How did Gould and Dawkins interpret Darwin’s theory of evolution?

Compare the arguments of Gould and Dawkins over Darwin’s theory of evolution. Gould debunks misconceptions about Darwin’s theory of evolution, criticizing the idea that humans are the highest product of evolution. Dawkins emphasizes the importance of gradual natural selection. The perspectives of these two scholars explore different interpretations of evolutionary theory.

 

In Full House, Gould argues that Darwin’s theory of evolution is besieged by misunderstanding and prejudice. He devotes the introduction of the book to clearing up misconceptions about Darwin’s theory of evolution before explaining his own theory of evolution. Gould argues that attempts to define the history of life in terms of progress in order to show that humans are the crowning achievement of evolution are misguided, emphasizing that humans are, in fact, just a small branch on a rich tree of life. He points out the fallacy of viewing the few that evolve toward open mutations as a system-wide phenomenon, and supports this with explanations of why major league baseball has lost the four-hole hitter and how bacteria are the greatest form of life. Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker, also attempts to explain misconceptions about Darwin’s theory of evolution. He argues that gradual evolution through natural selection is possible for a blind watchmaker, who is incapable of intentional design. In other words, he debunks the misconception that evolution occurs in one giant mutation, arguing that evolution is incremental improvement through natural selection, and that this is how complex organs like the eye or the bat’s ultrasound can develop.
After reading both books, I believe Gould is the scholar who understands Darwin’s theory of evolution better than Dawkins because he equates the unit of selection with the unit of mutation. Mutations happen in units of DNA bases, but natural selection does not work in units of DNA bases, because it takes three bases to make an amino acid, and an amino acid is generally not a unit of natural selection, and the unit would be much larger. Dawkins’ answer to the question, “What good would it do to have five percent of an eye?” was that it could be used to see, even dimly, which is not an adequate answer in the case of the eye when you consider the nerves that process vision. In the case of wings, the intermediate form of transitioning from forefeet to wings is inappropriate for both, making it unlikely that natural selection could have produced it. The existence of missing links in the fossil record, or intermediate fossils that have not been found, could also be a weakness in his argument.
So, does Gould have a complete understanding of Darwin’s theory of evolution? Let’s compare Darwin’s theory of evolution with Gould’s argument. Darwin believed that it is difficult to clearly define what is meant by the words “higher” and “lower” and that “lower” is used to mean less specialized for each function. In other words, prokaryotes, which we often refer to as lower organisms, are not inherently lower, but rather many parts of their systems are less specialized for each function. Gould believed that bacteria, an example of prokaryotes, cannot be said to be inferior because they have been around since the dawn of life, their diversity is incalculable, they live in extreme conditions that are difficult for us to discover, and they are more abundant than any other organism on Earth. Using the example of bacteria, Gould criticizes the idea of humans as the most advanced of life forms. In his view, the division of life into classes is a fallacy to rationalize human existence, not unlike Darwin’s argument that “higher” and “lower” are distinctions based on the degree of specialization of functions.
Darwin saw the progress of a system as an increase in “specialization of multiple functions”. While it’s hard to define what constitutes systemic progress, von Baer’s standard of “the amount of differentiation in a mature individual” is probably the most widely applicable, to which Darwin added “specialization in multiple functions”. And all living things as a whole have progressed and are progressing. Gould’s idea of systemic progress can be seen in his treatment of the problem of the four-hitter. The problem of the four-hitter is that while the world’s sports have steadily improved across the board, the rate of improvement has slowed, and the question is why we no longer see the four-hitters that once existed. Gould describes a .400 batting average as the tail of a bell-shaped curve of overall batting average, where the frequency distribution remains the same, but the variation decreases symmetrically on either side, resulting in a smaller standard deviation. He finds that the decline in the standard deviation of regular players’ batting averages is remarkably regular, even as the rules of baseball have changed to make the game more entertaining, so that as defense and offense improve across the board, they converge on the right wall, the human limit. In the end, Gould interpreted systemic progress as the expansion and contraction of variation, and the expansion of variation was limited by the right and left walls. This disagrees with Darwin’s theory of evolution, which states that systems have progressed and are progressing, and his alternative concept of progress, variation, claims that there are limits to variation.
Let’s also look at the idea of natural selection. Darwin believed that the standard of perfection reached in the natural world is competitive. This means that natural selection tends to make each organism as perfect as, or slightly more perfect than, the other inhabitants of the same region with whom it has to compete. He argued that there can be no perfection of life as long as natural selection is at work. In his book, Gould agreed with Darwin’s arguments about natural selection, and he bolstered his argument by emphasizing that the mechanism of natural selection contains no information about which organisms are superior, only that they happen to be favored in the particular environment that induces natural selection.
Finally, Darwin emphasized that what we see as the higher and lower forms of life is just a distinction, and that the lower forms of life that exist today are the surviving optimizers. Gould called it arrogance that most people still consider the birth of the human race to be inevitable and place us at the top of the evolutionary tree. By placing human history at the center of the evolution of life on Earth, other life forms – single cells, fish, amphibians, reptiles, etc. – are perceived as subordinate, and humans believe they are above all life and nature, and seek to destroy and dominate the ecosystem. Realizing that the emergence of humanity was an unpredictable coincidence caused by the increase in diversity, not an inevitable outcome of evolutionary principles, Gould uses the model of the full house to teach us to respect variation and diversity for what it is. I think Gould makes the same point as Darwin’s theory of evolution, but develops it further in his own way.
Since Darwin’s theory of evolution, many scholars have debated the drivers of evolution, the direction of evolution, and the speed of evolution, and I think Gould’s arguments make Darwin’s theory of evolution more convincing. I couldn’t help but feel that Gould only took the parts of Darwin’s theory that fit his argument in order to rationalize his opinion. Gould also emphasized that the Platonic strategy of reducing the whole to a single abstract number and tracking the change of this number over time leads to error and confusion, which is a bit puzzling since Plato reduces the whole to a single abstract number. This is because Plato’s Forms are essentially qualities, not quantities, and abstraction is a way of thinking that leaves out the particular and binds only the common, so Plato’s theory of Forms is not a metaphysics based on abstraction.