Lewontin link is EntirelyWrong.

In my opinion, Dawkins wins this debate hands down. Though I find it amusing to think what the Bayesians here will say about the part where a commenter asks him, "If you had to bet, what would you say is the proportion of alleles that evolve neutrally?", and Dawkins replies, "How I would bet should be of no interest to you."

Humor aside, as for Lewontin, I actually had the attitude of humble and judicious open-mindedness towards these controversies until a few years ago, when I read that magnum opus by him, Rose, and Kamin titled Not in Our Genes. Even disregarding the parts that read like a complete parody -- for example, when they advise us, apparently in full seriousness, to read Chairman Mao for enlightenment -- most of the book is such a blatant ideological hack-job that I was left wondering how anyone could take these people seriously. (To make the it even more absurd, I stumbled across that book in a university library while looking for Pinker's The Blank Slate, of which I found one single crisp-looking specimen sharing a shelf with seven or eight well worn out copies of Not in Our Genes.)

It's always awesome to see Richard Dawkins in action, but where's the substance? So rhino horn count might or might not be adaptive. Blood groups might or might not be adaptive. The 'tongue-rolling' gene might or might not have adaptive pleiotropic effects. These questions aren't 'boring' exactly but they're minutiae.

Reading Darwin's Dangerous Idea gave me the impression that the fundamental divide between the "adaptationists" and their opponents is whether all non-trivial instances of "design" in nature are the result of natural selection (including sexual selection) for something (which may or may not be the same thing that the design is currently used for) or whether somehow 'constraints' and genetic drift can funnel the progress of evolution towards complex ("designed-looking") characteristics that confer no adaptive advantage.

(To me, the latter still seems weird and unmotivated, though I'm not ideologically wedded to it being wrong.)

Moran quotes Dawkins:

... When a gene mutates into one of its synonyms, you might as well not bother to call it a mutation at all. Indeed, it isn’t a mutation, as far as the consequences on the body are concerned. And for the same reason it isn’t a mutation at all as far as natural selection is concerned. But it is a mutation as far as molecular geneticists are concerned, for they can see it using their methods.

And then writes

Dawkins doubts that any mutation giving rise to a visible phenotype can be neutral ("ultra-Darwinists like me incline against the idea"). Such mutations are only important in molecular evolution.

Maybe this is accurate as to what Dawkins believes, but it sure doesn't follow from the Dawkins quote. Dawkins is talking about silent mutations, so Moran's discussion of Dawkins's view of phenotype-altering mutations is a non sequitur.

Would you mind sharing your opinion on the debate at Moran's blog? Which of the camps you identify with, if any?

Also, if you could write up a short list of top biology bloggers you follow and recommend, I'd be grateful. I want to follow the field and the debates more closely than I have been (which was hardly at all).

Richard Dawkins appears to be posting under two different accounts on the thread.

Will the real Richard Dawkins please stand up?