The Shellfish Scene

[zorkan]

Don't like the prospect of the 50th anniversary edition coming soon of The Selfish Gene.
Especially as something like Dawkins's new book has been done before.
It's called 'The Genetic Book of the Dead'. and it's a follow-up to The Ancestor's Tale.
Once again he feels the need to publish a theory proving it to his own satisfaction, just in case people have yet to get the point of the 1976 book.
He clings like a limpet to this idea.
Most of it is trivial, like your back pain is due to you not walking on all fours for millions of years.
I'm not sure that quadrupeds never get it.*

Also coming soon is the 20th anniversary edition of The God Delusion (2006) which the religious enjoy as a test of faith.

Credit the thread title to Terry Pratchett.

* "Back pain is a common condition in the canine world. From traumatic spinal injuries to intervertebral disk disease, back pain can affect all sorts of breeds, although some may be more at risk than others."

[billy rubin]

why do you not like the prospect of a republishing of that book?

[zorkan]

Because we've already had the 30th and 40th anniversary editions.
And who does he think he's kidding?
Scientists who have looked at his idea include Philip Ball, Nick Lane, Peter Atkins, Julian Barbour.
They have their doubts and find a better solution as to what underpins natural selection.
It can't just be the gene because all it does is encode proteins.

[billy rubin]

where is the flaw in his logic?

his point was that the actual allele is the fundamental unit of selection, rather than the individual, clan, population, or species.

not really anything profound, just extending the model to its logical conclusion.

[zorkan]

The word is energy.
Not found in genes.
He thinks palm trees are animals.
He talks about lizards on golf greens.
He describes DNA as a palimpsest

[billy rubin]

i dont know anything about that stuff.

why do you think hes wrong about natural selection?

[zorkan]

He only sounds like a genius because he writes in metaphor.
Yet everything in language is arguably metaphor.
I had never heard the word palimpsest before he uses it in his new book on dozens of occasions.
It's original meaning is more to do with running out of space on paper.
I don't think we've heard the last of how natural selection actually works.
Quantum physics might be a better approach.

[billy rubin]

personally, i think dawkins is a dotty old academic. often wrong but mostly harmless.

however, his understanding of sociobiology and the fundamentals of evolutionary theory seem perfectly orthodox to me.

i dont keep up with the literature, but i have never listened to a serious criticism of his "selfish gene" model.

[zorkan]

i dont keep up with the literature, but i have never listened to a serious criticism of his "selfish gene" model.

It's impossible to keep up with science which is always work-in-progress.
The selfish gene is more like a metaphor than a proven theory.
It suggests it can't be expressed in language.
One scientific theory is sooner or later cancelled out by another.

Dawkins sits on the shoulders of giants like Darwin and W.D. Hamilton.
It does appear that Dawkins and Hamilton have reason to believe in eugenics.
Dawkins implies that what works for animals and plants would also work for humans.

From an article:
The philosopher Michael Ruse confirmed that Hamilton had eugenic ideas:
"He believed that some people were genetically inferior to others. We should take a stand against the slide into degeneration."
Hamilton died aged 63 from an infection.

Example of unfinished business.
Does modern medicine influence natural selection?
Would scrapping it lead to a better race of humans?

[billy rubin]

Dawkins implies that what works for animals and plants would also work for humans.

how would it not?

the effects of evolution are blunted by culture, but we are still subject to the same rules.

[zorkan]

Because it's neen tried, and rejected. Think of the Nazis.
Humans will know it's happening. Animals and plants do not.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1127045/

The father of eugenics was Francis Galton.
Born Birmingham, England. Buried Claverdon churchyard where his grave is fenced off by iron railings.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19602363/

[billy rubin]

a jack quaker.

[zorkan]

Francis Galton the father of eugenics was indeed a Quaker and maybe not the good guys after all.

Galton came from famously good stock, sharing the distinguished grandparent Erasmus Darwin with Charles Darwin.

Erasmus from Lichfield in Staffordshire, Charles from Shrewsbury in Shropshire, George Fox (founder of Quakers) from Leicestershire.
All within in a radius of 60 miles they shared their own selfish genes.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dark-Side-Charles-Darwin-Critical/dp/0890516057

 

[billy rubin]

galton was a gun manufacturer, so he would have a member of the quaker orthodox wing, rather than the hicksites or even wilburites.

the arms business would have got him disowned from the mystical branches. eugenics, not so much.

quakers were all for freeing the slaves, but wouldnt take black people into their meetings.

fox never had any kids.

[zorkan]

galton was a gun manufacturer

More like his family were gunmakers before he was born.
https://historywm.com/file/historywm/e09-galton-family-during-napoleonic-wars-32631.pdf

I don't think Dawkins ever mentions Galton, just like he doesn't talk about Lamarck or Linnaeus.
His hero is Darwin, a man he would love to have met, which could not have been possible because Darwin died in 1882.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Genius_of_Charles_Darwin

He might have been disappointed.
Darwin's poor health may have led him to his idea of natural selection rather than his science.