The Selfish Gene

[S.A.M.]

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?

By learning, thats how altruism usually works, its a conscious choice, like being selfish. Its why martyrdom, for example can be contagious, if it is taught as a "good" philosophy and deplored if it is taught as a "bad" one. The perception is all human.

 

[James R]

SAM:

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.

Did you understand Dawkin's point that even a gene for altruism (i.e. one that causes an animal to act altruistically towards fellow animals) is a selfish gene, if the trait it promotes (in this case altruism) promotes the survival of the host organism, thus ensuring that the gene itself is more likely to be copied into the next generation?

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.

Who said anything about kin selection?

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.

Did you read Dawkin's definition of "gene" in the book? He spends quite a while explaining exactly how he intends to use that word. It is not identified with a DNA molecule.

 

[spidergoat]

By learning, thats how altruism usually works, its a conscious choice, like being selfish. Its why martyrdom, for example can be contagious, if it is taught as a "good" philosophy and deplored if it is taught as a "bad" one. The perception is all human.

That would be a reasonable explanation, if it only occurred in higher animals. However, it occurs in ants. Ants are not taught to be altruistic, they are programmed by their genes. So, how could this originate?

Since genes do not have consciousness, the presence of genes that code for altruism could only have one explanation- behaving altruistically benefits the proliferation of that gene.

 

[francois]

Did you understand Dawkin's point that even a gene for altruism (i.e. one that causes an animal to act altruistically towards fellow animals) is a selfish gene, if the trait it promotes (in this case altruism) promotes the survival of the host organism, thus ensuring that the gene itself is more likely to be copied into the next generation?

It doesn't have to promote the survival of the host organism to be selfish. If it's selfish, it will tend to promote the survival of itself regardless of which body it's in. Kin share a lot of genes, so that's why they behave altruistically. It's the genes inside of them promoting their survival, indifferent to bodies.

 

[S.A.M.]

That would be a reasonable explanation, if it only occurred in higher animals. However, it occurs in ants. Ants are not taught to be altruistic, they are programmed by their genes. So, how could this originate?

.

Ants are not altruistic. They are insects. They are imprinted, not programmed; they follow the processes, its not a choice they make.

Since genes do not have consciousness, the presence of genes that code for altruism

What genes code for altruism?

It is not identified with a DNA molecule.

Then we're not talking about genes are we? Like I said, misrepresentation of concepts.

 

[spidergoat]

Ants are not altruistic. They are insects. They are imprinted, not programmed; they follow the processes, its not a choice they make.

They are programmed for altruistic behavior. This is a demonstrated fact. How could evolution produce such a program if the ant dies in the act?

Heroic ants pay the ultimate price to safeguard nest

What genes code for altruism?

It isn't learned, so it's genetic. Who knows which gene or combination of genes it is? That doesn't matter. If it were a choice, it could be easily understood, but ants don't have schools, learning, culture. Only the idea that the gene is the unit of selection can explain it.

The answer is that the altruistic ants share genes with the ants they save when they sacrifice their own lives, therefore that behavior is successful and that gene or set of genes grows in number in the gene pool.

 

[S.A.M.]

They are programmed for altruistic behavior. This is a demonstrated fact. How could evolution produce such a program if the ant dies in the act?

Heroic ants pay the ultimate price to safeguard nest




It isn't learned, so it's genetic. Who knows which gene or combination of genes it is? That doesn't matter.

Yes, but you're confusing book keeping with causality. There is no choice involved here.

Only the idea that the gene is the unit of selection can explain it.

Thats a very limited view of the universe. Genes do not react or respond. They are production houses. They are turned off and on, the information read and the product transcribed on ribosomes. Its other things in the milieu which are required for their function to be realised. If there is no stimulus, they are not turned on and nothing happens. Thats not causality.

 

[spidergoat]

Explain.

 

[S.A.M.]

see edit.

 

[spidergoat]

Yes, but you're confusing book keeping with causality. There is no choice involved here.

That is my point. There is no choice involved, so these ants aren't making this decision, they are programmed to do it. The question is, how could this come about by natural selection? It would seem that survival of the fittest would not favor suicide.

Thats a very limited view of the universe. Genes do not react or respond. They are products. Its other things in the milieu which are required for their function to be realised. If there is no stimulus, they are not turned on and nothing happens. Thats not causality.

Of course they don't react themselves, they are the product of natural selection. What they do is guide the growth of the creature and ascribe it with certain qualities, some of which we call behavior.

 

[S.A.M.]

That is my point. There is no choice involved, so these ants aren't making this decision, they are programmed to do it. The question is, how could this come about by natural selection? It would seem that survival of the fittest would not favor suicide.

Of course they don't react themselves, they are the product of natural selection. What they do is guide the growth of the creature and ascribe it with certain qualities, some of which we call behavior.

Arrrghhh! They don't "guide" anything. If at all, you can compare the gene to a giant library with indexed information. Stimulation can lead to specific transcription factors binding to a promoter site, unzipping the DNA, "reading" the info on it and transcribing it to ribosomes for final product of gene expression [proteins or enzymes or hormones]. Its the external milieu that determines the stimulus and response. The gene contains the information for the form the response takes, based on the information available [death or suicide is also a response, the gene cannot tell the difference between a good response or a bad response]

 

[spidergoat]

Your response is disappointingly immaterial to the subject.

 

[S.A.M.]

Why? because its broken down to biology rather than abstract concepts?

 

[spidergoat]

The final product of gene expression is a life form with built in behavior and responses. Agreed?

 

[S.A.M.]

The final product of gene expression is a life form with built in behavior and responses. Agreed?

No, the final product of a gene depends on the transcription factors and the machinery of the cell. Also the information it contains.

 

[spidergoat]

That might be true, but I don't see how it's relevent to the conversation. I'm saying that genes lead to the differences between species and individuals, and you are saying that genes depend on external environmental factors (in the cell) to replicate.

 

[S.A.M.]

So what is it? Gene expression or replication? Because those are two different processes.

 

[Roman]

SAM's playing semantics.

TFs read genes- their ultimate product ultimately falls to what the composition of that specific nucleic acid is. Unless SAM is decrying the Central Dogma.

 

[S.A.M.]

So you buy into the Selfish gene theory of survival too?

 

[Roman]

So you buy into the Selfish gene theory of survival too?

Yes. Well, in that genes that get passed on (in general) are genes that code for products that increase fitness. Accidents do happen, and sometimes you get linked traits.

Haven't read the book, though, so I cannot comment on specifics therein.