The cited article doesn't provide any specifics on the cause of their disagreement. It will, of course, be latched on to by the
DIDN'T! cohort (
Denialist Intransigent-Dogmo-Numb Theists) as "proof" that "
Evolution does not Work!" or that
"See! Even the best and brightest can't agree, so THERE!... Nyah!" and so on.
Ad nauseum, etc.
The simple outline in the article indicates, if I'm reading it correctly, that Wilson supports a strategy (not a conscious one, obviousy) that multiple genes can be and are involved in the natural selection process (also known as trial and error testing of
any new genome set.) Trial and error environmental niche "fit" testing
obviously occurs (
Duhhh!), and if the new mutation-based gene set discriminates against existence or suitability, it will,
natch, not likely support positive reproduction.
Just as obviously, if a gene mutation
set provides improved or significantly altered digestive abilities or food choices, improved night sight, leg length, muscle structure or dentition adaptability, even if that's in some
micro-nano-incremental improvement on any of these examples, such changes alone will provide a net positive, assuming
that variation fits the organism's goals of course. And noting that we don't, for instance, observe in nature a short-legged bunny rabbit turn, within one or two generations, into a long-legged Arctic Hare,
Bingo-Voila, as the anti-logical set of
DIDN'T! types so persistently demand. Silly, but predictable.
But anyhow, this just happens to fit into my Vectored Evolution™ concept from my 1981 biological research observations in genetics that I'm writing the Wiki article on as we speak...). VE™ means that there can be, and usually are, a
set of altered/mutated gene loci that may not have their full, or even
any, immediate effect on an organism's functionality or appearance. But a subsequent single or perhaps two or there mutational changes suddenly facilitates a group alteration in several capabilities.
SO it appears, perhaps to Dawkins in his explanations, simplified for the audience at hand, that the single gene is somehow solely responsible for the significantly changed phenotype. In a way, this may be true, since again, according to my EV™ theory, that single gene does indeed start/ignite the series of genetic alterations that produce that spectacular longer-legged rabbit.
http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.48397...57839&pid=15.1
Dawkins knows of this concept and has also referenced it from his own observations. He does not know of me, of course, but I'm v. sure we'd get along! He surely is also not actually claiming that improvements
only occur via a
onesy mutational strategem, because it simpy doesn't make sense. Mutations can and do occur in singles, yes: observed & documented. They can alter a phenotypical (outward- or functionality-) change, and thus produce such events as sickle-cell anemia.
Which is, btw, an excellent example of a single gene having a significant effect all on it's own. Sickle cell anemia is an autosomal recessive condition, meaning you need to inherit two copies of the gene
(Thanks Mom! Thanks Dad!) to develop the disease. Sickle cell anemia is caused by a
single gene mutation in the
lone beta-hemoglobin (Hb) gene. The normal DNA sequence for the beta-hemoglobin gene is called HbA, while the sickle cell-causing version is called HbS.
Genetic Causes Of Sickle Cell Anemia | LIVESTRONG.COM
Remember in this hot & cited argument that we
do have very specialized and acknowledged
expert folks' egos at stake, always, no matter if it's the Pope, your local priest's reputation, a Christian Sciences curriculum teacher,
rifleman v. the
fundies &
DIDN'T cohort here, or Dawkins v. Wilson.
Genetic Smackdown!
I don't think there's a real war going on here. It's a semantics argument at best!
("What's
semantics??" yowl the poised-to-bite
DIDN'T crowd: "'
Cause, y'know... if it relates to Evolution, it doesn't exist!
Semantics is
just a theory!"
Yawn...
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.49717...91954&pid=15.1
(self-portrait of disinterested
rifleman in his early formative years...
)
Bottom line: the manner in which phenotypical changes are noted, their frequency and their significance, are all subject to the general viewpoint & perspective of whichever geneticist or Evolutionary Ecologist is at the podium. The consequential outcome of the established mutational mechanisms, is, of course, now well observed and is, of course,
nolo contenderé,
inarguable.
Evolution is
exactly how species diversity we now see it, and which is occurring amongst all the planet's organisms as we speak, takes place. Increment by tiny increment, within
groups of genes or within
single genes in sensitive and facilitating loci or "situations".
I wonder if this answers anything?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My 25¢ worth....
It was needful to pre -empt any tactical attempt by the anti -evolutionist lobby to claim that evolutionist leaders are falling out, which would of course prove that it isn't true. 
