Did we get evolution wrong?

Was watching this video and wanted to understand more so I asked Claude and Gemini:

Denis Noble and Richard Dawkins represent fundamentally opposing perspectives on how evolution works, centering on what drives evolutionary change and how biological information flows.

**The Core Disagreement: Gene-Centrism vs. Systems Biology**

Dawkins champions the “gene’s eye view” - evolution is fundamentally about genes competing for survival, with organisms as “survival machines” built by genes to propagate themselves. His famous metaphor is the “selfish gene” - genes are the primary units of selection, and everything else (cells, bodies, behaviors) exists to serve gene replication.

Noble rejects this entirely. As a systems biologist and physiologist, he argues that genes are passive databases that don’t “do” anything on their own. They require the cellular machinery, the organism’s physiology, and environmental context to function. For Noble, there’s no privileged level of causation - causality flows in multiple directions simultaneously, from genes upward and from the organism/environment downward.

**The Central Dogma Dispute**

Dawkins accepts the traditional “Central Dogma” - information flows one way from DNA to RNA to proteins, never backward. This supports his view that genes are the ultimate controllers.

Noble calls this the “Central Dogma Fallacy.” He points to extensive evidence that:
- Cells can modify which genes are expressed based on environmental signals
- Epigenetic modifications can be inherited
- The organism’s physiological state influences gene expression
- RNA editing and alternative splicing mean the same gene can produce different outcomes

For Noble, genes are more like a musical score - necessary but insufficient. The score doesn’t play itself; you need musicians, instruments, and an interpretation.

**What Gets Selected?**

Dawkins: Genes are what selection acts upon. Successful genes spread through populations.

Noble: Selection acts on organisms (phenotypes) in their environments. Genes are important contributors but not the sole level at which selection operates. The organism as an integrated system is what survives or fails to survive.

**Implications**

This isn’t just philosophical hair-splitting. It affects how we understand:
- **Inheritance**: Can acquired characteristics ever be inherited? (Dawkins: essentially no; Noble: yes, through epigenetic mechanisms)
- **Causation**: Are we prisoners of our genes? (Dawkins leans toward genetic determinism; Noble emphasizes organism agency and plasticity)
- **Research priorities**: Should we focus primarily on genomics, or on understanding multi-level physiological systems?

**The Deeper Philosophical Split**

Dawkins represents a reductionist, bottom-up view - understand the parts (genes) and you understand the whole.

Noble advocates for a holistic, multi-level approach - higher levels of organization (cells, organs, organisms) have causal power that can’t be reduced to genetic explanations alone.

Noble has been particularly critical of what he calls the “neo-Darwinist” synthesis for ignoring physiology and treating the organism as merely a vehicle for genes. He argues this has led evolutionary biology into conceptual dead ends and has called for an “extended evolutionary synthesis” that incorporates developmental biology, physiology, and systems thinking.

Dawkins, for his part, views Noble’s position as misunderstanding the power of gene-centered thinking and unnecessarily complicating what is essentially a simple, elegant explanatory framework. - Claude

Gemini:

That’s an excellent question that highlights a key scientific and philosophical debate in modern evolutionary biology. The views of Richard Dawkins and Denis Noble stand in stark contrast, primarily over the unit of selection in evolution and the role of the organism itself.
Here is a contrast of their core views:

Feature	Richard Dawkins’s View (Gene-Centric)	Denis Noble’s View (Systems Biology/Extended Synthesis)
Unit of Selection	The Gene. Proponents of the “Selfish Gene” theory, he argues that the gene is the fundamental unit of inheritance and selection. Organisms are merely temporary “survival machines” or “vehicles” for their genes.	The Organism/System. Noble argues that selection acts on the phenotype (the whole organism/function) and that there is no privileged level of causality in biology. The organism is the “agent” that uses the genes.
Causality in Biology	Bottom-Up. Causation flows primarily from the genes up to the organism and behavior. Genes are the “master controllers” or “blueprint” for life.	Multi-Level/Circular. Causation is multi-level, involving “top-down” and feedback loops. The cell and organism control gene expression, meaning the organism “dances to the tune of life” using its genes, not the other way around.
Inheritance	Strictly Genetic. Adheres to the traditional “Modern Synthesis” view that acquired characteristics are not inherited. The germline (genes) is completely isolated from the soma (body).	Extended Inheritance. Argues that research, particularly in epigenetics, shows that non-genetic information and acquired characteristics (functional changes) can be inherited across generations, breaking the strict “Weismann Barrier.”
Evolutionary Change	Gradual and Random. Variation from mutation is random with respect to function, and natural selection gradually filters the outcomes.	Non-Random and System-Driven. Changes are often constrained, facilitated, or even directed by the organism’s physiological system. Noble is a key proponent of an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis to incorporate phenomena like epigenetics, niche construction, and developmental bias.
Metaphor	The “Selfish Gene” and organisms as “Lumbering Robots."	"The Music of Life” or “Biological Relativity.” (Meaning all levels—gene, cell, organism—are functionally interdependent).
🔑 The Core Disagreement: Causality
The fundamental difference boils down to causality.
* Dawkins asserts that genes are the causal agents of evolution; they are the replicators striving for their own survival, with the organism being a temporary means to that end.
* Noble, a physiologist, argues that genes are resources used by the organism, which is a complex system. He points to phenomena like gene knockouts having non-predictive results, or the environment’s ability to trigger heritable epigenetic changes, to argue that the organism’s system has a higher level of control. In his view, a genome alone (a sequence of DNA) is meaningless without the “egg cell” or the whole system to interpret it.
💡 Insight: Two Valid Perspectives?
It is important to note that many contemporary biologists view this as a debate about emphasis rather than a complete contradiction.
* Dawkins’s model is extremely powerful for understanding the long-term, ultimate cause of evolutionary change (the differential replication of hereditary units).
* Noble’s systems-level view is crucial for understanding the proximate causes of biological function, development, and how evolutionary variation is generated and constrained.
Would you like me to elaborate on a specific concept, such as epigenetics or the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, which are central to Noble’s critique?