Darwin’s theory of evolution is a revolutionary theory that shakes up both ancient creationism and the conventional wisdom of genetic selection within modern science. This debate is an important process that expands our understanding of life and fuels the evolution of science.
“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness!” (Genesis 1:26) is a verse from the Bible. Before Darwin’s theory of evolution, people believed that humans were created by God. Catholic culture may have been limited to Western civilization, but the existence of God and creationism were common beliefs throughout humanity. Since Rome declared Catholicism the state religion, Western civilization has developed around Catholicism, which is also based on a belief in the existence of God, Jesus Christ, and creationism. Darwin’s theory of evolution was a major event that shook these beliefs and the foundations of Western civilization. Unsurprisingly, the theory of evolution has faced a myriad of criticisms and continues to do so to this day.
Evolution is a theory that explains how living things adapt through change, and is based on the principles of natural selection and survival of the fittest. The theory caused a stir in society as it clashed with the religious doctrines of the time. Recently, there have been moves to remove evolutionary theory from some textbooks in Korea. This is not a conflict within the scientific community, but rather a conflict between Protestant religious organizations and the scientific community. No matter how scientific and logical it is, the inconvenient truth that overturns long-held beliefs is hard for religious organizations to accept.
Ironically, something similar is happening within evolutionary theory. When it comes to evolutionary theory, the theory of genetic selection is the orthodoxy, the mainstream. The popular success of Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene has only strengthened its position. The proponents of genetic selection, represented by Richard Dawkins, argue that all living things-humans, animals, and plants-act to protect and spread their genes. In a nutshell, “natural selection acts on the gene level”. Challenging this conventional wisdom within evolutionary theory is the multilevel selectionist camp, represented by Stephen J. Gould. It argues that the behavior of organisms cannot be explained by genes alone, and that natural selection works not only at the gene level, but also at the level of individuals and populations. Just as the Catholic Church has difficulty accepting evolutionary theory, which overturns the dogma of creationism, so too does evolutionary theory have difficulty accepting multilevel selection, which threatens the dogma of genetic selection.
Let’s look at this specifically in the context of this book. The Dawkins camp sees genes as the key to trait development. The environment is just the backdrop, and genes are seen as the conductor of the orchestra, not just the players. As a concrete example, they point to the Pax6 gene experiment. The Pax6 gene is responsible for the expression of eye traits. They wanted to see if swapping the Pax6 gene between mice and fruit flies would produce the same eye traits. The results showed that when the Pax6 gene was swapped between mice and fruit flies, each produced normal eyes. Dawkins’s interpretation of this experiment is that genes with the same function can be swapped between species and species and still produce the same trait, so genes are the key to trait development.
But is this true? There is a logical contradiction in the interpretation of the experiment. In this experiment, the independent variable is the Pax6 gene. The dependent variable is the corresponding trait, i.e., there was no change in the environment of the fruit flies and mice. In other words, the same traits occurred even if the genes were changed because the environment was the same. To use an analogy, genes, like the environment, are just members of an orchestra, so it doesn’t matter what kind of musicians come in as long as they can play the same instrument. In other words, the expression of a trait requires a complex interaction between genes and the environment, and the environment is never just a background.
Next, let’s look at Dawkins’ most fundamental argument: the theory of genetic selection. As the book makes clear, it’s hard to criticize the theory of genetic selection because it’s so simple, easy to understand, and universal in its application to any situation. Dawkins’ selfish gene can be seen as a development of Hamilton’s rule, which is described as ‘R*B-C>0′ (R: gene relatedness, B: benefit to the other person, C: harm to me). Hamilton’s rule states that an organism acts altruistically when the likelihood that its genes will be preserved is higher than the harm it will suffer, with genetic relatedness (genetic identity with the individual being helped) as the controlling factor. In other words, even our altruistic behavior is ultimately aimed at protecting our own genes and passing them on to future generations. It’s amazing how this simple rule can be used to explain infertile worker bees. Gene selection, or gene reduction, is also a more convincing explanation for the color of polar bears’ fur than Gould’s theory of individual selection. It’s true that most of the experiments in the book boil down to gene selection, such as the explanation of why vampire bats help each other in terms of their own survival.
However, Dawkins’s view of individuals is that they are shells of genes, machines of genes. There are certainly behaviors that are difficult to explain in terms of genes and kinship. As the title of the second day’s discussion suggests, can the selfish gene explain Mother Teresa? When Mother Teresa helps someone, is she looking for a genetic link? Let’s assume that she does, but not rationally, but instinctively to follow Hamilton’s rule. Even if she did, the genetic relatedness between them would be extremely low. In other words, while “altruistic behavior with a purpose” exists, “altruistic behavior without a purpose” also exists in human society. I wonder how Dawkins would explain such purely altruistic behavior in terms of genetic reductionism, as it is not presented in the book. Even Mother Teresa was a selfish person.
Why did Galilei face the Inquisition when he argued for geodynamics based on scientific knowledge? The existence of God and creationism were the foundation of the Catholic Church and their dogma. Geodynamics threatened this, so they couldn’t easily accept any objective scientific knowledge. Dawkins seems to be making the same mistake as the Catholics by overemphasizing the importance of genes. Science evolves, just as life does. Rather than trying to put multilevel selection on the tribunal of evolutionary theory, science will once again evolve if we try to interpret facts that do not make sense in terms of genetic selection in terms of multilevel selection.
This discussion also suggests that scientific inquiry is not just about theoretical understanding, but must also consider social and cultural implications. Science has always interacted with society and will continue to do so. With the development of evolutionary theory, we have a deeper understanding of the complexity of life, which gives us a broader perspective. The debate between genetic selection and multilevel selection is therefore not just an academic conflict, but an important process that is expanding our understanding of life.
The history of evolutionary theory and the current debate show that science is enriched by more than just discovering new facts; it is enriched by revisiting existing understandings and offering new perspectives. This is an important lesson not only for evolutionary theory, but for all fields of science. Scientific truths are not fixed, but are constantly changing and evolving.
