On Natural Selection

"The late Stephen Jay Gould also took issue with the gene as the unit of selection, arguing that genes are not directly 'visible' to natural selection. Rather, the unit of selection is the phenotype, not the genotype, because it is phenotypes which interact with the environment at the natural selection interface." - Wikipedia

I knew someone was out there championing this cause, that there can be no way, given Darwin's description of the mechanisms of natural selection, that genes themselves can be directly seen or acted upon. What is then of course troubling is the need to establish the link then between phenotype and genotype (not forgetting of course to include behavior as a phenotypical characteristic), and in certain cases, it is unclear.

Therefore, I think it's incorrect to reduce everything to a discussion on direct selection. Many effects are very, very subtle - not every behavior, not every physical feature has a purpose. It may not have even had a reason for its design. It may simply exist, it may be selected for or against, and even if it were, if it's not genetically based, this selection may not result in evolutionary change.

Another fault I find with many evolutionary biologists' arguments, also in the case of Dawkins', is their simplistic view of our metaphysical understanding of our own species. Probably the easiest example to cite here is the idea that humans are smart enough to fight against its own reproductive success with the use of contraception. They fail to appreciate that humans, no matter how intelligent, cannot stand above the natural laws of selection. In other words, our behaviors are derived from and contribute to the universal drive for species self-proliferation. Contraception is in a way a reproductive strategy - to help forge bonds between couples and to allow for careful planning of the extraordinarily exhausting process of childbirth and child rearing. The shift is made from quantity of offspring to quality of care.

I would venture to be even more heretical and admit my doubts about the completeness of evolutionary gene theory. I am beginning to wonder if social evolution is a factor that needs to be accounted for in explaining some of the unintuitive patterns of gene transmission to later generations. (What I mean is, the trend of well-to-do families having far fewer children on average than families of lower income; the higher survival rates afforded to the offspring of families with more resources do not seem to suffice to account for this gap; the "genes" of families with more resources do not seem to be passed on at any higher rates - the structure of our pyramidal societies may need to be obtained at the expense of the simplistic gene theory model).