Gene propogation machines

Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 12 January 2011 at 17:15.
The [/w/index.php?title=Forum:Genetic_evolution_vs_memetic_evolution_(LQT!)&offset=20110112171551&lqt_mustshow=720 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.pngtheist23:05, 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

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

                                  Where to start?

                                  • There is a yawning abyss of difference between a "philosophy" and a gut reaction.
                                  • It is a very good thing that infants are cute, since that provides motivation for the laborious endeavor of keeping their little butts dry and clean, to say nothing of the hours spent marching up and down with a colicky kid on one's shoulder, screaming its lungs out right in one's ear. I can testify that it takes an awful lot of cuteness to make up for that, when the time could have been far better spent catching up on sleep.
                                  • I am not sure I even have a philosophy. To the extent that I might have the approaches to one, they could be summed up by the clever sayings on the back of the little tags once attached to Salada tea bags. My friend Paul claimed that those tags all said the same thing: "Don't be a dickhead."
                                  • There are always counter-examples. Something about them defining the parameters or boundaries of any rule... oh, right; that is what's meant by "proving the rule," putting it to the test.
                                  • More significant than the counter-examples are the central examples, the ones which define the prototype of a coherent cluster of ideas.
                                  • Philosophy has taken great strides since Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Many of those steps had to do with demolishing the false dichotomies at the root of classical logic.
                                  • Have a nice day.
                                    Sprocket J Cogswell (talk)22:33, 11 January 2011

                                    Just to be clear I guess you are arguing that "Kids that you are related to are cuter" is a universal trait of humans?

                                    "More significant than the counter-examples are the central examples, the ones which define the prototype of a coherent cluster of ideas."

                                    Have you pretty much shown us the unquestionable evidence that you have discovered a "central example"?

                                    "It is a very good thing that infants are cute, since that provides motivation for the laborious endeavor of"...

                                    When I said "philosophy" I basically meant "speculation" and "hypothesizing"; wild, creative, "fascinating" hypothesizing, that would make Kent Hovind proud to be a scientist. Dream on, ReasonDiva.

                                    "There are always counter-examples. Something about them defining the parameters or boundaries of any rule... oh, right; that is what's meant by "proving the rule," putting it to the test."

                                    And you've clearly provided proved the "rule" in this case, Teach.
                                      ~ Lumenos (talk)03:24, 12 January 2011

                                      I guess you are arguing that "Kids that you are related to are cuter" is a universal trait of humans?

                                      Guess again.

                                      Looking for unquestionable evidence or any kind of teaching in this corner of the web is liable to be frustrating and fruitless. Using your own made-up definitions of words such as "philosophy" is guaranteed to make discussion useless.

                                        Sprocket J Cogswell (talk)04:51, 12 January 2011

                                        I was replying to Jack who reproduced your quote (thus the ""quadruple"" quotation marks). Here is the fuller quote:

                                        "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". "

                                        Note the topic of this thread. Perhaps I don't understand either one of you.

                                        "Looking for unquestionable evidence or any kind of teaching in this corner of the web is liable to be frustrating and fruitless."

                                        Not really looking for it, just arguing that any evidence doesn't seem to be there. You agree?

                                        "Using your own made-up definitions of words such as "philosophy" is guaranteed to make discussion useless."

                                        This is a close one, "An academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism" [1] but I would say "speculation" rather than "reasoning". Or "doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school"[2] Being that I consider myself a (bad) philosopher, I like to poke fun at people who think they practice "science" because they ramble in "scientificish" jargon, as in erroneously using some observation of the natural world or a "scientific study" to support their philosophy (usually naturalism which isn't such a bad religion, but genetic determinism is off the deep end, IMO).
                                          ~ Lumenos (talk)13:17, 12 January 2011

                                          I never understood why you chose the subject that you did. However you start off by disputing that I am a machine built to propagate my genes. As this is pretty much the main thrust of "The Selfish Gene", a book I urge you once again to read as it really is an important one, I, and others, referred to it. No one said that were genetically determined, genetically predisposed certainly, but not genetically determined.

                                          There is no avoiding that the source of this squabble debate is a thread you started on eugenics and the post that you refer to was my attempt to point out that I am genetically predisposed to prefer my genetic offspring to those of others. As such, for all those whose genes are considered "unworthy" eugenics goes against their genetic programming.

                                          Should this matter? Yes, it should. You are depriving those you deem "unworthy" - and who are you to decide anyway - of the most natural of processes, one that everyone is preprogrammed to perform, even those who, for some reason or another, choose not to follow that program.

                                            Jack Hughes (talk)15:11, 12 January 2011

                                            I think that reading (and hopefully understanding) The Selfish Gene should be a prerequisite to taking part in this discussion. Failure to do may give people the impression that you don't know what you're talking about.

                                              BobSpring is sprung!15:23, 12 January 2011

                                              Actually Bob, I get the "impression" that people don't know what they are talking about when they can't debate it in fewer words than a book, particularly a book they haven't written.

                                              Oh look...

                                              http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution

                                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution

                                              ...you had meme-twins! How cute!

                                              Why don't we start here since this is the most important of theses, of the most important of all books, in the most authoritative of all wikis. Let's see, should I start with the section "Wha?!?" or the section "Attempt of explanation"?

                                                Unicow (talk)17:14, 12 January 2011
                                                 
                                                 

                                                Nice save on the philosophy thing. I believe you may find that actual philosophers are pretty good at keeping things coherent, getting their ideas to hang together well. That is why you lost me at "wild, creative, "fascinating" hypothesizing, that would make Kent Hovind proud to be a scientist." I like to think that a working philosopher could demolish Hovind's "science," rub the pieces into the dirt and sprinkle salt on them without breaking a sweat.

                                                It seems to me that Jack has a reasonable grasp of how genetics carries on in real life, one mating at a time. There is plenty of evidence around, so much in fact that it takes a lot of sifting to get at the bits relevant to any particular question. Reading Dawkins is probably as good a starting place as any for that.

                                                As far as how central notions and counter-examples work, George Lakoff's "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind" is a fantastic overview, if heavy going.

                                                  Sprocket J Cogswell (talk)15:28, 12 January 2011
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                  Personal tools
                                                  Namespaces

                                                  Variants
                                                  Actions
                                                  Navigation
                                                  Community
                                                  Tools
                                                  support