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."
why do you not like the prospect of a republishing of that book?
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.
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.
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
i dont know anything about that stuff.
why do you think hes wrong about natural selection?
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.
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.
Quote from: billy rubin on November 21, 2024, 07:00:53 PMi 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?
Quote from: zorkan on November 22, 2024, 02:52:09 PMDawkins 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.
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/
a jack quaker.
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
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.
Quote from: billy rubin on December 04, 2024, 06:02:41 PMgalton 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.
wallace was in a fever dream too. and he also had been reading malthus.
Seems like his fevers did inspire him when living in foreign lands with difficult climates.
Dawkins gives him a only a brief mention because he became a spiritualist later in life.
Wallace is claimed by Wales, but he described himself as English.
He is the forgotten man of evolution.
Strange how I've visited the place where Darwin was born, The Mount in Shrewsbury, but never Wallace's home in Monmouthshire.
Species evolve by adapting to their environment:
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/alfred-wallace/
I own a copy of this book and it's a lot more readable than the Origin of Species.
https://www.awesomebooks.com/book/9781440062186/darwinism/used?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIyIr2z8SVigMV84xQBh2oswB0EAQYAiABEgLt2_D_BwE
Quote from: zorkan on December 07, 2024, 11:14:18 AMSeems like his fevers did inspire him when living in foreign lands with difficult climates.
Dawkins gives him a only a brief mention because he became a spiritualist later in life.
Wallace is claimed by Wales, but he described himself as English.
He is the forgotten man of evolution.
Strange how I've visited the place where Darwin was born, The Mount in Shrewsbury, but never Wallace's home in Monmouthshire.
Ah yes, he is
known as the forgotten man of evolution, and hence very well known indeed, even by me, Bill Bailey has even done a doco about him, and forgotten men are always popular on particular kinds of radio programs.
There is an actual forgotten, forgotten man of evolution, his name was Barry something.
ive read the origin of species two or three times, long ago really. spectacularly prescient.
darwin is like the later ernst mayer. he thought of everything so far in advance of everybody else that hes something of a prophet for any subsequent development of the theory.
dawkins is a kindly idiot uncle. harmless, and somewhat forgettable.
interesting that youve visited darwins home. what was it like?
here in the states we dont have anything like that.
Quote from: billy rubin on December 08, 2024, 02:05:36 AMinteresting that youve visited darwins home. what was it like?
Having walked up the hill from the River Severn I was told I could only view it from the outside.
It's used by the financial mafia, and they don't like intruders.
Make do with this.
https://www.myshrewsbury.co.uk/blog/a-tour-of-mount-house/
Dawkins lives close to the River Thames, and he doesn't like intruders either, but maybe not the pigeons which fascinated Darwin.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2171218/The-atheist-prof-cars-door-war-pooping-pigeons.html
Not sure if you can go inside Wallace's home.
https://onthebusesm.blogspot.com/2016/06/usk-birthplace-of-alfred-russel-wallace.html
ive walked tbrough linneaus's house in sweden.
but i would have liked to see whether anything remains of the gravel path in darwins garden that was made so famous
Yes, the Sandwalk still exists at Down House (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_House). He was born in Shrewsbury, but lived and worked on his theory of evolution at Down House in Kent.
QuoteThe Sandwalk was Darwin's 'thinking path', a quarter-mile walk that formed the basis of his daily perambulations around the estate. He made regular circuits five times round it at noon, for example. His children skipped alongside from time to time, teasing their father by adding stones to the pile he would kick away to count each lap, but mostly Darwin walked alone, 'using a walking-stick heavily shod with iron which he struck loudly against the ground', as Darwin's son Francis recalled.
[source (https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/home-of-charles-darwin-down-house/history/garden-highlights)]
I've never seen Down House and it's still on my to-do list.
Hope to hop down to Kent next year,
A list of people in biology who are famous for not being famous should include Wallace, Franklin, Hamilton and Price.
Charles Darwin became famous after reading Alfred Wallace's letters.
Could also include Darwin's grandfather Erasmus who wrote Zoonomia which described filaments of life.
I have paid to visit his house at Lichfield.
Francis Crick and James Watson only became famous after reading Rosalind Franklin's notes.
She does at least have a building named after her at Wolverhampton University.
Would we have ever heard of Richard Dawkins if he had not known William Hamilton?
Dawkins doesn't give much credit to George Price probably because he became a Christian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_Darwin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._D._Hamilton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price
Spending Christmas with Richard Dawkins always sounds a bit grim.
Not much jollity to be had.
But here's what he said in 2020 on twitter.
"Merry Christmas! Oh SORRY, Merry Holidays! Children, hang up Holiday Stockings on Holiday Eve for Father Holidays to fill. Sing Holiday Carols round the Holiday Tree after Holiday Dinner. I'm dreaming of a White Holiday.
Well, here's one atheist wishing you a Merry Christmas."
(Grudgingly, I suspect).
Oh come on Richard. Just once a year maybe.
The Romans celebrated Sol Invictus.
The mighty sun has beaten off the dark again.
And yes It was the 25th December.
'Birthday of the Invincible Sun') on 25 December, the date of the winter solstice in the Roman calendar.
In Rome, this yearly festival was celebrated with thirty chariot races'.
Yeah, feet of clay. Ancient news--just ask any former member of the Dawkins forum.
I did sign up to his forum, as he invited it in the god delusion.
After just one post I ran. It was awful.
He was stupid not to anticipate who would participate and it was closed.
I credit Dawkins for turning me from a complete atheist to being atheist to all gods apart from Zorka.
Click RichardDawkins.net now and up comes his foundation.
He's after your money.
I just knew it, the 50th anniversary edition is coming.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Selfish-Gene-50th-Anniversary/dp/0198985371
Just like to say that unlike Dawkins, I did leave school.
He should stick to atheism.
Denis Noble might be right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrJ6jDZRESQ
He's older than Dawkins and he has longer hair.
"Denis Noble's theory of evolution, part of the Third Way of Evolution (TWE), challenges Neo-Darwinism by proposing evolution isn't just gene-driven, but involves dynamic, multi-level networks where cells show purposeful intelligence, acquired traits can be inherited (neo-Lamarckian), and physiology, epigenetics, and context (not just DNA) shape life, advocating for an integrated synthesis that recognizes organisms as active participants rather than passive victims of genetic chance, arguing genes are influenced by the cell and body, not the other way around. "
dawkins is a first-rate sociobiologist. its his atheism that shows him up to be stupid outside of his specialty.
if he d stuck to evoluton instead of religion he d be first rate.
"That new born in its mother's arms is a robot", Dawkins argues.
When asked what exactly is a selfish gene, Dawkins struggles.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Solitary-Self-Heretics-Acumen/dp/184465253X
zorkan, your link is unavailable in the united states.
but i can tell you what a selfish gene is.
in ordinary evolutionary theory, the fundamental unit of selection is the gene, a heritable agent that codes for a phenotype which is subject to differential selection pressure against other alleles on the same locus, on the occasions in which it is expressed.
when not expressed, the gene will persist in its initial frequencies acvording to the hardy weinberg ratios.
people used to consider the species the unit of selection, but obviously that is untrue because panmixia is impossible, and selection pressures are not uniform across the species range. a good example of that might be punctuated equilibria, in which the genetic representation of a group is controlled by a small subset of the species, in some cases only a few thousand individuals, like cheetahs or elephant seals.
anyway, then biologist went to population, and ultimately had to fix on the individual, both of which are flawed for similar reasons.
its tempting to say the individual is the fundamental unit, and perhaps in some contexts it is. but a successful gene may derive that success at the expense of the individuals health and welfare, so in the end its just the gene out for itself. migrating salmon are a good illustration. in order for the gene to reproduce, the salmon has to die, and that is what happens.
i first read dawkins almost fifty years ago, and his stuff was eyeopening then, to a callow student of evolutionary ecology. but he is an absolute moron with respect to gods..
dawkins is a great example of someone who thinks that because he is a genius in his specialty, that his opinions outside of it are equally credible. this is a common problem among academics.
Respect what you say, but I sense holes appear in any theory sooner or later.
Try the video on this one.
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryofIdeas/comments/jc6ghh/the_self_is_not_always_selfish_mary_midgley_takes/
Science is always work in progress.
Nick Lane would accept that.
Dawkins wouldn't.
https://nick-lane.net/chapters/power-sex-suicide-part-5-murder-suicide-troubled-birth-individual/
https://www.darwin.cam.ac.uk/news/darwin-college-lecture-series-nick-lane-interview/
hard to say about bacteria, as whatever an individual is doesnt really apply to them. but dawkins didnt apply his theory to anything that produced itself asexually.
shoot, we cant even define a species clearly among organisms that reproduce asexually, let alone make up out minds about what an individual is.
but within the taxa of sexually reproducing organisms, the selfish gene theory is alive and well. group selection at the species level simply cannot be shown to work, aside from within carefully crafted scenarios within specific populations. ive never seen a sound argument that could distinguish secondary selection pressure on an individual from primary pressure on a gene. dawkins theory holds that th eindividual became a packet of convenience long ago, grouping genes together into a more complex expression of joint traits. his idea was that once the bundling became dominant, the primordial soup was quickly used up and converted to individuals. but they continued to compete based on the genes that made them up, not on the basis of the packet that contained them.
^ A certain real estate baron has carried the universal genius notion to an extreme. His influence has impacted societies more forcefully than the works of Dawkins. He lends credence to the idea that wizards need to stay in their own damned lane.
^ Indeed. :beer:
Trivial point maybe, but would any other biologist have called it the selfish gene?
All genes do is encode proteins.
Would life exist at all for this long if it did not increase entropy?
There has to be a universal physical explanation.