The Meme Machine

94 THE MEME MACHINE
Universal Grammar, nor the evolution of language (see Pinker and Bloom
1990). According to Chomsky, we do have innate language structures, but they
have not got there by natural selection. They must have got there purely by
accident, as a by-product of something else, such as the general increase in
intelligence or brain side, or by some other process that we do not yet
understand. On this slew there were no selection pressures for language itself.
Gould has long argued against the power of selection and adaptation in
evolution in general (Gould and Lewontin 1979). He argues, instead, that many
biological features evolved as by-products of something else or as consequences
of natural physical processes and constraints on structure and form. In the case
of language, he says, it must have come about as a by-product of other
evolutionary changes – such as the overall increase in brain size (though, as we
have seen, that is also unexplained), or because of some as yet unidentified
physical constraints.
I do not think that such an approach can work. There is no doubt that simple
physical processes can produce intricate designs, such as snowflakes,
interference patterns, or ripples on the sand of a beach. There is no doubt that
physical constraints are important; the properties of air constrain the shapes of
wings and tails, and gravity puts limits on height and size. By-products
inevitably occur as designs change, and some of these by-products turn out to be
useful and are then exploited by evolution. But these processes alone cannot
account for evolutionary progress (though remember that Gould does not believe
in progress either) nor for complex functional design. The only process that can
produce new designs that build on and develop the old is the evolutionary
algorithm (p. 11). With heredity, variation, and selection you can explain the
gradual appearance of incredibly improbable things like eyes, ears, fins and tails.
Language is an incredibly improbable thing, showing obvious signs of intricate
design. It is no explanation at all to say that it came about as a by-product of
something else or entirely because of physical constraints.
The non-selectionist arguments of Chomsky’s, Gould and others have been
roundly criticised by Pinker and Bloom and many other contributors to a lively
debate in the peer review journal Brain and Behavioral Sciences (1990). Pinker
and Bloom argue that language shows signs of complex design for some
function, and that the only explanation for the origin of organs with complex
design is the process of natural selection. They conclude, therefore, that
‘specialization for grammar evolved by a conventional neo-Darwinian process’
(Pinker and Bloom 1990, p. 707).