The Selfish Gene

[spidergoat]

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

Replication is part of the process necessary for genes to be expressed as complete bodies or behaviors, but the mechanism of replication is incidental.

 

[Roman]

Gene replication is important because you have to copy genes to get them into your gamete, as well as make more cells to replace old/dead ones. Expression is what makes a gene important for natural selection.

Though replication is due other genes expressing.

 

[spidergoat]

...We are simply 'vehicles' or 'survival machines' made for our genes. ...

Remove the word "simply", and that would be correct. Attributes that do not contribute to the survival of a gene or set of genes might still be preserved as long as they aren't costly. We are far from simple, especially animals that are able to learn. Genes may code for a brain, but that brain might not always benefit the genes. People invented birth control, and they sometimes commit suicide. We raise another person's children when we adopt them, even though they don't share half of our own genes like a biological child would...

 

[Roman]

Remove the word "simply", and that would be correct. Attributes that do not contribute to the survival of a gene or set of genes might still be preserved as long as they aren't costly. We are far from simple, especially animals that are able to learn. Genes may code for a brain, but that brain might not always benefit the genes. People invented birth control, and they sometimes commit suicide. We raise another person's children when we adopt them, even though they don't share half of our own genes like a biological child would...

Even genes that are costly get preserved, if they're close to worthwhile genes. Sometimes, costly traits are preserved for no other reason than finite population size and accident.

 

[iceaura]

I think its a crock of shit. Its the same kind of argument that people have used for legitimising eugenics before

It's almost the exact opposite of the arguments for eugenics. According to Dawkins, eugenicists have completely misunderstood the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution.

He's ascribing human qualities to genes.

No, he is not. Have you actually read any of Dawkins books?

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

Genes do in fact multiply, and proliferate - often independently of their original organism. You have seen that in bacteria, in your lab.

No they don't. If I put one million genes on a spaceship and send them into outer space, which one will have the most copies?

If you send one million rabbits into space, which one will have the most copies ?

Like I said, its an anthropomorphic definition.

They all are, in your sense. Every single word used to describe the behavior of anything except a human means something different than it does when used to describe the conscious behavior of a human. Including such words as "reaction" in the phrase "chemical reaction", for example. We are using language to describe non-human events and occurences and states of existence. If you want to point and grunt, that's your choice.

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

Ants are altruistic, in the relevant meaning of the word - the non-reproducing ones, at least.

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

You appear to be confusing evolutionary "pressure" with causality. It is much closer to bookkeeping.

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

The "selfish gene" theory of survival of the gene.

 

[Roman]

I don't get why people feel it's necessary to decry eugenics or claim that their theory doesn't support it.

 

[Michael]

oh?
whats the new and improved version?

The Blind Watchmaker was pretty good.
The Extended Phenotype
The Meme Machine has a more progressive set of ideas on the "meme" which is interesting.

In short the Selfish Gene was published 30 years ago and there have been a lot of advances made in the understanding of genetics since that time. Maybe the newer additions have these ideas incorporated? I read the book a long time ago so I really can't remember anything other than it was pretty good

 

[Michael]

. An individual can surpass their programming.

could we qualify this with the some individuals?

Also, I read about an MIT experiment (I think it was MIT) and in essence they had their subjects wear these monitor devices and by the end of a period of time, a computer could predict, with something like 70% accuracy, which choices they would make in their daily lives - in essence, people were for the most part just reacting to their environment and not really "thinking" per say, at all. Perhaps most of the time for most people this is their life, their "free will" so to speak.

Now, think of the part religion plays in regulating daily activities, the need to care for basic needs like sex and food and toilet and we can see that for many people the % of "free will" is near nil.

Anyway, it's interesting stuff....

 

[Michael]

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.

In this sense the ant colony could be viewed as a single organism, as most ants are clones and carry 100% compliment of DNA. Perhaps not unlike the cells that are shed from our skin to protect the rest of the body...

 

[Michael]

Including such words as "reaction" in the phrase "chemical reaction", for example. We are using language to describe non-human events and occurences and states of existence. If you want to point and grunt, that's your choice.

nice

 

[spidergoat]

Exactly. The ant that sacrificed itself shared genes with all it's siblings, so it's genes benefit from the death. That would be counter intuitive if we look at the individual as the unit of selection.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes. Well, in that genes that get passed on (in general) are genes that code for products that increase fitness.

Not necessarily. They are merely genes that do not die ie get reproduced.

Replication is part of the process necessary for genes to be expressed as complete bodies or behaviors, but the mechanism of replication is incidental.

Uh, what?

Exactly. The ant that sacrificed itself shared genes with all it's siblings, so it's genes benefit from the death. That would be counter intuitive if we look at the individual as the unit of selection.

The ant "sacrificed" itself. The gene did not. The choice, such as it is, is made by the ant. To the gene there is no difference.

 

[spidergoat]

Uh, what?

In this case, the details of the mechanisms of gene expression are not relevent to the larger idea, which is that the gene is the unit of selection.

The ant "sacrificed" itself. The gene did not. The choice, such as it is, is made by the ant. To the gene there is no difference.

The choice is made by the ant that the genes made. Genes that code for this behavior aren't wiped out by the ant's death, since by it's death, it helps all it's siblings or clones that share the same gene to survive.

Do you dispute that there are genes which have such specific effects?

 

[S.A.M.]

In this case, the details of the mechanisms of gene expression are not relevent to the larger idea, which is that the gene is the unit of selection

Again, expression or replication? You seem to be switching back and forth

The choice is made by the ant that the genes made. Genes that code for this behavior aren't wiped out by the ant's death, since by it's death, it helps all it's siblings or clones that share the same gene to survive.

Complete gibberish.

Do you dispute that there are genes which have such specific effects?

Yeah, because behaviour is a multi-faceted organic response, not the product of a gene expression

 

[spidergoat]

Again, expression or replication? You seem to be switching back and forth.

Expression is how the genes turn into physical structures, replication is just a step in cell division. Anyway, either one is not relevent to this discussion.

Complete gibberish.

The genes make an ant with built in responses. Individual ants don't reason out the need to close the nest. Every night. For the millions of years those kinds of ants existed.

Yeah, because behaviour is a multi-faceted organic response, not the product of a gene expression

It's both. In higher animals, the genes create a brain that can reason things out. In lower animals, it creates specific responses to stimuli that don't require massive intelligence.

 

[S.A.M.]

Expression is how the genes turn into physical structures, replication is just a step in cell division. Anyway, either one is not relevent to this discussion.



The genes make an ant with built in responses. Individual ants don't reason out the need to close the nest. Every night. For the millions of years those kinds of ants existed.


It's both. In higher animals, the genes create a brain that can reason things out. In lower animals, it creates specific responses to stimuli that don't require massive intelligence.

Uh I give up. Keep ascribing motivations to genes. You're on the right track to nowhere.

 

[Nin']

Uh I give up. Keep ascribing motivations to genes. You're on the right track to nowhere.

Wow, I get back from work to see this thread filled with your garbage troll posts. Thanks for the waste of space.

Thanks to all the others who gave their thoughts about the book.

 

[(Q)]

I've read the book.

We all know that's not true, Sam. Repeating it isn't going to make it any more truthful.

The problem here is that many of us go to great lengths to read transcripts of scriptures and other such religious documents to satisfy those theists who use the argument that atheists have no idea what they're talking about, or the argument that the translations we read are not acceptable. You've often flaunted that one yourself.

So, in all fairness, if you're going to dissect a book, have the intellectual honesty to actually read the book first.

 

[S.A.M.]

We all know that's not true, Sam. Repeating it isn't going to make it any more truthful.

The problem here is that many of us go to great lengths to read transcripts of scriptures and other such religious documents to satisfy those theists who use the argument that atheists have no idea what they're talking about, or the argument that the translations we read are not acceptable. You've often flaunted that one yourself.

So, in all fairness, if you're going to dissect a book, have the intellectual honesty to actually read the book first.

I've read the book, (Q), I simply disagree with its premise, its a reductionist theory of behaviour and makes no sense in terms of gene function OR evolution. It confuses a hell of a lot of people who have no idea what genes are or what they do. Just read the thread and you'll know what I mean.

 

[(Q)]

I've read the book, (Q)

:-----------}