Evolutionary biology

Lightkeeper · #1 (**permalink**) 5th November 2006, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Evolutionary biology

The Selfish GeneDawkins is probably best known for his popularisation of the gene-centered view of evolution – a view most clearly set out in his books The Selfish Gene (1976), where he notes that "all life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities", and The Extended Phenotype (1982), in which he describes natural selection as "the process whereby replicators out-propagate each other". As an ethologist, interested in animal behaviour and its relation to natural selection, he advocates the idea that the gene is the principal unit of selection in evolution.

In his books, Dawkins uses the imagery of the Necker Cube to explain that the gene-centered view is not a scientific revolution, but merely a new way of visualising evolution. The Necker Cube, a simple two-dimensional line drawing of a cube, is interpreted by the brain as one of two possible three-dimensional shapes. Dawkins argues that the gene-centered view is a useful model of evolution for some purposes, but that evolution can still be understood and studied in terms of individuals and populations.

The gene-centered view also provides a basis for understanding altruism. Altruism appears at first to be a paradox, as helping others costs precious resources – possibly even one's own health and life – thus reducing one's own fitness. Previously this had been interpreted by many as an aspect of group selection, that is, individuals were doing what was best for the survival of the population or species. But W. D. Hamilton used the gene-centered view to explain altruism in terms of inclusive fitness and kin selection, that is, individuals behave altruistically towards their close relatives, who share many of their own genes.[13] (Hamilton's work features prominently in Dawkins' books, and the two became friends at Oxford; following Hamilton's death in 2000 Dawkins wrote his obituary and organised a secular memorial service.[14]) Similarly, Robert Trivers, thinking in terms of the gene-centered model, developed the theory.

From Wikipedia

What are your thoughts on this?

Asimov · #2 (**permalink**) 6th November 2006, 06:45 AM

Well, I think the way they are defining altruism is different than the way that I define it.

Jaiket · #3 (**permalink**) 7th November 2006, 01:29 AM

The selfish gene is a powerful explantory hypothesis. It's also the only one that I have found fits well with the facts and hypotheses of modern Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Rev. Rex · #4 (**permalink**) 21st November 2006, 12:12 AM

Dawkins ideas are one possibility, but far from the only one. Personally, I chuckle at any scientist who tries to define something so complex, in such simple terms. I don't believe that we have even scratched the foot of geneology, nor evolution, which is, after all, part of God's plan. How many dimensions are there? We don't know. What are all of the various ways that genes can be changed? We don't know. Will very simple chemical changes to gene structure make profound changes in the genome? We don't know.

Trying to define three or four dimensional space in terms of a two dimensional object is inherent with mistakes and problems. I encounter that often, for instance, reading a book that contains a drawing of an earthworm does not give a person the overall shape, size, or look of an earthworm, no matter how good that two dimensional drawing was. It is great for an over view, but not for more than that.

And how about trying to define a Teseract in terms of a 2 dimensional drawing. I'd say that was similar to using a 2 dimensional drawing to define any gene.

Jaiket · #5 (**permalink**) 21st November 2006, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Rex

I chuckle at any scientist who tries to define something so complex, in such simple terms.

It's a popularisation. The content has to be clear to a non-scientist or else it will not be read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Rex

And how about trying to define a Teseract in terms of a 2 dimensional drawing. I'd say that was similar to using a 2 dimensional drawing to define any gene.

The illustration was to show that looking at things from a different perspective can be enlightening. Wouldn't you agree?

Rev. Rex · #6 (**permalink**) 21st November 2006, 01:55 AM

I absolutely agree that looking at anything from a different perspective can be, and often is, enlightening. I do the same thing with religion. However, over simplifying something can have the opposite effect. Many people detest it when people over simplifying, because they come across as condescending, even if that isn't their intention.

It is amazing that Asimov and Dr. Sagan could both manage to not over simplify, and yet could not only hold interest, but get their meaning across. If a scientist can't do this, they probably shouldn't try. Leave that to someone who has the ability...it isn't everyone's cup of tea.

Jaiket · #7 (**permalink**) 28th November 2006, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Rex

It is amazing that Asimov and Dr. Sagan could both manage to not over simplify, and yet could not only hold interest, but get their meaning across.

I'm pretty sure I picked up Dawkins quite easily and I don't feel he oversimplified, but I suppose that's my personal judgement.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode