darwin’s theory of evolution. Richard Dawkins wields the powerful weapon of ‘The Selfish Gene’ to explain genes, evolution, and more through his own logic. In contrast, Stephen Jay Gould views evolution from a broader perspective rather than relying solely on genes. If Dawkins can be considered more logical, objective, and scientific, then Gould is certainly scientific but also strongly inclined toward the social sciences. Before delving deeper into Dawkins’ position, let’s first understand what a scientific theory is.
The dictionary definition of a theory is ‘a system of propositions logically and coherently generalized to explain the principles or knowledge of things’. A scientific theory is one that explains natural phenomena; it should have as few exceptions as possible and be generalizable. For a hypothesis to become a theory, its content must generally fit all natural phenomena. It cannot be ‘this applies in this case, but not in that case.’ A single explanation must account for diverse situations. This blog post will focus on determining which of Dawkins’ and Gould’s arguments aligns more closely with a scientific theory.
Richard Dawkins’ position is well articulated in his books. In The Selfish Gene, he argues that natural selection during evolution occurs at the gene level. A persistent problem in Darwin’s theory of evolution has been the difficulty of explaining altruism in individuals through Darwin’s theory of natural selection. However, the theory of the selfish gene explains these altruistic tendencies, and more broadly, the diverse tendencies of other individuals. In contrast, Gould’s position asserts that natural selection applies not only at the gene level but extends to individuals and populations.
Gould’s argument is not incorrect. However, Dawkins’ argument fully considers and encompasses Gould’s position. Clearly, natural selection occurs at the individual or group level, but such selection is entirely explained by the selfish behavior of genes, as Dawkins states. That is, Dawkins’ more comprehensive and general argument is more suitable as a scientific theory. Of course, this argument must also explain how crucial genes are as molecules within living organisms.
The term “gene” primarily refers to DNA. Yet one might wonder how such a simple organic molecule, composed of sugars, bases, and phosphates, could be the protagonist of natural selection. Observing viruses can resolve this question. Viruses primarily parasitize, often destroying their hosts, and mass-replicate themselves using the host cell’s established systems. In this process, they also replicate their own genetic material using the host’s replication system. Viruses possess an extremely simple structure consisting of a protein shell and nucleic acid, which is their genetic material (or gene). It is difficult to even call a virus a living organism. Whether viruses are living organisms or not is indeed a matter of debate. However, whether they are living or not, observing how viruses behave clearly demonstrates that they can exhibit selfish tendencies at the genetic level.
Unlike viruses, the behavior of multicellular organisms like humans, plants, and animals may be difficult to directly link to the selfish actions of genes. While it seems natural for genes to act like masters at the viral level, this is harder to observe in multicellular organisms.
However, this is an error stemming from a lack of biological knowledge. Multicellular organisms also began as single-celled lifeforms. All organisms are formed by a single cell continuously dividing. Therefore, the genes within the cells of an individual organism are identical. Viewed this way, humans can also be strongly influenced by their genes. Thus, genes can exert an absolute influence on an organism’s behavior, and the selfishness of genes underlies this. Natural selection also occurs at the genetic level.
Dawkins’ superiority is also evident in explaining the pace of evolution. Dawkins supports Darwin’s gradualism, while Gould advocates punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium posits that species remain largely unchanged for extended periods before undergoing rapid change in relatively short intervals, allowing for contingency in life’s history. Gradualism, conversely, does not. Gradualism states that changes in life and species occur very slowly and continuously. Fossils discovered so far seem to lend support to Gould’s punctuated equilibrium theory because the patterns of change in fossils align closely with it.
However, even in this case, Dawkins’ argument is more general and comprehensive. This is because the pace of gradualism, which Dawkins supports, is fluid. This is because the periods of rapid change described in Gould’s punctuated equilibrium theory can be explained as instances where the pace of gradualism accelerates.
One might find this explanation far-fetched. Yet, examining their respective claims reveals that Dawkins’ position aligns more closely with reality. The pace of life’s evolution can never be fast. Of course, sudden changes can exist. But can we truly say that such sudden changes occur in an absolutely short time? The very notion that the process of adapting to the environment is fast is flawed. And while extinction caused by natural disasters can be cited as a counterexample, such examples represent the extreme case of extinction. Even if the disappearance of a species occurs relatively quickly due to this impact, the period required for a species to transform and re-emerge is absolutely not fast. As time passes and the environment changes, living organisms gradually adapt and transform accordingly. During this process, sudden environmental shifts can accelerate the pace of change, while settling into a stable environment can slow it down.
Dawkins’ perspective on evolution is also closer to scientific theory than Gould’s. Dawkins views evolution as progress, while Gould sees it as an increase in diversity. Simply viewing evolution solely as an increase in diversity is incorrect. Species diversity tends to increase gradually, barring major natural disasters. However, one cannot claim this increase in diversity is evolution. Evolution is the process by which species change to better adapt to their environment as they live. That is, it is progress.
Occasionally, when arguing that evolution is not progress, examples are given of organs or tissues that degenerate as organisms adapt to new environments. One might think that since the organism’s complexity has decreased, it is not progress. However, progress means advancing to a better stage, shedding unnecessary burdens and improving necessary parts. In this process, the complexity of unnecessary parts decreases while the complexity of necessary parts increases. Ultimately, these two changes in complexity will tend to increase overall complexity. Periods where organisms focus on shedding unnecessary burdens during evolution may be times of decreasing complexity. But looking only at these temporary intervals gives that impression; overall, complexity increases.
As an engineering student, I believe scientific principles always underlie all things, and all phenomena can be explained by scientific principles. Evolution is no different. What I wish to argue through this essay is that, as a scientific hypothesis explaining evolution, Dawkins’ argument is closer to a scientific theory than Gould’s.
This debate between Dawkins and Gould not only aids in a deeper understanding of evolutionary theory but also emphasizes the importance of scientific discourse. Science is not a fixed truth but a discipline that constantly changes and evolves. Various theories and hypotheses exist, and science has advanced through the process of pursuing better explanations and understanding. The Dawkins-Gould debate exemplifies this scientific inquiry, teaching readers to approach scholarship with critical thinking and an open mind.
Scientific debate goes beyond mere disagreement; it presents a path to truth through the process of verifying and complementing each other’s theories. While Dawkins and Gould view evolution from different perspectives, their debate offers readers the opportunity to understand evolutionary theory more deeply and, based on this, pose better questions.
Future evolutionary research will require approaches more complex and multifaceted than those of Dawkins and Gould. Advances in modern biology must consider not only genetic research but also diverse factors like ecosystems, environments, and social influences. This requires moving beyond a narrow focus on the selfishness of genes toward a comprehensive understanding of the entire evolutionary process of living organisms.
Furthermore, developments in cutting-edge scientific technologies such as molecular biology and bioinformatics are providing new tools and methodologies for evolutionary research. This enables more precise analysis of evolution’s diverse aspects and verification of new hypotheses. The debate between Dawkins and Gould provides a foundation for such future research and will play a crucial role in unraveling the mysteries of biological evolution.
In conclusion, the debate between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould on evolutionary theory is a significant case study illustrating the essence of scientific inquiry. Dawkins’ gene-centered approach and Gould’s multifaceted approach each possess distinct strengths, collectively aiding a deeper understanding of evolutionary theory. Scientific theories are not static but constantly changing and evolving, and such debates serve as a vital driving force for scientific progress. Moving forward, evolutionary research will continue to advance through diverse perspectives and approaches, enabling us to gain deeper insights into the mysteries of life phenomena.
