Using the examples of Galilei and Darwin, discuss how non-mainstream theories that challenge mainstream theories can turn out to be scientific truths. Even within evolutionary theory, counter-adaptationism and multilevel selection are raised as opposing positions to adaptationism and genetic selection, and they advance scientific theory.
Until the end of the 16th century, the heliocentrism, the idea that the Earth is the center of the universe and that all the stars and planets, including the Sun, revolve around it, was strongly held. Based on his astronomical observations, Galilei discovered that the Earth was not the center of the universe and that it was just one of several planets revolving around the Sun. However, even with scientific evidence, it was difficult to change people’s minds overnight after so many years of thinking about the Earth. A famous anecdote is that Galilei, who was eventually put on trial for the Inquisition, said as he was leaving the courtroom, “But the Earth still turns.”
C.R. Darwin’s story is similar. In his book The Origin of Species, he explained the mechanism of adaptation and evolution of living species through natural selection, or evolutionary theory. He argued that as the first species lived in different environments and adapted to their environment over a long period of time, new species would arise with features that were adapted to their environment. While there is no disagreement in the scientific community about the evolution of life today, in the 18th century, people believed that all living things were created by God, and his claims caused a great deal of religious controversy and backlash.
Thus, evolutionary theory, once a fringe theory, became mainstream by defeating creationism, but within the framework of evolutionary theory, opinions have diverged again, dividing into mainstream theories (adaptationism, genetic selection, etc.) and fringe theories (anti-adaptationism, multi-level selection). As we saw with Galilei and Darwin, it is very difficult to formulate a new theory that differs from the mainstream, i.e., the prevailing ideas people have. However, just as geodynamics and evolution, which were once thought to be incorrect, were eventually proven to be true, debates about scientific issues should be judged solely from a scientific perspective, excluding personal thoughts, ideas, and preferences.
From this scientific perspective, I oppose adaptationism and genetic selection, which currently dominate evolutionary theory, in favor of anti-adaptationism and multi-level selection. In this regard, I would like to share my thoughts on the book Darwin’s Table.
“Darwin’s Table is a fictionalized conversation between some of the greatest minds in evolutionary biology since Darwin, William Hamilton, at the funeral of the greatest evolutionary biologist since Darwin. As the title suggests, the debate involves Darwin’s descendants who accept the theory of natural selection, a key concept in Darwin’s theory of evolution. While they accept the same theory, they disagree on its scope and strength, and argue fiercely about each aspect. Dawkins’s team, represented by Dawkins, supports the mainstream theory, while Gould’s team, represented by Gould, supports the non-mainstream theory.
First, whether human language is the result of adaptation or a byproduct of intelligence development, Dawkins favors the adaptationist position. Adaptationism holds that most of the characteristics of a species are the result of adaptation to its environment. However, I disagree and believe that language is a byproduct of human adaptation to the environment. First, the human language system is innate, and it is similarly present in other primates, such as chimpanzees. In addition, non-human primates have many forms of communication and the vocal organs to do so. However, given the fact that primates, and especially humans, have the most developed grammars compared to other creatures, and that humans have the most developed brains and the highest intelligence of all animals, it is reasonable to assume that human language is an outgrowth of brain development and intelligence. Secondly, experiments in which chimpanzees, one of the most intelligent animals after humans, are taught human grammar to form sentences also confirm that human language is a result of intelligence development. Chimpanzees, with brains that are one-fourth to one-third the size of a human brain, have a limited ability to learn language, no matter how much they are taught. Humans, on the other hand, can constantly create new sentences with rules they’ve learned in the first few years of life. As humans grow up, their intelligence develops to a certain point, allowing them to learn more language rules, while other animals are less intelligent and underdeveloped, so they don’t learn as much language.
An adaptationist might argue that the complexity and sophistication of the grammar of language fulfills the criteria for a trait to be considered an “adaptation,” i.e., a certain level of complexity, and therefore human language can be considered an adaptation to natural selection. However, adaptationists’ criteria for “complexity” and “sophistication” are very vague, and depending on the human subjectivity of the person applying the criteria, any phenomenon in nature can be interpreted as an adaptation. Adaptationists need to find more evidence and be more precise about what constitutes “sophistication” if they want to advance this logic.
Second, let’s look at the phenomenon of “cooperation” in nature. Individuals often cooperate with their peers or sacrifice themselves entirely, even when there is no benefit to them, e.g. worker ants and bees.
Dawkins’ team, advocates of the theory of genetic selection, argues for genetic reductionism, saying that “humans and all animals are survival machines and carriers of genes.” This is why ants and bees go to extreme lengths to sacrifice themselves in order to spread their genes more widely. Gould’s team countered that while evolution can occur at the gene level, it doesn’t necessarily have to. They argue that evolution can occur at the level of the cells, organs, and organisms that make up an organism, and that evolution can occur at all levels of the classification of organisms: species, genus, family, class, order, phylum, and family. This is called multilevel selectionism.
I’m in favor of multilevel selection. To be clear, I’m not saying that all the genetic selection theories are wrong, but I do think that there are many different levels at which evolution occurs, from the smallest gene strand to the organ, individual, and species. It’s true that genes are where change ultimately occurs through evolution. However, it is important to note that evolution here does not simply mean the evolution of genes, but evolution through ‘natural selection’. This is because it is not the genes themselves that cause an organism to evolve, but the entire organism that interacts directly with the natural environment, and it is the interaction with the natural environment that changes due to changes in the natural environment.
There is still a lack of evidence for evolution, so the debate at Darwin’s table is likely to continue. Despite the lack of evidence, productive debates like the one at Darwin’s Table can contribute greatly to the development of logical theories and the science of evolution. However, in my opinion, there are many phenomena that are not explained by the mainstream theories of adaptationism and genetic selection, which means that these theories are not perfect. Rather than taking an exclusive stance against other theories, thinking from the assumption that non-mainstream theories are correct can help us identify weaknesses in mainstream theories and further develop scientific theories.
