Book Review – Darwin’s Table (Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould’s Theories of Evolution, Which Argument is Closer to Scientific Truth?)

This book is a fictionalized debate between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould on the theories of evolution, discussing which claim is closer to scientific truth: Dawkins’ gene-centered theory or Gould’s multifaceted theory of evolution. In The Selfish Gene, Dawkins explains evolution at the gene level, while Gould argues that evolution also occurs at the individual and population levels. By examining evolution from different perspectives, the debate emphasizes the importance of scientific inquiry.

 

This book is a fictionalized debate between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould about Darwin’s theory of evolution. Richard Dawkins uses the powerful weapon of The Selfish Gene to explain genes, evolution, and more with his own logic. Stephen Jay Gould, on the other hand, looks at evolution from a broader perspective than just genes. Dawkins is logical and objectively more scientific, whereas Gould is certainly scientific, but with a strong social bent. Before we get into the details of Dawkins’ position, let’s start by explaining what a scientific theory is.
The dictionary definition of a theory is “a system of propositions generalized in a logical and orderly manner to explain things or knowledge. A scientific theory is a theory that explains a natural phenomenon and should be as general and without exceptions as possible. In order for a hypothesis to become a theory, it had to fit all natural phenomena in general. It is not a case of this and not that. One explanation must explain many different cases. In this article, I’ll focus on which of Dawkins’ and Gould’s arguments is more akin to a scientific theory.
Richard Dawkins’ position is well documented in his books. “In The Selfish Gene, he argues that natural selection during evolution occurs at the gene level. The problem with Darwin’s theory of evolution has always been that it’s difficult to explain altruism in individuals using Darwin’s theory of natural selection. However, the selfish gene theory explains this altruistic tendency, and more broadly, many other individual tendencies. Gould’s position, on the other hand, argues that natural selection does not only apply at the genetic level, but extends to individuals and groups.
Gould’s argument is not wrong, but Dawkins’s is the one that takes into account and encompasses all of Gould’s arguments. Obviously, natural selection of individuals or groups does occur, but it’s all explained by the selfish behavior of genes, as Dawkins puts it. In other words, Dawkins’ more comprehensive and general argument is better suited to scientific theory. Of course, such an argument would require an explanation of how genes are such important molecules for life.
The term gene usually refers to DNA. It’s easy to wonder how such a simple organism made up of sugars, bases, and phosphoric acid could be the protagonist of natural selection, but viruses are the answer. Viruses are primarily parasitic, destroying their hosts, and they use the host cell’s systems to replicate themselves in large numbers. In this process, they also use the host’s replication system to replicate their own genes. Viruses have a very simple structure, consisting of a protein shell and nucleic acids, which are the genetic material (or genes). It’s hard to call viruses living things. Whether or not viruses are living things is a controversial issue. However, whether they are or not, the way they behave is enough to show that they are selfish at the genetic level.
Unlike viruses, the behavior of multicellular organisms, such as humans, plants, and animals, can be difficult to directly attribute to the selfish behavior of genes. This is because while it seems natural for genes to behave like masters in viral-level entities, it’s harder to see that in multicellular organisms.
However, this is an error that arises from a lack of biological knowledge. Multicellular organisms also started out as single cells. All living things are created by a single cell dividing over and over again, so the genes in the cells of an individual are identical. This means that people can be strongly influenced by their genes. This is why genes can have an absolute influence on an individual’s behavior and why genes are selfish. Natural selection also occurs at the gene level.
Dawkins’ dominance can also be seen in his explanation of the pace of evolution. While Dawkins supports Darwin’s gradualism, Gould argues for punctuated parallelism. Discontinuity parallelism is the theory that species change little and then change dramatically in a relatively short period of time, allowing for contingency in the history of life. Gradualism, on the other hand, does not. Gradualism says that changes in life and species occur very slowly and are constantly changing. The fossils found so far seem to lend support to Gould’s discontinuity theory. This is because the pattern of change in the fossils is close to a discontinuous parallelism.
But even in this case, Dawkins’ argument is more general and comprehensive, because the pace of the gradualism he advocates is fluid. Gould’s argument can be explained by saying that the periods of rapid change in the discontinuity parallelism are the periods of rapid change in the gradualism.
You might think that this explanation is absurd. However, their argument is closer to Dawkins’. The rate at which life evolves can never be too fast. Sure, there may be sudden changes. But can we really say that they are short in absolute time? It’s a fallacy to describe the process of adapting to the environment as fast, and while extinction due to natural disasters can be used as an example to counter this argument, it’s important to note that this is an extreme case of extinction, and even if the disappearance of a species is relatively quick, the timeframe for species to change and be born again will never be quick. As time passes and environments change, organisms gradually adapt and change accordingly, sometimes faster than before due to abrupt changes in the environment, and sometimes slower than before due to settling into a stable environment.
Dawkins’ view of evolution is also more of a scientific theory than Gould’s. Dawkins sees evolution as progress, while Gould sees it as an increase in diversity. It’s not correct to view evolution simply as an increase in diversity. Species diversity tends to increase gradually. Unless there are major natural disasters. However, this increase in diversity is not evolution. Evolution is when species change over the course of their lives to better adapt to their environment, in other words, progress.
Sometimes people argue that evolution is not progress, citing as an example organs or tissues that have degenerated as organisms adapt to new environments. You might think that since the complexity of an organism has decreased, it hasn’t progressed. However, progress is about moving to a better stage, discarding unnecessary baggage and improving what is needed. In the process, the complexity of the unnecessary parts decreases and the complexity of the necessary parts increases, and these two changes in complexity will eventually tend to increase the total complexity. As life evolves, periods of focus on shedding unnecessary baggage will be periods of reduced complexity. This is only true in these temporary intervals, but overall, complexity increases.
As an engineering student, I believe that the principles of science are always behind everything, and all phenomena are explained by scientific principles. Evolution is no different. What I want to argue in this article is that Dawkins’ argument is closer to a scientific theory than Gould’s as a scientific hypothesis to explain evolution.
This debate between Dawkins and Gould not only provides a deeper understanding of the theory of evolution, but also emphasizes the importance of scientific debate. Science is an ever-changing and evolving discipline, not a fixed truth. There are many different theories and hypotheses, and science evolves as we seek better explanations and understanding. The Dawkins-Gould debate is an example of this kind of scientific inquiry, and it teaches readers to think critically and approach the discipline with an open mind.
Scientific debate is more than just a disagreement; it’s a search for truth, as both sides validate and complement each other’s theories. Although Dawkins and Gould view evolution from different perspectives, their debate provides readers with a deeper understanding of evolutionary theory and the opportunity to ask better questions.
Future evolutionary research will need to go beyond Dawkins and Gould’s theories and take a more complex and multifaceted approach. Advances in modern biology must take into account ecological, environmental, and social factors in addition to genetic research. It should not be limited to the selfishness of genes, but should move toward a comprehensive understanding of the evolutionary process of life as a whole.
In addition, advances in advanced science and technology, such as molecular biology and bioinformatics, are providing new tools and methodologies for evolutionary research. This will allow us to analyze different aspects of evolution more precisely and test new hypotheses. The Dawkins-Gould debate provides the basis for such future research and will play an important role in unraveling the mysteries of biological evolution.
In conclusion, the debate between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould on the theory of evolution is an important example of the nature of scientific inquiry. Dawkins’ gene-centered approach and Gould’s multifaceted approach each have their own strengths, and together they can contribute to a deeper understanding of evolutionary theory. Scientific theories are not static; they are constantly changing and evolving, and these debates are an important part of scientific progress. The study of evolutionary theory will continue to evolve through different perspectives and approaches, which will allow us to better understand the mysteries of the phenomenon of life.