Selfish Gene and Kin Selection

[Loki]

For those of you who read Dawkins' book or have an interest/expertise in biology/genetics, what do people think selfish gene theory and Hamilton's kin selection?

 

[Makalakumu]

The "selfish gene" is supposed to be the driving force behind evolution...behind our lives. We do everything in order to pass on our selfish genes. "They" look out for their own interests. See where I'm going with this...

This driving mechanism reverses what Darwin thought to be an environment driven process. The selfish gene, is in essence, a bottom up explanation for biology.

There are some very interesting implications regarding this approach. For one, all art, all culture, all of our massive cerebral development is suddenly attributed to sexual selection pressures...ie good artists/smart people get laid more and pass on their genes.

Why else would we develop these things if the selfish gene approach is correct? The environmental effects are washed away in favor of the "will" of our genes.

I'm not buying it.

 

[Loki]

The "selfish gene" is supposed to be the driving force behind evolution...behind our lives. We do everything in order to pass on our selfish genes. "They" look out for their own interests. See where I'm going with this...

This driving mechanism reverses what Darwin thought to be an environment driven process. The selfish gene, is in essence, a bottom up explanation for biology.

I think you misunderstood it. It IS environment driven. The environment does the selecting. It's perfectly complatible with Darwin.

There are some very interesting implications regarding this approach. For one, all art, all culture, all of our massive cerebral development is suddenly attributed to sexual selection pressures...ie good artists/smart people get laid more and pass on their genes.

Why else would we develop these things if the selfish gene approach is correct? The environmental effects are washed away in favor of the "will" of our genes.

Dawkins littered his book with warnings not to take the metaphor literally and not to use the theory as proof of the validity of genetic determinism. We defy our genes every time we use contraceptives.

The human sentience issue causes humans to be mostly exempt from the theory. This is evident in the fact that a distinction is made between ethology (study of animal behvioral patterns) and psychology.

 

[heretic888]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

 

[arnisador]

Dawkins has convinced me. He's very persuasive!

 

[Makalakumu]

I think you misunderstood it. It IS environment driven. The environment does the selecting. It's perfectly complatible with Darwin.

Niles Eldridge writes a rebuttle to Dawkins' ultra-darwinian model of evolution in "Why Sex?" Check it out.

 

[MA-Caver]

<source material >The idea is sometimes mistakenly believed to support genetic determinism. This is incorrect: knowing that an organism carries a particular allele, we might be able to say that the organism is more likely than otherwise to behave in a certain way, but its actual behavior will depend on its environment and its developmental history. In particular, this applies to human organisms; Dawkins is quick to point out that although we may be influenced by our genes, we are not controlled by them. Even further from Dawkins' concept is the misunderstanding of the idea as predicting (or even prescribing or justifying) that human behaviour must inevitably be "selfish" in a moral or ethical sense.

:idunno: Reads to me like this guy just took Darwin's theory of evolution to the next level. I'd have to agree that we are influenced not controlled by our genes. But I'd also have to say that; we are also influenced (particularly as children) by our environment, the parental handling, education, and experiences of our growth to adulthood (and especially beyond).
Yet as I see it from Dawkins idea; is that we are somewhat predispostioned to react in a certian way if we were not taught to react otherwise; i.e. reacting violently (or not) to a verbal or physical challenge. Yet, he also concluded that no-one can predict or guess what another will do at any particular time. Like soldiers on the battlefield: the small wimpy book-worm guy turns out to be a triple Silver-Star winner and the big hulking super-macho guy is found cowering deep, screaming for his momma down in his foxhole (exampling one extreme to the other).
As a species I think we've come a hellva long way from the dark ages in terms of growth and changes as far as genetics are concerned. We are evolving... to what I don't know but I'm sure we're different (and hopefully) better than our ancestors of even 100 years ago. For sure the leaps in techology over the last 100 years has made a difference. We're on the damn phone, or computer a lot more...

 

[Makalakumu]

Dawkins has convinced me. He's very persuasive!

I have Dawkin's new book. He's taken it and run with it. The theory is very interesting, but I still think it down plays environmental factors. I just don't see genes as acting "selfishly". I'm more disposed to see genes as a map of things that have occurred in the environment, passively recording our history. Perhaps that is the geologist in me...

 

[heretic888]

Ironically enough, Dawkins' "selfish gene" hypothesis, if the write-up at Wikipedia is accurate, is actually pretty much how I personally envisioned evolution via natural selection to "work" in the first place. I had always assumed that it was particular genes (or, at least, collections of genes) that were run through the environmental ringer and subsequently "selected" for their adaptive value.

That being said, I do have some reservations about Dawkins' position:

1) Like much of evolutionary psychology, it is extremely difficult to test or falsify this hypothesis. While it "makes sense" to some degree on a logical or intuitive level, it is a logical fallacy to assume that because something seems to be true to the individual that it is true. Dawkins himself referred to this as the "argument from personal incredulity" (albeit it is applied in the opposite direction), and argued it was very bad science. The biggest problem here is that there is little in the way of hard evidence to support hypotheses such as this, it being little more than philosophical speculation about human psychology based on a knowledge of Darwinian evolution.

2) Like the write-up states, a big problem with Dawkins' position is when he attempts to take his hypothesis beyond genetics and biology into issues of morality and philosophy. A gene being "selfish" by nature and perpetuating itself via natural selection processes makes sense. However, this "selfishness" supposedly manifesting when humans risk personal safety to save others that are supposedly "genetically similar" is, at best, dubious.

3) I suspect the "selfish gene" may have some problems in light of Stephen Jay Gould's "punctuated evolution" hypothesis.

I think the following summarizes the current scientific attitude on the hypothesis:

However, the view that selection on other levels such as organisms and populations almost never opposes selection on genes is increasingly viewed as extreme. In the last decade, difficulties with the theory of multi-level selection have been overcome and interaction between genes and between organisms as a force in evolution has again become a topic of research.

Meaning that, while the subject is still being researched, it looks as if the "selfish gene" may have some holes in it.

Laterz.

 

[Loki]

Niles Eldridge writes a rebuttle to Dawkins' ultra-darwinian model of evolution in "Why Sex?" Check it out.

I saw it on Amazon. It's now called Why We Do It: Rethinking Sex and the Selfish Gene. The reviews aren't too good. It seems that Elredge, like S.J. Gould, simply got it wrong.

 

[heretic888]

I saw it on Amazon. It's now called Why We Do It: Rethinking Sex and the Selfish Gene. The reviews aren't too good. It seems that Elredge, like S.J. Gould, simply got it wrong.

I should point out that because a book is unpopular at amazon.com in no way makes it "wrong".

Science is self-correcting, and only time will tell if any of these hypotheses will survive the trial of peer review. That being said, the past 30 years have only been partially kind to Dawkins' position. The man ain't no Darwin or Piaget.

I would also be interested to know how (or what) Gould "got it wrong".

Laterz.

 

[Loki]

1) Like much of evolutionary psychology, it is extremely difficult to test or falsify this hypothesis. While it "makes sense" to some degree on a logical or intuitive level, it is a logical fallacy to assume that because something seems to be true to the individual that it is true. Dawkins himself referred to this as the "argument from personal incredulity" (albeit it is applied in the opposite direction), and argued it was very bad science. The biggest problem here is that there is little in the way of hard evidence to support hypotheses such as this, it being little more than philosophical speculation about human psychology based on a knowledge of Darwinian evolution.

If I understand you correctly, you're putting selfish gene theory under "evolutionary psychology". Am I correct?

2) Like the write-up states, a big problem with Dawkins' position is when he attempts to take his hypothesis beyond genetics and biology into issues of morality and philosophy. A gene being "selfish" by nature and perpetuating itself via natural selection processes makes sense. However, this "selfishness" supposedly manifesting when humans risk personal safety to save others that are supposedly "genetically similar" is, at best, dubious.

I haven't read any such arguments made by Dawkins, but I don't think one can be correct when assuming selfish gene theory applies to humans.

3) I suspect the "selfish gene" may have some problems in light of Stephen Jay Gould's "punctuated evolution" hypothesis.

I get the feeling, after reading Selfish Gene, that these can be explained in terms of gene selection, but I won't be so rash as to say that it's fact until I see these arguments. I read somewhere that Gould misunderstood Dawkins' theory, and there were many points of contention between Gould and evolutionary biologists. I find it all confusing, but I have a hunch Dawkins, as far as the animal kingdom is concerned, is on the right track.

I have Dawkin's new book. He's taken it and run with it. The theory is very interesting, but I still think it down plays environmental factors. I just don't see genes as acting "selfishly". I'm more disposed to see genes as a map of things that have occurred in the environment, passively recording our history. Perhaps that is the geologist in me...

I thought Dawkins was dead, but was very much happy to learn he's alive when you said "new book". I still don't understand why you think the environment was downplayed. Granted that he doesn't explicity mention it too often, but it's a background concept that explains the "selection" aspect of the theory.

 

[Loki]

I should point out that because a book is unpopular at amazon.com in no way makes it "wrong".

Science is self-correcting, and only time will tell if any of these hypotheses will survive the trial of peer review. That being said, the past 30 years have only been partially kind to Dawkins' position. The man ain't no Darwin or Piaget.

I would also be interested to know how (or what) Gould "got it wrong".

Laterz.

Obviously Amazon reviewers aren't the final authority on anything, and not all reviews merit considerations, but taking the time to read the good ones can be an initial indicator of a books quality.

I'll look up the information again. I'll let you know if I find anything.

 

[Loki]

Found it. ;-)

Many evolutionary biologists believe that Gould misunderstood Dawkins' claims, and that he ended up attacking a point of view that Dawkins had not held.

It's from the Wikipedia article on Gould. True, the people making it were evolutionary biologists, but then again, I do recall seeing something of the sort in the second edition The Selfish Gene, with Dawkins addressing Gould's criticisms as endnotes.

 

[Makalakumu]

I thought Dawkins was dead, but was very much happy to learn he's alive when you said "new book". I still don't understand why you think the environment was downplayed. Granted that he doesn't explicity mention it too often, but it's a background concept that explains the "selection" aspect of the theory.

His new book is The Ancestor's Tale - A pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution. Published in 2004. Did he die recently? If so, I hadn't heard.

Anyway, give me a little time to elucidate Eldridge's arguments. One thing that is important to keep in mind is that people like Richard Dawkins are very intelligent and very convincing. Thus, it is even more important to triangulate your research and avoid making any conclusions until you are finished.

This is tough, because as I said, Dawkins makes some good points...

 

[Loki]

His new book is The Ancestor's Tale - A pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution. Published in 2004. Did he die recently? If so, I hadn't heard.

Anyway, give me a little time to elucidate Eldridge's arguments. One thing that is important to keep in mind is that people like Richard Dawkins are very intelligent and very convincing. Thus, it is even more important to triangulate your research and avoid making any conclusions until you are finished.

This is tough, because as I said, Dawkins makes some good points...

No, he hasn't. My misconception.

True. Never take anything for granted, I agree.Then again, how much triagnulation can we do? He's the one with a Phd, not me. And he seems to be advocating "good science".

I'd like to add that I was referring to evolutionary biology in the original post of this thread, not evolutionary psychology. Let's try to stick to that.

 

[heretic888]

If I understand you correctly, you're putting selfish gene theory under "evolutionary psychology". Am I correct?

My mistake. I was thinking of sociobiology, of which evolutionary psychology is something of an off-shoot. In any event, much of the critiques leveled at evolutionary psychologists (who, in my opinion, are often biologists dressing up as psychologists) can also be directed to sociobiologists.

I haven't read any such arguments made by Dawkins, but I don't think one can be correct when assuming selfish gene theory applies to humans.

Again, my mistake.

I would say one of the larger concerns of selfish gene theory are the possible conflicts that arise when considering group selection processes. Not that I actually understand how any of this stuff really works.

But, without doubt, the most dubious portion of Dawkins' writings are his meme theories. His ideas on memes seem to be little more than intellectual speculations about cultural evolution, without any hard evidence or research to back them up (an anthropologist he is not).

The idea that a meme such as a "catchy tune" is somehow transmitted from mind to mind like a virus until it permanently "solidifies" as part of the nervous system (I can't think of any cognitive psychologist that wouldn't get a chuckle out of that explanation of "encoding") is, to say the least, fairly ludicrous. Not to mention, completely speculative.

I read somewhere that Gould misunderstood Dawkins' theory, and there were many points of contention between Gould and evolutionary biologists.

Perhaps, but his theory of punctuated evolution (which is supposed to be a moderately rare occurence, not a rule-of-thumb) isn't one of them.

I find it all confusing, but I have a hunch Dawkins, as far as the animal kingdom is concerned, is on the right track.

Just so you know, homo sapien sapiens is taxonomically listed under Kingdom animalia...

Laterz. :asian:

 

[arnisador]

I think he even downplays his meme theory as speculative, but I believe he did endorse "The Meme Machine" by Susan Blackmore:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/019286212X/qid=1125372439/

I have not read the book (and don't have any interest in doing so). It's not the only book on memes out there.

 

[heretic888]

It's not the only book on memes out there.

No, it most assuredly is not.

In my opinion, "memetics" is an intellectual fad that will eventually go the way of the dinosaur. Dawkins based his "meme" idea on speculation, and most of the field is based on subsequent speculation.

I much prefer Don Beck and Chris Cowan's use of vMEMEs in Spiral Dynamics, but then again, they don't situate memes in the same uber-Darwinian context as most of these other writers do.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[heretic888]

Richard Dawkins' "selfish gene" theory is analyzed briefly at a talkorigins.org article entitled Evolution and Philosophy: Reductionism and Evolution:

"Reduction enters the evolutionary debate in the form of the issue of group selection. In 1962, Wynne-Edwards proposed that some bird populations regulate their clutch size (the number of eggs laid) in hard times to benefit the population as a whole, even though it was detrimental to the 'Darwinian fitness' of the individual birds. Williams [1966] responded with an argument that selection of individuals could not account for this and other forms of supposed group selection, and that if group selection occurred at all, it was not very important.[note 8] A decade later, Dawkins [1976] hardened this view into the claim that genes, and genes alone, are the 'units of selection', and that all biological effects in evolution are the result of these 'lower-level' entities.

Gene-centrism is not the view that only genes exist, or even that only genes have effects, but that only genes are selected (that is, are evolutionarily important). The way Dawkins put it, as evidenced by the title The Selfish Gene, was wrongly interpreted to mean that organisms are irrelevant. More informed analysis developed the view that if evolution-by-selection is generalised, then using Dawkins's own distinction between replicators and vehicles (or Hull's refinement, interactors), then selection can occur at levels above the gene, or even above the organism.

This puts the lie to simplistic notions that evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies. That is what has been called by Wimsatt the 'bookkeeping' definition of evolution, and it is true as far as it goes, but it is not all that is interesting about evolution. Few biologists are still simple reductionists, although Williams did write a limited defence of reductionism as a methodological ploy [1985], in which he argued that reduction was the 'null hypothesis' and it was onerous to abandon it. Dennett [1995] claimed that reduction had yet to fail, especially in evolutionary explanations using selection."