Gene propogation machines

Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 11 January 2011 at 20:57.
The [/w/index.php?title=Forum:Genetic_evolution_vs_memetic_evolution_(LQT!)&offset=20110111205751&lqt_mustshow=692 highlighted comment] was edited in this revision. [diff]

"I am a machine built to propagate my genes. Not yours, not society's best, mine. That's what I'm built to do, that is my purpose, my raison d'etre. This is why I want to have my children with my genes. Any other arrangement, whether rational or not, simply won't be acceptable. End of. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)"[1]

<monotone> Errrrr, I am Lumenati ReasonDiva 8000. According to my sensors your lumenator has malfunctioned.</monotone> You don't seem like one who would consider themselves to be a "social darwinist" so this must be some new fashionable scientificish evolutionary theory? Could you please explain how you came to the conclusion that you are "a machine built to propagate [your] genes"? ~ Lumenos (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
    ~ Lumenos (talk)21:55, 10 January 2011

    Lumenos, I am only going to say this once. You are a fucking nut.

      - π22:31, 10 January 2011

      Well you aren't helping me understand anything without pointing out some flaw in my reazoning.

        ~ Lumenos (talk)22:36, 10 January 2011
         

        In the absence of a like button here's a "+1"

          Scarlet A.pnggnostic23:05, 10 January 2011
           

          Read the Selfish Gene by Dawkins. It gets even more interesting though. It turns out that there can be interchromosomal competition between genes in the same organism. In highly polygamous species the male chromosome often develops genes that try and over extract resources from the mother, while the mother's chromosomes try and suppress this.

          I can dig up some specific papers on this if you want. One of my favorite demonstrations of it was two sub-species of mice, one was highly polygamous the other monogamous. They could interbreed though. If you took a polygamous male mated with a monogamous female you wound up with giant babies, if you did the reverse you wound up with scrawny under nourished babies. This gets into the Red Queen's race issues of signaling, but its intra-organism selection.

            Tmtoulouse (talk)22:43, 10 January 2011

            Que? I don't know that mice have any understanding of the future consequences of who breeds how and when, thus I don't understand how that proves that Jack Hughes is programed to propagate his genes.

            Is it possible Jack has been programed by some sort of "education"?

              ~ Lumenos (talk)03:14, 11 January 2011

              Individuals are a product of genes, the traits that genes encode for are traits that increased the propagation of the gene that encodes that trait.

                Tmtoulouse (talk)03:19, 11 January 2011

                Isn't that kinda like saying computers are the product of hardware?

                  ~ Lumenos (talk)03:34, 11 January 2011

                  No, it is like saying computers are the product of the machines that built them. You might try looking up the meanings of the words "genotype" and "phenotype."

                    Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX04:57, 11 January 2011

                    But, Teacher, I thought we were talking about the behaviour and value system of one particular "computer".

                      ~ Lumenos (talk)07:12, 11 January 2011

                      And ultimately behavior is a product of proteins.

                        Tmtoulouse (talk)07:18, 11 January 2011

                        Much like everything my computer does is the product of hardware?

                          ~ Lumenos (talk)07:47, 11 January 2011

                          Lumenos

                          Seriously I would expect most people on this site to be aware of the contents of "The Selfish Gene" even if they haven't read it. Check it out, it's an important book, possibly more than anything else Dawkins has written.

                            Jack Hughes (talk)11:35, 11 January 2011

                            Why can't you just tell me what the book says, as it relates to this topic?

                            I don't believe anyone understands human behavior enough to prove genetic determinism.

                              ~ Lumenos (talk)12:09, 11 January 2011

                              RTFM - seriously.

                              In the meantime - from Wikipedia

                              The Selfish Gene is a book on evolution by Richard Dawkins, published in 1976. It builds upon the principal theory of George C. Williams's first book Adaptation and Natural Selection. Dawkins coined the term "selfish gene" as a way of expressing the gene-centred view of evolution as opposed to the views focused on the organism and the group. From the gene-centred view follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with one another. Therefore the concept is especially good at explaining many forms of altruism, regardless of a common misuse of the term along the lines of a selfishness gene. An organism is expected to evolve to maximize its inclusive fitness — the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual). As a result, populations will tend towards an evolutionarily stable strategy. The book also coins the term meme for a unit of human cultural evolution analogous to the gene, suggesting that such "selfish" replication may also model human culture, in a different sense. Memetics has become the subject of many studies since the publication of the book.

                              Note that this implies that evolution favours the survival of the gene rather than the individual. In most cases this comes down to the same thing but bees which die to protect the hive are a classic example of when it's not.

                              At the risk of oversimplification in evolutionary terms my "job" is to be a vehicle for the survival and propagation of the various genes that I am made up of. My evolutionary "fitness" is determined by the number of genetic offspring I produce. Note that it's the number, not the quality, whatever that might mean. As such I am programmed to prefer my offspring over those of others. This is not wholly determined - adopted children are loved as much as natural offspring - but it is summed up in the old phrase "blood is thicker than water" or, as SJC's son said - "Kids that you are related to are cuter".

                              This is why eugenics is counter to genetic evolution. I would gladly give my life for my children - my genetic offspring - and would make sacrifices for my tribe - my close genetic cousins. However expecting me to give up genetic survival for the sake of... of what? Some vague concept in the "improvement" of humanity? This is doubly true when, as you point out, strict genetic determinism is highly doubtful - now you're asking me to give up genetic survival for some vague "improvement" in humanity using a method that may not work very well. Nah, that breaks the program.

                                Jack Hughes (talk)13:41, 11 January 2011
                                Edited by another user.
                                Last edit: 20:57, 11 January 2011

                                Your book review, didn't elaborate much on the simple concept of genetic determinism, so I'm replying to your later comments.

                                "At the risk of oversimplification in evolutionary terms my "job" is to be a vehicle for the survival and propagation of the various genes that I am made up of."

                                That's a fine analogy. But unlike the mouse you "know" who your "boss" is. Can you disagree with your "boss"? Do you have any preference for subjective things like happiness, liberty, awareness? Isn't your conscious mind and it's needs, more of a certainty than unimaginably complex theories of how the body works?

                                "My evolutionary "fitness" is determined by the number of genetic offspring I produce. Note that it's the number, not the quality, whatever that might mean."

                                Quality means their genes can last longer (since that is aaaaall you care about). Otherwise why aren't you hunting night and day for pregnatable females to shag?

                                ""Kids that you are related to are cuter"."

                                You'll just grab at anything that appears to support your philosophy. Look and you will see counter-examples.

                                "As such I am programmed to prefer my offspring over those of others."

                                Obviously, we are not all that way. How do you explain me? I prefer my "memetic" offspring who I have chosen, not an ancestral heirloom.

                                "This is why eugenics is counter to genetic evolution. I would gladly give my life for my children - my genetic offspring - and would make sacrifices for my tribe - my close genetic cousins. However expecting me to give up genetic survival for the sake of... of what? Some vague concept in the "improvement" of humanity?"

                                Let's take the extreme example of genetic engineering. Do you like absolutely everything about your genes? Say you had omniscient knowledge of your genome and your wife's genome, and you could combine germ cells, select every gene, and control the entire process. Would you change nothing?
                                  ~ Lumenos (talk)20:51, 11 January 2011
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                  Personal tools
                                  Namespaces

                                  Variants
                                  Actions
                                  Navigation
                                  Community
                                  Tools
                                  support