Importance of Genes.

[ContraBull]

Is it possible that Dawkins overemphasized the importance of genes in the evolutionary process.
I was reading The Structure of Evolutionary Theory and noticed that Gould says that genes are actually a pretty small piece of the puzzle being only one branch of the theory. Dawkins seems to imply that genes control us, damn near made us, and that everything we do is to promote there existence. I tend to agree with Gould.
What do you guys think?

[Free Thinkr]

Is it possible that Dawkins overemphasized the importance of genes in the evolutionary process.
I was reading The Structure of Evolutionary Theory and noticed that Gould says that genes are actually a pretty small piece of the puzzle being only one branch of the theory. Dawkins seems to imply that genes control us, damn near made us, and that everything we do is to promote there existence. I tend to agree with Gould.
What do you guys think?
Genes are the method of heretibility, and are therefore the are the primary concern of evolution. Until reading Dawkins, I looked at evolution from the standpoint of the organism; now I look at it from the standpoint of the gene-pool.

[Philosoft]

Sounds like typical Gould and Dawkins.

My new recommended reading is Nature via Nurture by Matt Ridley. It promotes a synthesis of strict naturism and strict nurturism by exploring the effects of environment on heritability.

[Method]

The field of Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo) would disagree. Regulation of genes and gene cascades is more important than the primary sequence of the gene itself. My own feeling is that the "truth" lies somewhere in between a gene-centric and regulation-centric mechanism.

[Doubting Didymus]

The field of Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo) would disagree. Regulation of genes and gene cascades is more important than the primary sequence of the gene itself. My own feeling is that the "truth" lies somewhere in between a gene-centric and regulation-centric mechanism.

And yet, how do permanent heritable changes in gene regulation come about, if not through changes in dna? (note that, despite having thought and read about this one for a long time, I'm still not sure if devo-types actually argue that non-genetic heritable changes are possible, so this isn't all rhetorical)

[RBH]

And yet, how do permanent heritable changes in gene regulation come about, if not through changes in dna? (note that, despite having thought and read about this one for a long time, I'm still not sure if devo-types actually argue that non-genetic heritable changes are possible, so this isn't all rhetorical)I've recently read both Endless Forms Most Beautiful and Biased Embryos and Evolution, and I'm not sure either.

RBH

[God Fearing Atheist]

Of course those changes will have to be heritable. What evo-devo has done is helped everyone realize that phenotypic change can occur all throughout ontogeny and not just very late as classical assumed [though its probably wrong to call this an assumption as I doubt it was explicitly held by anyone...my guess is that the old timers failed to consider the question at all].

Its not just about how you could derive a fully-developed scale into a feather anymore, for example, but how you could move from the developmental precursors of a scale (specifically, the placode) to a feather. Whenever the change occurs though, it needs to be passed on.

[Doubting Didymus]

What I have come to understand by being involved in a fair few gene-centrism debates is the importance of development, as well as the importance of macroevolutionary* phenomena on the course of evolution.

However, apart from this emphasis on non-gene influences, I've never seen anything that actually invalidates dawkins's gene-selectionism, which is as perfectly comfortable working in the context of developmentas it is in the context of an organisms environment.

I suspect that gould and lewontin and other's mission to give emphasis to non-genetic influences on evolution was compromised, at least in the popular mind, by it's opposition to gene selectionism, even though this may not have been explicitly advocated by the authors themselves


*note that I'm using this hideous term in the sense that gould and eldridge and those fellers use it, and NOT as it's popularly used by both sides of the E/C debate.

[EricK]

Is it possible that Dawkins overemphasized the importance of genes in the evolutionary process.
I was reading The Structure of Evolutionary Theory and noticed that Gould says that genes are actually a pretty small piece of the puzzle being only one branch of the theory. Dawkins seems to imply that genes control us, damn near made us, and that everything we do is to promote there existence. I tend to agree with Gould.
What do you guys think?
Have you actually read any Dawkins, because you seem to be promoting a strawman interpretation of his books?

In fact, he specifically points out in a number of places that genes do not control us, and that not everything we do is to promote there existence.

Eric

[ppnl]

Is it possible that Dawkins overemphasized the importance of genes in the evolutionary process.
I was reading The Structure of Evolutionary Theory and noticed that Gould says that genes are actually a pretty small piece of the puzzle being only one branch of the theory. Dawkins seems to imply that genes control us, damn near made us, and that everything we do is to promote there existence. I tend to agree with Gould.
What do you guys think?

I think it is important to understand that Gould and Dawkins are useing different definitions of gene. To Dawkins a gene is like a subroutine in a program. A subroutine can itself contain subroutines and so a gene can be composed of other genes working together to make a larger gene. Thus any complex process can be said to be controled by "a gene". But to Gould the process is a global result of a large complex of genes interacting in a complex way with the environment and simple chance.

I think mostly the disagreement is in their style of expression. Look deeper and there is less disagreement than you may think.

[God Fearing Atheist]

I suspect that gould and lewontin and other's mission to give emphasis to non-genetic influences on evolution was compromised, at least in the popular mind, by it's opposition to gene selectionism, even though this may not have been explicitly advocated by the authors themselves

I think its just the opposite really. Lewontin et al. were often quite explicit about how they viewed their ideas as fundamentally opposed to or revolutionary new takes on more mainstream approaches. In their minds they werent simply placing a greater emphasis on neglected but fully compatible evolutionary mechanisms (real or imagined).

Its the Gouldites and lay public that try to put on a more reality-friendly spin (e.g. our old pal "PC" Myers...when Gould says "ultradarwinian adaptationists" like Tooby and Cosmides never consider non-adaptive hypotheses what he REALLY means is...)

[Doubting Didymus]

rrrarrrm

I guess I agree with you mostly, but of coursewhat gould and lewontin really hated was too much adaptationism. Dawkins talks about adaptation a lot, but his gene selectionism is not neccessarily tied to the 'adaptationist program'. So I still suspect the main thrust of G&L's argument leaves gene selectionism intact.

[God Fearing Atheist]

To the extent that we're only talking about their views on "adaptationism," sure. But their work as a whole goes way beyond that, and I was only using it as an example.

[Phil McCracken]

It's not just about the genes, but how they are regulated. Both are (obviously) important.

[travc]

Dawkins was writing for a specific audience (and time) where orgamismic level evolution was in a quite central (and exclusive amoung many) role. He very strongly argued that genes are the most important unit. He did not argue that genes are the "only" unit.

Gould was a git IMO. He was focused on palentological evidence and therefore viewed evolution through changes in traits (organismic level). He didn't even have genetic evidence to work with. Gould viewed Dawkins arguments as attacks on all of Gould's work, basically thinking that Dawkins was claiming that changes in morphological traits were relatively unimportant. So Gould latched onto the arguemnt that "only the organism is operated on by natural selection" (ie only organisms realy reproduce, so fitness is a trait of an organism). This arguement is pretty much crap IMO since "in a certain environemnt" is a neccisary adendum to talking about the fitness of anything, and the "organism" is part of the environment of a gene. On the other hand, organismic traits are easy to measure and the organism provides a natural simplifying unit to work with, and is therefore a good practical "unit of selection" for many many (but not all) situations.

BTW: Genes are not the only unit of herdity. I humbly suggest reading "Evolution in Four Dimensions" by Jablonka and Lamb. I'm currently reading this, but so far it has been very accessible and very accurate (which is a rare combination). It will also provides a historical background on the theory of evolution in the first chapter (which, though breif, is far better than any other I have seen).