The Selfish Gene
- Thread starter Nin'
- Start date
No, it does not, Sam. And since you are going to make James point valid by not reading a book and then commenting on it, we can safely conclude anything you say about the book is sheer ignorant speculation based on your biased worldview.
I think its a crock of shit. Its the same kind of argument that people have used for legitimising eugenics before [its in the genes, we cannot deny it!!!]
The fact is that most human societies are based on the concept of mutual acceptance and tolerance. There is no society based on universal ruthless selfishness. It cannot prevail. In most societies, conformity is encouraged, it is outliers who are eliminated.
To ascribe such qualities to genes is a misrepresentation of science. In fact, it does not fall within the purview of science, since evolution is without direction. If you don't adapt, you die.
The qualities of genes should not be considered as a model for human society. Dawkins does point that out on numerous occasions.
What qualities of genes?????
He's ascribing human qualities to genes. Genes do not have qualities!
Irrelevant, you haven't read the book hence that is your personal biased worldview based on ignorance.
Irrelevant posturing based on personal biased worldview.
Read the book and then come back and comment. Until you do, keep your mouth shut.
He is using human qualities as a metaphor, a manner of speech. He said that too, if you bothered to be informed about the things you comment on.
As a metaphor for what? Genes do not plan, do not execute, they are merely cogs in a process. What human beings do, whether selfish or atruistic is a CHOICE. Genes do not have choices.
Exactly. That process results in either more of a specific gene, or less of them. Thus the ones that proliferate are the ones that code for things that help them do so. They seem to act selfishly even though that is a human term that doesn't strictly apply to non-thinking strings of code. Dawkins does explain all this in the book, and he made a special point about it in the introduction, since people often misunderstand it.
I've read the book. Its a misrepresentation of concepts to make invisible points that are not relevant. Genes do not multiply or proliferate, organisms do. The process is not controlled by genes, they are inter alia a part of the environment, much like the nitrogen cycle, the water cycle and the conservation of energy are not directed by nitrogen, water or kilojoules. Its a false paradigm.
SAM:
It sounds like you haven't read this book either.
Dawkins is very careful to qualify and explain everything he says in the book. All the concerns you have raised are addressed in detail in the book.
The fact that such concepts do not make evolutionary sense says nothing at all about whether they make any moral sense.
Also, note the important qualifiers: "universal" and "species as a whole". Love of certain individuals (such as family, for instance) makes very good evolutionary sense.
You think a book you haven't read is a crock of shit?
Who cares? You don't know what you're talking about.
Correct.
This is exactly Dawkin's point. So, you appear to agree with him.
No, he isn't. And he doesn't. He is very careful not to ascribe any human qualities to genes.
As I said before, the only thing genes "want" is lots of copies of themselves. That's it. (And yes, you should interpret the "want" in a non-human way.)
Correct.
It sounds like you haven't read this book either.
Dawkins is very careful to qualify and explain everything he says in the book. All the concerns you have raised are addressed in detail in the book.
Dawkins said:
The fact that such concepts do not make evolutionary sense says nothing at all about whether they make any moral sense.
Also, note the important qualifiers: "universal" and "species as a whole". Love of certain individuals (such as family, for instance) makes very good evolutionary sense.
You think a book you haven't read is a crock of shit?
Who cares? You don't know what you're talking about.
Correct.
This is exactly Dawkin's point. So, you appear to agree with him.
What qualities of genes?????
He's ascribing human qualities to genes. Genes do not have qualities!
No, he isn't. And he doesn't. He is very careful not to ascribe any human qualities to genes.
As I said before, the only thing genes "want" is lots of copies of themselves. That's it. (And yes, you should interpret the "want" in a non-human way.)
Correct.
Did you understand it?
Without genes, no organism would be in a position to proliferate anything.
That would also be true for ribose. So do we also have a selfish ribose?
Without this concept, there is no explanation for altruism, such as that found in ants. In an ant colony in Brazil, it was recently discovered that a few ants are left behind each night to close up the nest from the outside, and then they die. It is not in an individual ant's interest to die, so how could this behavior come about? One would think the gene or combination of genes that contribute to this behavior would soon die out.
I don't understand. Please explain in more detail.
I said his analogy makes no sense. Altruism as an evolutionary concept makes perfect sense. Selfishness [whether behavioural or moral] makes none. A selfish gene will die. Kin selection does not work if you're adopted and don't know who your father or mother are. People kill their children all the time. Or adopt other people's children. These are conscious choices.
I've read the book. What is the input of genes/ribose in their survival or replication in the spaceship?
I could postulate an equivalent theory on ribose, we can call it the Altruistic Ribose since it is critical for all metabolic processes, all transcription [RNA and DNA] and hence all life. That makes as much sense as survival driven by a selfish gene. Besides, as a unit of DNA [de-oxyribose], its a unit of a gene and should be entitled to its own behavioral oddities.
How do you explain altruistic behavior, if in the act of dying for another, all your genes die with you? If you happen to lack a neo-cortex and higher moral thought, how would this behavior proliferate?