What Darwin Got Wrong, By Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini

Survival of the fittest...or just lucky?

Reviewed,Brandon Robshaw
Sunday 13 March 2011 01:00 GMT
Comments
(Associated Press )

Your support helps us to tell the story

This election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.

The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.

Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.

This is a sustained, sophisticated assault on the central principle of Darwinism: that natural selection is the main driving force behind evolution.

It should be said immediately that there's no comfort for creationists here: the authors don't dispute the fact of evolution. They also don't dispute that natural selection occurs, but they argue that it cannot be the main explanation for the evolution of species. ("We think of natural selection as tuning the piano, not composing the melodies.")

The argument is in three parts. First, the authors analyse six similarities between natural selection and behaviourism. Behaviourism is now discredited as a theory of learning, so maybe natural selection should be too? (This is the least convincing part.) They then consider biological constraints: ontogeny limits the way that genes can express themselves as phenotypes; chemistry rules out certain kinds of mutation. In other words, mutations are not random. The third part is a conceptual attack on natural selection: how do we know which phenotypes were selected for, and which are "free riders" (that is, concomitants of phenotypes which were selected for)? To make such a distinction one must ascribe purpose to natural selection, which it doesn't have.

No replacement candidate for natural selection is offered. The authors suggest that multiple forces might drive evolution. I wasn't convinced by the argument, but I was stimulated and perplexed.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in