I don't think so. Dawkins: the selfish gene, follows the same track as the "fundamental theorem of biology" due to Fisher (1930). Here the increase of mean fitness is calculated over the set of genes under the assumption that a gene may have a fitness of its own. According to Maynard Smith the theorem states that; “the rate of increase of mean fitness of any organism at any time is equal to its genetic variance at that time” (but there is no doubt that evolution maximises mean fitness, see my contribution Intelligent Design/ A proof against ID and creationism/Evolution as intelligent design).
But a population may reach a state of selective equilibrium, in which case the increase of mean fitness is equal to zero, but not necessarily the genetic variance. So the fundamental theorem can hardly be a fundamental truth. Of course, the calculations of Fisher are certainly correct. But the result is wrong, because a necessary condition for evolution to be able to select a gene is that it has a fitness of its own, and this is not possible for all genes.
The same way of thinking appears in the definition of fitness according to Maynard Smith: “Fitness is a property, not of an individual, but of a class of individuals - for example homozygous for allele A at a particular locus.” This definition is certainly useful in breeding programs. But unfortunately, a theory based on this is completely useless as a basis of a model of an evolution selecting individuals.
Dawkins metaphor concerning “the selfish gene” is an example where selfish genes are supposed to be units of selection. These may even cause individuals to become selfish. With respect to the observation that not even the “fundamental theorem” is correct, it seems dangerous to draw such far reaching conclusions from this way of thinking.
An additional example is the evolution of helper behavior, which is explained in terms of egoism as kin-selection (Hamilton). But there is no need for any egoism to explain the phenomenon. If the individuals of some primitive species do not help their offspring to survive, then mean fitness may increase of some helper behavior evolves and - vice versa - an increase of mean fitness may cause a helper behavior to evolve. Further, if this behavior is extended to include relatives or even any individual independent of “race” or religion, then the mean fitness may increase even more.
gkm
™ Version 4.2
