Gould and Lewontin used the Panglossian paradigm to critique the adaptationist view, that we studied in the previous class. In the adaptationist view, there is really only one explanation when it comes to why a certain trait came to be. Adaptationists believe natural selection leads to the optimization of traits. So if you wanted to explain why a lizard had all its individual traits, you would want to explain why each trait is optimal for its function by natural selection. However, according to Gould and Lewontin, we need to be deploying a more comprehensive pluralistic approach to analyzing natural selection. Organisms must be analyzed as integrated wholes that are constrained by phyletic heritage, pathways of development, and general architectures so that constraints themseleves become more important in eliminating pathways of change than the selective forage that may mediate change when it occurs. In simpler terms, Gould and Lewontin assert constraints are much more important than adaptationist’s claim they are. Instead of picking out a trait and assuming that natural selection found the optimal fitness and overcame any relevant constraints, Gould and Lewontin say that constraints are what really matters and the selections are secondary and contingent on what those constraints are.
In class we really dove into the two metaphors that Gould and Lewontin use to critique the adaptationist programme. In metaphor #1 about San Marco, they relate the basilica to evolution by pointing gout the fact that some people think the elegant tapered spaces were installed specifically to host these beautiful illustrated scenes. However, they were actually added to make use to the particular shape that is a consequence of the basic architecture of the building. So an adaptationist may think oh well they wanted to showcase these beautiful murals so they put them atop in the spandrels. But, in reality, in order for the building to be structurally sound, they had to add the spandrels. Because the spandrels were already necessary, they consequently added in the artwork, not the other way around. Here you can see the relevance of constraints. In metaphor #2, the fact of the matter was, cannibalism was taking place. An adaptationist may view this situation as people eating each other because of some sort of adaptive need for protein. After all, humans are filled with protein. However, we clarified that what really happened was the religion was established, they desired some sort of sacrifice, they realized they had a particular resource (people) and consequently decided the sacrifice would be cannibalism. Eating people was a result of the established religion and not because of a protein shortage. Besides, there are other and more effective ways to get protein. If you look at the outcome of eating people in a bubble, you may fail to see the relevant background and plethora of constraints at play. We also reviewed the Panglossian view. Gould and Lewontin used Panglossian viewpoint synonymously with the adaptationist’s view because of their overly optimistic approach. For example, if you take a Panglossian approach, you may assume that we live in the best possible world with the best possible outcomes because God would’ve picked the world with the least evil.
This was one of the readings and classes that made more sense to me. I think this is partially because it was more focused on rationales rather than just biological processes. I agree with Gould and Lewontin that the adaptationist view is overly simplistic and enables us to make hasty generalizations about why certain traits came to be. Instead, we need to be identifying and distinguishing various possibilities for a traits appearance and viewing an organisms traits comprehensively rather than isolating each trait and analyzing it that way. Using a philosophical lens, taking a more pluralistic approach to understanding evolution, particularly natural selection, allows to be more fully informed agents. If we fail to take an intersectional approach to analyzing traits then we risk making faulty assumptions, ultimaltey thwarting our comprehension of the role of natural section and the outcome of various traits in various organisms. I also found it helpful that Gould and Lewontin used multiple human-centric examples. This was helpful because oftentimes these evolutionary concepts are hard to relate to or understand. After all, I don’t know what its like to be a lizard or dragonfly. But by highlighting common misconceptions about human behavior, we can see how one might think a certain outcome came to be but how by taking a more all-encompassing approach, we have an easier time explaining the appearance of certain traits. Moreover, by taking a more holistic approach, we eliminate a degree of error that is present when using the adaptationist view. A failure to understand traits in tandem with the other traits present leads to an incomplete view of an organism, its functions, and how it ended up its present/final form.
