Socio-biologists argue that all major human behavioral patterns must be adaptive as the products of natural selection. Extending this argument even further, are humans just instruments that genes use to make even more genes like themselves?
Molecular evolutionists argue that evolutionary change is not only uninfluenced by natural selection but is truly random in direction. For example, more than one DNA sequence yields the same amino acid. How can a genetic change from one redundant sequence to another be controlled by natural selection? (since selection will "see" the same amino acid in both cases)
In the end, Darwinian pluralism might triumph.
Selection will be important but not omnipotent.
Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History by Stephen Jay Gould
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment