Features

kahljorn · #26

Selfish gene..? isn't the wanton need to gather one of the most basic bio-survival tools inherent in all creatures? :doesntlikejokes

Sethomas · #27

Actually, I believe that's the point of the book. I considered buying it, but put it off.

Big Papa Goat · #28

Actually, its the wanton need to reproduce, not to gather. And as far as I know, the only philosopher to respond to Richard Dawkins Selfish Gene theory was completly fucking retarded, and her critique was quite ridiculous.
Like Jesus said though, most creatures don't really gather at all.

Big Papa Goat · #29

Quote:

Originally Posted by preechr

Make yourselves sheep, and wolves will eat you

Not if sheep are MEANT for WOOL instead of meat.

Seriously though, there's nothing I hate more than when people talk about how thinking and faith are equivalent, or when people say that thinking is useless or impossible. It's frustrating

And don't tell me thats not what you were just saying in this thread preechr.

Was I wrong about that signature quote though? I do remember some right wing crank with that sig, maybe it was someone else.

kellychaos · #30

Actually, in the theory, the "blue print" of the code was such that the genes weren't out for self-interest so much as success towards reproduction ... i.e. the "thinking man", as such, was the being that was more inherently selfish. Intellect? Give it a name.

Big Papa Goat · #31

Are you suggesting that the tendency of genes to maximize their reproduction is based on their being purposefully designed to 'multiply and subdue'? or what, I don't actually understand quite what you mean

But you could call genes 'self-interested' if you consider reproduction to be their interest. Genes that don't code for some kind of reproductive advantage for themselves just get tossed into the dustbin of history.

kahljorn · #32

"its the wanton need to reproduce, not to gather"

Yea, that would generally fall under the effect of Bio-survival, more so even than 'gathering'.

"most creatures don't really gather at all"

You're right, I think it's mostly the habit of mammals. From what I understand most things involving any form of community(even if it's "Selfish"-- you could almost call reptiles selfish by nature which is what made me relate it to 'Oral' tendancies) are generally considered the foot of mammals, which I guess would make them "anal".

Selfish and anal.

kahljorn · #33

I read up on this topic and it seems rather ridiculous from certain angles. I understand the idea the genes that do good things for us are more likely to reproduce via the goodness keeping us good, but after that it kind of trails off.
Kelly, being keyed towards reproduction makes sense for genes, considering their inherent function is to essentially hold genetic blue-prints for later days. Kind of like a "save file" for a video game or something. But then, that's kind of common sense in a way... it seems they would carry that feature just by being our "Foundation" and considering reproduction is usually through the transfer of genetic material... pointingouttheobvioustheories?

This theory seems to be trying to hint at the idea that all of life is directed towards evolution into better organisms(or in this case genes) from a genetic viewpoint, maybe insisting that genes are what cause evolution. That's about all it provides. Kind of boring, really. I thought that idea was already inherent within the concept of evolution? It seems all he really did is link genetics and evolution together(I'm guessing that might be historically true?), but seeing as how genetics are kind of the building blocks of our organism it really wasn't a far fetched connection. I mean, what did people think? That the organism itself goes through some kind of metamorphosis? I like to get cozied up in my cocoon. That seems more unlikely than genetic alteration.
All in all this theory presents no new understanding of how evolution occurs, just a very loose why. I just read a brief summary of it, though, so maybe I didn't get into where it gets too "Crazy" and just suffered through the shallow end.

I thought this had sounded familiar, though. He's the guy who "invented" "memes". Ironic considering how popular memes are.

Big Papa Goat · #34

Are you talking about Dawkins' book?
Because the point of Dawkins theory was that it's genes, not organisms that are the unit of competition in evolution. It may seem pretty obvious now, but around the time he was writing it a lot of people were talking about how evolution selects for or against species or individual organisms. The book doesn't have any really 'crazy' ideas, but it definitely clarified evolutionary theory, especially at the time it was written.
Organisms don't evolve, genes do, thats the point of the book in a nutshell.
And the point of the theory was explicitly not that evolution is about making organisms (or genes for that matter) "better". Evolution to Dawkins was simply the result of the differential reproductive success of different genes. Which in case any of you were wondering, is in fact what evolution is about.

Sethomas · #35

You can't typeset what genes do. I don't know if the author was purporting that there is one gene that exists in all species that makes them selfish, but I don't know. That seems over-simplistic, so I'll assume he's not.

For one thing, be careful to not say "gene" when you mean "allele". You could have a smart gene and end up with alleles for retardation, or a blue eye gene and end up with alleles for brown eyes.

Evolution as a whole does not have any tendency other than survival. At the genetic level, this amounts to no tendency whatsoever other than randomness. A gene for pale skin would be advantageous for survival in the Nordic region, but it'd be fatal in Southern Africa. A sickle-cell gene would put you at a statistical advantage in malaria-ridden areas, but elsewhere it'd simply kill people senselessly.

In my book I talk about an evolutionary phenomenon reflecting the human mind's tendency toward sin, that is, concentration of the self over devotion to the community. The entire spectrum is represented in nature, from alpha male lions killing the males juveniles of a pride for sexual primacy, to a worker bee stinging an attacker for the sake of defending the hive. So, there is no "selfish" gene except where it is proactive for propagation of the species.

CaptainBubba · #36

If this whole evolution thing is so true and its supposed to work by a slow and gradual process of random mutations in which the fittest for a particular niche reproduce at greater frequency throughout generations of their bloodline, then answer me this simple question Mr.scientists:

Why can't I fly?

CaptainBubba · #37

And don't even try to give me any of that "Your body is too heavy" bullshit. Birds "evolved" from dinosaurs and they weighed like a bajillion lbs.

Evolution just got its ass handed to it. kthxbye.

Sethomas · #38

Because you're too poor for a plane ticket?

Big Papa Goat · #39

Genes don't get selected for when they propgate the species, they get selected for when they propogate themselves. Not always the same thing.

And from a genetic reproductive stadnpoint, a colony of social insects can really best be considered a signle organism, since the individuals comprising it all have the same genes, and only one of them reproduces. So from a genetic perspective, none of the individual organisms can have a 'self-interest' opposed to the 'interests' of the hive. A lion on the other hand doesn't share as many genes with some other lions offspring as he would his own, so he's ok with killing other lions and their offspring if it will help him have more succesful offspring.
The point Dawkins was trying to make I think was that genes have a tendency to code for phenotypic traits that result in their (the gene itself) own propogation, not that there is some gene that codes for a phenotypic trait of selfish behavior.

CaptainBubba · #40

Ok I didnt unmderstand any of that but my priest told me that you would say something confusing and you did!

Also my priest tells me that you may have come from monkeys but we sure didn't lol. Hes a funny guy. He gave me a whole book that talks about how evolution is flawed scientifically bewcause one time this scientist did a carbonation dating test or something on a bone from a monkey and it said it was like 300,000 years old and the earth started 10,000 years ago so come on. I mean, all we're asking for is the missing link. Its just one link and its not like its a generic and immaterial name for species that may or may not have existed and whose discovery wouldn't prove or disprove anything other than possibly some mundane anthropological indexing knowledge of the progression of one species to another.

Or at least thats what my priest says and I'm a retard.

Sethomas · #41

Most priests believe in evolution, dude.

CaptainBubba · #42

Have you ever even stepped foot below the bible belt friend?

Did you grow up for 15 years moving from state to southern state where undoubtedly if someone found out you weren't a creationist youd come back from lunch to a desk stacked with anti-evolution pamphlets?

I never said most priests dont believe in evolution.

I get the feeling that in real life you are one of those guys who when someone makes a joke you say something like "heh, yea but if his dick was so long he could suck it hed die when he got an erection so thats probably actually not possible. hey you made that whole limmirick up didnt you! FAKER"

Ohhhh wait I know what this is about. Still upset that no one found you remotely funny in the mock wars? Its ok man you still have your uh, pride or something I'm sure. Keep on referencing calculus btw it makes you look really smart dude ;p

xbxDaniel · #43

Is there any way to truly prove how old the earth is?
I don't mean to sound sarcastic, I'm seriously just ignorant when it comes to this stuff.

Rosenstern · #44

Nothing in historical science is really ever proven. Evidence suggests about 4.6 billion years, based on astronomy, astrophysics, geology, et al. In the face of all the evidence, saying the Earth is only six thousand (or whatever) years old is at least bold, and at most ignorant.

Edit: No, preechr, I'm not about to list all the individual pieces of evidence for you. Do some research for youself if you're curious about these strange things called facts.

ArrowX · #45

The way I can see all this creationism-evolution can co exist. If god created us in his image, could he not have created us as his sucessors as well? Do we not have the skills to create life and change it as if it were clay? It wasn't handed to us on a friggin platter, out race earned what it now posessess. Earned without any noticeable help form the almighty. Got started with large animals but that could have been an experiment. They failed so he wiped his slate clean to start over again. Evolution is mereley god perfecting his sucessors.

xbxDaniel · #46

That's a good perspective. If there is a God would it not be possible that he doesn't intervene in everyday activities and instead life moves on through natural selection and what works. Hell, the title of this thread is misleading. What have you all covered here? Evolution, genetics, religion, philosophy, etc. Am I missing something? Personally I think that God created a universe, but he left it to its own devices. Occasionally coming down on a few moments i.e. Jesus. Also, I don't really believe in Adam and Eve or Noah. Those two seem to be too ridiculous.

Wow, my support was weaker then a beam made of monkey asses.