Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould: At the Crossroads of Evolutionary Theory, Which Way Should We Go?

Focusing on the evolutionary debate between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, this book explores how the opposing theories of natural selection and environmental adaptation have shaped modern evolutionary theory. Dawkins argues for gradual evolution, emphasizing the role of genes, while Gould argues that the environment drives changes in individuals. This debate reveals the complexity and multilayered nature of evolutionary theory and gives readers a deeper understanding of the impact both theories have had on modern biology.

 

“Darwin’s Table is a fierce debate between two of evolutionary theory’s most prominent figures, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. After half a century of being criticized by creationism, evolutionary theory has become the accepted wisdom. Despite their different approaches, Dawkins and Gould are arguably the two most important contributors to the development of evolutionary theory today. The book unfolds through vivid descriptions of the debates in which the two men’s views came to a head.
I support Dawkins. Dawkins’ position is that the concept of “genes” alone explains most of evolution. Dawkins’ definition of a gene is simply “something that has the sole purpose of reproducing itself and perpetuating the species”. This should suffice to summarize his position. He advocates adaptation through “natural selection. As we said, genes have the sole purpose of “survival of the species,” so they select individuals (carriers) that are adapted to their environment in order to survive. Dawkins’ argument is that genes create individuals in a form that makes it easier for them to survive, and these individuals adapt to their environment. However, Gould’s basic objection to this is that the sole purpose of genes would seem selfish and therefore cannot explain the altruistic behavior of individuals. Dawkins counters by referring back to the purpose of genes. They sacrifice themselves to preserve genes similar to their own. For example, children will resemble their parents’ genes. If a child is in danger, saving him will be positive for the survival of the species. Worker bees can also be explained by genes. Since worker bees are 75% genetically similar to each other, working for others is good for the survival of their genes, which explains their lifelong altruistic behavior.
Dawkins advocates for gradual evolution. Speciation means that when a small population is geographically isolated, it evolves through reproduction into individuals with traits that are completely different from the population. This theory supports the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which states that evolution happened abruptly. Dawkins argues that slow evolution is possible as well as abrupt evolution, citing fossils that show trilobites underwent a gradual evolutionary process.
Dawkins argues that evolution can be characterized as progress when considered in terms of three aspects: complexity, adaptation, and the ability to evolve. Clearly, humans have more complex biological mechanisms than bacteria. Each of these biological mechanisms has allowed us to adapt more effectively in a given environment than before we evolved. This evolution is a necessary condition for the ability to give rise to new evolution. For this reason, Dawkins argues that evolution is progress.
In response to Dawkins’ claim that all evolution is reducible to the concept of “genes,” Gould, a “developmentalist,” offers a number of counter theories, one of which is “the role of the environment. In his debate about the relationship between environment and evolution, Dawkins also mentions the “phenotypic effect” of genes. The replacement of a DNA strand in a gene results in a change in the range of an individual. The argument is that if this change is better suited to survive in a given environment, it will be favored in adaptation through natural selection over other genes. An example of this would be our sophisticated language abilities. Dawkins points out that all individuals communicate to some degree. Humans are just more sophisticated, meaning that one of the common ways we communicate is through language. Dawkins argues that adaptation by selection has occurred in nature because of the need to communicate, and that humans are just an evolutionary development of that need. In other words, nature has a need to communicate, and each individual has a way of doing so, and our sophisticated language is just one branch of that need.
Gould refutes Dawkins’ idea that natural selection is limited to “genes” and argues that the environment evolves individuals. He argues that the environment can be influenced by genes to drive changes at the individual level. Dawkins counters that this is just a difference in categorization, and that it’s all the same explanation. He argues that “linguistic ability is basically a byproduct of a larger brain, or a byproduct of the development of general intelligence.” Highly evolved linguistic intelligence is simply a byproduct of a larger brain. Linguistic abilities arose as a result of changes in the environment that led to larger brains.
I’m more inclined to support Dawkins’ position that language arose as an “adaptation” through “natural selection” than Gould’s argument that it was caused by a “big brain.” Humans are very weak in nature when left alone and naked. We don’t have the strong teeth of a lion or the swift feet of a horse. Instead, we have a social nature. This sociality provides a means for a group of people to act in unison to protect the genes within the entity called “human”. This is one of the ways in which the genes survive. To survive, we had to socialize, which requires accurate communication. The evolution of genes and adaptation through natural selection could explain the development of sophisticated language skills.
In addition to this, I would take Dawkins’ position one step further and put the ‘burden of proof’ on Gould. In general, when we say that people have “adapted” to an environment, we mean that they live in it. For example, consider a man who goes to the army. When we say that he has “adapted to military life” after going from civilian to soldier, we don’t mean that his biology has changed. It would be more accurate to say that the same individual “lives” within a given environment. If the environment affects the individual, it means that the individual has adapted to the environment, but the biological characteristics have not changed. Since we’re talking about “evolution,” we should be focusing on “changes in the characteristics of the organism. Suppose, as Gould suggests, that factors other than genes, such as the environment, have influenced the evolution of an organism, how could that change its traits? Dawkins explains this by introducing natural selection at the genetic level. The argument is that even if there are environmental influences, the determining principle is genes. Consider a robot running along a straight line. There will be times when the robot doesn’t follow the line in a straight line and stumbles. This can be analogized to an organism that may deviate for a while due to the influence of its environment, but ultimately follows the line set by its genes. The word “gene” means something that fundamentally changes the biological characteristics of an individual. This seems like a very rational way of thinking, as it gives a precise reason for the cause. On the other hand, Gould relies on statistical results to make his point, unlike Dawkins’ efforts to identify the underlying cause. To refute a fundamental principle, you need more than statistics to support your argument. Since Dawkins has proposed a genetic explanation, the burden of proof is on Gould to explain the underlying cause.