tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post4566728387609186719..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Die, selfish gene, die!Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40862729955702164702013-12-18T22:19:41.817-05:002013-12-18T22:19:41.817-05:00Most of the discussion begs the question, which hi...Most of the discussion begs the question, which hinges on Dawkin's inept use of language and the current attempt to rationalize it all as a metaphor.<br /><br />Dawkins was unambiguous when he stated that humans were mere robots operating at the behest of their genes.<br /><br />"“We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.” <br /><br />There is no metaphor in that perspective.<br /><br />He even ended TSG with the following statement:<br />"We, that is our brains, are separate and independent enough from our genes to rebel against them."<br /><br />Since when is it necessary to rebel against a metaphor? More importantly, I would be truly interested in how our brains are separate from our genes.<br /><br />Regardless of evolution and natural selection, this is an extremely poor choice of words, it is a meaningless metaphor, and it has done nothing except increase the level of confusion. Even Coyne's quote above aggravates the problem when he states that "genes act as if" ... Genes don't act. There is no "as if". There is no metaphor.G Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06935447208465845345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83056518236486150322013-12-13T18:34:07.398-05:002013-12-13T18:34:07.398-05:00How does selfish gene concept reconcile with monoa...How does selfish gene concept reconcile with monoallelic expression or genomic imprinting? What is in those for the selfish gene?Nail Suheylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07198948946330867257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31730550106718650772013-12-13T12:25:56.264-05:002013-12-13T12:25:56.264-05:00In other words, drift is much more general than ne...In other words, drift is much more general than neutral theory.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-414598433026443942013-12-13T11:43:35.450-05:002013-12-13T11:43:35.450-05:00I suppose neutral theory is much more general than...<i>I suppose neutral theory is much more general than drift, and random genetic drift can have an effect on any genes, not just neutral ones</i><br /><br />Allan Miller did an excellent job of explaining the difference but let me just add a few points.<br /><br />You are correct that random genetic drift is the more general phenomenon. It affects all alleles. It can lead to the fixation of deleterious alleles (in small populations) and it can prevent fixation of beneficial alleles. (These are two sides of the same coin.) Most people don't realize that the vast majority of beneficial alleles are lost before they become fixed in real populations.<br /><br />Neutral Theory only deals with neutral alleles. Nearly-Neutral Theory incorporates the fixation of slightly deleterious alleles. But it's still random genetic drift that serves as the other main mechanism of evolution. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71396466037140080832013-12-13T05:53:45.000-05:002013-12-13T05:53:45.000-05:00Drift in the general case relates to the operation...Drift in the general case relates to the operation of 'random' factors upon population frequency changes. It can be understood as the distortion of frequencies in any sample compared to the wider collection from which it is drawn. The population makeup of any generation is a sample of the previous, and so this effect is inevitable in any finite population, proportional to the population and 'sample' sizes. In successive generations, the distortions compound and lead to fixation by random process alone. <br /><br />Selection is a consistent bias in the sampling, such that variants with a consistently greater net output are more <i>likely</i> to increase. But this can still be opposed by sampling error; it's a skew in the probability distribution, not a certainty. <br /><br />Neutral theory relates to the case where there is no selection at all - there's no bias, the only factor is that sample error. If one imagines a tiltable plane, the Neutral position is when the plane is level. The population wanders around that plane with no restraint. Adding various degrees of selective differential 'tilts' the plane - there remains an element of 'wandering', but at steeper and steeper angles, the random effect (drift) diminishes as the selective effect strengthens, and except at the extremes it's never an either-or situation.AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88636457546510184842013-12-12T22:46:02.312-05:002013-12-12T22:46:02.312-05:00Hi,
Laurence wrote "Even Richard Dawkins admi...Hi,<br />Laurence wrote "Even Richard Dawkins admits that fixation of neutral alleles is the dominant form of evolution. (He's a bit confused about the difference between Neutral Theory and random genetic drift.)"<br /><br />Is there a layman-understandable way to explain the difference between Neutral Theory and random genetic drift? <br /><br />I suppose neutral theory is much more general than drift, and random genetic drift can have an effect on any genes, not just neutral ones.<br />Is that in the right direction?commentwriterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07091865465423103110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45340512371894957552013-12-10T10:34:38.658-05:002013-12-10T10:34:38.658-05:00Resurrect! Unselfish Gene, Resurrect Yourself!!!
...Resurrect! Unselfish Gene, Resurrect Yourself!!!<br /><br />"Lazarus Microbe's Immortality Secret Revealed"<br /><br />http://www.livescience.com/1029-lazarus-microbe-immortality-secret-revealed.html<br /><br />I have never thought I would live long enough to see this...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18479348896389447772013-12-09T16:04:22.181-05:002013-12-09T16:04:22.181-05:00Idiot. Genetic drift is dominant if by that you me...Idiot. Genetic drift is dominant if by that you mean that most fixations in most genomes are due to drift, not selection. It isn't dominant if by that you mean that most adaptive evolution is a result of drift. Larry's major disagreement, if you can call it that, is that many biologists tend to pay less attention to non-adaptive evolution than to adaptive evolution. Not because they don't think it happens, and not because they think it doesn't happen a lot, but just because they find adaptation more interesting and tend to forget to mention drift. (Which is also not to deny that drift can at times be a factor in adaptation too.)<br /><br />And I'm pretty sure anyone reading you finds your fantasy life uninteresting.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71580561810302652222013-12-08T18:16:13.257-05:002013-12-08T18:16:13.257-05:00Larry,
You have been saying it ever since I have...Larry, <br /><br />You have been saying it ever since I have joined your blog few months ago in one form or another: <br /><br />"This is 2013 and anyone who denies that evolution is mostly about drift is ignorant of evolution. Even Richard Dawkins admits that fixation of neutral alleles is the dominant form of evolution. (He's a bit confused about the difference between Neutral Theory and random genetic drift.)"<br /><br />"...RANDOM GENETIC DRIFT IS THE KEY...." <br /><br />I don't know Joe's F view on the issue-maybe I missed it-but Harsh-man, Coyne and it seems Dawkins they all disagree with you. I'm not an evolutionist, but I try to learn as much as I can from people like you and the above, but I don't know if RGD is very popular among evolutionary experts... I, however, respect your own view and the courage to oppose the above mentioned scientists...Larry, don't misunderstand me! Just because you seem to be alone, it doesn't necessary mean you are wrong....I know something about that...That's why I will be retiring soon, coz my company is being "absorbed" by another much, much richer company, just because I stuck to my guns....:) So, Larry, if you believe it, stick to it! Just make sure you are right.....like I was...<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17462804165464644582013-12-08T08:05:12.693-05:002013-12-08T08:05:12.693-05:00Practically nobody thinks that multi-level selecti...Practically nobody thinks that multi-level selection "doesn't exist". Rather there are debates about its significance in producing group-level adaptations - and its usefulness (compared to the rival kin selection<br />methods).<br /><br />You have previously explained that you don't see how kin selection applies to non-animals (in the article "squirrels, Dawkins, and Evolution"). My reply is in the article "Kin selection without brains". Its references include cases of kin selection in bacteria and amoebae and other microorganisms. I'm not clear what problem you are having here - but surely looking at the literature on kin selection in such creatures will clear things up.<br /><br />No, I was *not* saying that I didn't include species sorting! That is a misreading or a misinterpretation of what I wrote. You "challenge" was analogous to asking a kin selection enthusiast to explain how kin selection applies to interactions between a bat and a bird. Well, that's just the case where relatedness is negligible (r=>0). Kin selection boils down to ordinary natural selection in such cases. The same applies to species sorting within multi-level selection frameworks. Such cases aren't counter examples that invalidate the theory - they are just cases which don't fully exercise it.<br />Tim Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06623536372084468307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3044318251514959312013-12-08T07:00:15.876-05:002013-12-08T07:00:15.876-05:00I really don't care what people thought about ...I really don't care what people thought about evolution in previous centuries. This is 2013 and anyone who denies that evolution is mostly about drift is ignorant of evolution. Even Richard Dawkins admits that fixation of neutral alleles is the dominant form of evolution. (He's a bit confused about the difference between Neutral Theory and random genetic drift.)<br /><br />Dawkins just doesn't think that fixation of neutral alles is very interesting. His specialty was animal behavior and he preferred adapationist explanations. <br /><br />I don't have a problem with that perspective as long as people don't mistakenly equate natural selection with evolution and don't claim that the "selfish gene" is a metaphor for EVOLUTION as opposed to a metaphor for NATURAL SELECTION. <br /><br />They should not refer to modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinism" or even "neo-Darwinism" if they truly understand the importance of Neutral Theory and random genetic drift. Those are anti-Darwinian concepts.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50239524324296165072013-12-08T06:20:52.150-05:002013-12-08T06:20:52.150-05:00The modern consensus is that multi-level selection...The modern consensus is that multi-level selection doesn't exist. Group selection is dismissed for a variety of reasons, mostly becsuse there's no evidence. It's true that there are some scientists who are willing to concede evidence for group selection but they explain it by some verion of kin selection. Naturally, these scientists have a myopic view of life since their theories usually apply only to animals. I don't know how they might account for group selection in bacteria, protozoa, or algae.<br /><br />When we're talking about multi-level selection we're talking about a lot more than just selection at the level of groups. You said that "modern theories of multi-level selection are equivalent to kin selection." Now you say that you were only talking about group selection and it was not sensible of me to assume that you included species selection in your "theory of multi-level selection." <br /><br />I don't think we can have a productive discussion if you continue to say things you don't mean. This isn't the first time I've noticed this problem.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28369037793214142862013-12-07T22:07:29.298-05:002013-12-07T22:07:29.298-05:00Er, it's not a "weird theory of mine"...Er, it's not a "weird theory of mine" it's the modern consensus on the topic.<br /><br />For my references see the article "Group selection and kin selection: formally equivalent".<br /><br />Multi-level selection models are mostly concerned with how selection between groups promotes cooperation within groups. Species sorting is an extreme case of this - where the groups are not necessarily very closely related and the resulting "cooperation within groups" is negligible. It's not a sensible place to start when trying to understand the topic. It's more the place a critic might start if looking for obscure corner cases to use as counter examples. If you don't know about the equivalence, I advise not starting to learn about the topic in that way.<br />Tim Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06623536372084468307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68145940073421442822013-12-07T21:45:48.600-05:002013-12-07T21:45:48.600-05:00Selfish cooperation is a perfectly reasonable idea...Selfish cooperation is a perfectly reasonable idea. A common form is known as "byproduct mutualism". It doesn't make the "selfish gene" perspective any less simple.<br /><br />The "it's more complicated than that" critique misses the point of building simple models. Of course, there's more to life than selfish genes. Selfish genes are a metaphor to help visualize adaptation. That's how they are billed - not as some kind of complete model of living systems.Tim Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06623536372084468307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78998474587177670552013-12-07T18:49:45.014-05:002013-12-07T18:49:45.014-05:00Sorry but I don't know how else I can phrase t...Sorry but I don't know how else I can phrase that to bring across my point. When nobody knew how genetics work there was already a theory of evolution, and if we had never figured DNA out there would still be the same theory of evolution to explain the diversity of life and the illusion of design. So how can it make sense that everybody who thinks that drift is not what the theory of evolution is about be ignorant? (Unless you mean 'ignorant of drift', but I understand you to mean 'ignorant of what evolution is about'.)<br /><br />Personally, I deal with proponents of paraphyletic taxa who have fallen in love with the definition "evolution is descent with modification" because they somehow believe that that definition shows phylogenetic systematics to be un-evolutionary. I don't get their 'reasoning', nor do I find their particular definition very good at capturing what evolution is about. But they appear to think that it is the truest to Darwin, and I have to deal with them.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18415880616423357382013-12-07T18:37:47.425-05:002013-12-07T18:37:47.425-05:00Thanks for the links Larry....
As usual the links...Thanks for the links Larry....<br /><br />As usual the links, for me personally, create more questions than answers I got....I will get back to you that...<br /><br />BTW: I'm not quite sure I understand your statement though...I hope you don't mind me asking further....?<br /><br />"I completely agree with Jerry Coyne. Epigenetics, per se, is not a significant factor in evolution."<br /><br />As you may remember Larry, English is not my first language (apparently once someone learns more than 3-4 pretty well, they can't tell which one is which-that's me-(if it is true)....). So I'm puzzled... a bit...<br /><br />If "epigenetics, per se"-what's that mean to you?<br /><br />....", is not a significant factor in evolution."-So, it does play a role.... to some degree. Right? I'm just trying to get the facts straight.... It's my Aspergers Larry...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16210433567376382532013-12-07T17:56:22.978-05:002013-12-07T17:56:22.978-05:00Just for the record. I completely agree with Jerry...Just for the record. I completely agree with Jerry Coyne. Epigenetics, per se, is not a significant factor in evolution. <br /><br />We've known about restriction/modification for over thirty-five years and nobody has ever shown that it represents a new way of evolution. <br /><br /><a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.c/2008/epigenetics.html" rel="nofollow">Epigenetics</a><br /><a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2007/02/restriction-modification-and.html" rel="nofollow">Restriction, Modification, and Epigenetics</a><br /><a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2007/02/nobel-laureates-arber-nathans-and-smith.html" rel="nofollow">Nobel Laureates: Arber, Nathans, and Smith</a>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87851435749673312222013-12-07T17:41:55.810-05:002013-12-07T17:41:55.810-05:00Do tell me more about this weird theory of yours.
...Do tell me more about this weird theory of yours.<br /><br />Explain how species sorting is just another version of Hamilton's equation. <br /><br />You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins has always been firmly opposed to both group selection and species sorting? ... No, you probably don't realize that.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30392543962449894912013-12-07T17:02:48.182-05:002013-12-07T17:02:48.182-05:00Mr Coyne says ambition and boredom is the secret m...Mr Coyne says ambition and boredom is the secret motivation behind wrong criticisms.<br />Well then what are selling here!?<br />Creationists do, can, will continue to say secret motivations are behind evolutionary biology error or any opposition to the fingerprints of God in nature.<br />If he believes ernest scientists are under false motivations disturbing their scientific investigations then this can also nullify the concept thrrown at ID/YEC that its WRONG to question scientists on their conclusions in these matters. <br />Sure we can question because its not just pure investigationg. People are under influences in their thinking.<br />Mr Coyne said so about his group.!<br />Where am I wrong here?Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69495550878267944702013-12-07T16:52:26.590-05:002013-12-07T16:52:26.590-05:00Coyne:
"I’ve already written a lot on the e...Coyne: <br /><br />"I’ve already written a lot on the epigenetics hype, and have shown that there’s no evidence that a single adaptation in nature involves the fixation in the DNA of an epigenetic alteration of the genome that isn’t initially inherited. Yet people keep banging on about epigenetic"<br /><br />Really? <br /><br />"Epigenetics" drives phenotype?<br /><br />http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/28849/title/--34-Epigenetics--34--drives-phenotype-/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44408799877037922362013-12-07T16:50:02.486-05:002013-12-07T16:50:02.486-05:00Re: Clearly, hierarchical theory (Gould) is incons...Re: Clearly, hierarchical theory (Gould) is inconsistent with the selfish gene metaphor because evolution can also operate at the level of groups and species (according to Gould and others).<br /><br />Not really: modern theories of multi-level selection are equivalent to kin selection (in the sense that both methods of accounting for genetic change in populations make the same set of predictions). Kin selection was championed in Dawkins (1976) and has always been perfectly compatible with the idea of the selfish gene.<br />Tim Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06623536372084468307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52423684144283298672013-12-07T16:08:52.624-05:002013-12-07T16:08:52.624-05:00Quite a few people would not quite agree that evol...<i>Quite a few people would not quite agree that evolution as they understand it is mostly 'about' drift.</i><br /><br />Of course they would. You might think that's a good thing. I don't. Almost all of those people are arguing from ignorance. <br /> <br />Are you trying to make the case that evolution by random genetic is unimportant therefore it's okay to use an adaptationist metaphor to describe evolution? <br /><br /><i>But when we ask ourselves what astronomy is about the answer isn't 'empty space' either although most of the cosmos is just that.</i><br /><br />Not a good analogy because it compares an important mechanism like random genetic drift to "empty space." What if you were to say that astronomy is all about supernova, black holes, and beautiful nebulae without mentioning gravity, dark matter, or background radiation? Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20849633812122827872013-12-07T14:24:50.865-05:002013-12-07T14:24:50.865-05:00Because that destroys the initial simplicity of th...Because that destroys the initial simplicity of the model which made it attractive to start with. The original idea was that genes working selfishly to replicate themselves resulted, as a side effect, in organisms that prospered. Basically the same model of classical unfettered capitalism with companies working selfishly resulting in a prosperous society as a side effect. But it came clear in both cases that this didn't really capture the reality of the situation which was far more complicated. When pressured, both arch-capitalists and arch-selectionists accept this, but they keep trying to imply that the tweaks required to make their models work are minor -- it's not clear what could falsify their models in their minds. While the rest of us are left to wonder why models with so many tweaks are useful at all.Jonathan Badgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04921990886076027719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21990036923763439372013-12-07T13:52:05.540-05:002013-12-07T13:52:05.540-05:00Why would you consider cooperation a contradiction...Why would you consider cooperation a contradiction of selfishness?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32773276897277427082013-12-07T10:21:39.119-05:002013-12-07T10:21:39.119-05:00Yes, I've read "The Extended Phenotype&qu...Yes, I've read "The Extended Phenotype", Dawkins' one and only book that rises to slightly more than pop science where he goes into his replicator model. And I know that in recent years he likes to stress the cooperative nature of genes, which is a clever strategy as it rather co-opts the arguments of many of his critics. But if you weaken the model to not actually be about selfish replicators, it may be more like reality, but what's the point? What does it *get* you? Does it actually make any testable predictions that can't be explained without it?Jonathan Badgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04921990886076027719noreply@blogger.com