tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post6439991019301502488..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Nisbet Reveals His True ColorsLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8225725531535366162008-07-02T02:19:00.000-04:002008-07-02T02:19:00.000-04:00What is the "Selfish Gene" thing?Genes Are Primal ...What is the "Selfish Gene" thing?<BR/><BR/>Genes Are Primal And Genomes Are Evolved Organisms<BR/><BR/><BR/>A. In view of the information we now have about life and its evolution:<BR/><BR/>Earth Life: 1. a format of temporarily constrained energy, retained in temporary constrained genetic energy packages in forms of genes, genomes and organisms 2. a real virtual affair that pops in and out of existence in its matrix, which is the energy constrained in Earth's biosphere.<BR/><BR/>Earth organism: a temporary self-replicable constrained-energy genetic system that supports and maintains Earth's biosphere by maintenance of genes.<BR/><BR/>Gene: a primal Earth's organism.<BR/><BR/>Genome: a multigenes organism consisting of a cooperative commune of its member genes.<BR/><BR/>Cellular organisms: mono- or multi-celled earth organisms.<BR/><BR/><BR/>B. Update of life sciences conceptions is now feasible and urgently desirable: <BR/><BR/>- Earth's biosphere phenomenon is a distant relative of black holes, a form of constrained <BR/> energy pocket.<BR/><BR/>- First were independent individual genes, Earth's primal organisms.<BR/><BR/>- Genes aggregated cooperatively into genomes, multigenes organisms, with genomes' organs. <BR/><BR/>- Simultaneously or consequently genomes evolved protective and functional membranes, organs.<BR/><BR/>- Then followed cellular organisms, with a variety of outer-cell membranes shapes and <BR/> functionalities. <BR/><BR/><BR/>This conception is a scientific, NOT TECHNOLOGICAL, life-science innovation.<BR/><BR/>It is tomorrow's comprehension of life and its evolution.<BR/><BR/>IT EVOKES INTRIGUING DARWINIAN IMPLICATIONS. <BR/><BR/>IT IS FRAUGHT WITH INTRIGUING TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS POTENTIALS.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Suggesting,<BR/><BR/>Dov Henis<BR/><BR/> http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1Dov Henishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487907863785174174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47788864643110437412008-04-05T11:03:00.000-04:002008-04-05T11:03:00.000-04:00"The plasticity was already built into the origina..."The plasticity was already built into the original population's genome"<BR/><BR/>According to that logic , no new phenotypes ever arise if not by genetic mutation. Which makes no good structural-developmental sense. Environmental interactions are very capable of producing new phenotypes. <BR/><BR/>Also, try this: What if you are not comparing subpopulations, but sister species or clearly distinct subspecies. Say important differences disappear in the garden experiment. If you had not run the garden experiment these would simply be listed as species differences of a phenotype that is, in fact, representative for that species.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14946937335983575632008-04-05T10:49:00.000-04:002008-04-05T10:49:00.000-04:00Well, I think we're back to differing definitions ...Well, I think we're back to differing definitions of "evolution." Say I have a population of lizards. I take half the population and move it North . Some decades later I return and do some comparative demography. I find that the Northern population grows more slowly, has a later age of first reproduction, smaller clutch sizes, maybe even larger eggs and hatchlings. Seemingly important life-history differences no? Different phenotypes.<BR/>Now I take representatives of both populations and run a common-garden experiment. Lo and behold, all those differences disappear--they were all due solely to phenotypic plasticity.<BR/>Has evolution occurred in generating those differences? I (and I think most) would say no; I get the impression that you would say yes. The plasticity was already built into the original population's genome.<BR/>But you're right that I should probably read more widely in this area before arguing much about it. I attended a series of lectures Lewontin gave at UCLA in the late 80s and was very impressed. People keep mentioning West-Eberhard but that book looks pretty intimidating and I have many more proximately pressing tasks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58029706997091282572008-04-05T03:24:00.000-04:002008-04-05T03:24:00.000-04:00"The heritable differences are all genetic--both t..."The heritable differences are all genetic--both the residual difference in the common garden experiment and the capacity for acclimatization that caused the larger differences in different environments"<BR/><BR/><BR/>OK, let's talk like developmental biologists. The development of a phenotypic trait is said to be determined when changing the environment no longer can change the course of the development of that phenotype.<BR/><BR/>Talking about "capacity genes" does not make a trait "genetically determined", in which case having the genes would be sufficient to develop the trait. The genetic component is necessary, but not sufficient, for the development of the trait. Environment is necesary too (even if on its own it may also be insufficient).<BR/><BR/>Your position can appear to be condensed as following: "everything, in the end, is genetic". This is, in fact, pretty silly.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40961374169904094692008-04-05T03:17:00.000-04:002008-04-05T03:17:00.000-04:00"it's my impression that there's a large and thriv..."it's my impression that there's a large and thriving field of behavioral ecology that still takes stuff like kin selection pretty seriously"<BR/><BR/>We also have lots of academia dedicated to string theory and "evolutionary psychology"(shrug)<BR/><BR/>Even so, a few behavioral ecologists are wisening up to epigenetic plasticity. Mary Jane West- Eberhardt, for one.<BR/><BR/>Plus you seem to completely ignore that fcat that for a long while the school of behavioral ecology has been opposed by the school fo developmental psychology and developmental sistems theory (Susan Oyama). These people are much more cogent when it comes to putting genes in their proper place. I recommend you read Lewontin, too.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76316287179643729902008-04-05T03:02:00.000-04:002008-04-05T03:02:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nucleo Deceniohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01966542558503652729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24736156150108891492008-04-05T00:50:00.000-04:002008-04-05T00:50:00.000-04:00I don't see how your example involves anything I w...I don't see how your example involves anything I would call "epigenetic." The heritable differences are all genetic--both the residual difference in the common garden experiment and the capacity for acclimatization that caused the larger differences in different environments. Unless you are arguing that descendants "inherit" their environments from ancestors that also lived there, everything is being inherited genetically. Perhaps you are using "epigenetic" in a nonstandard way?<BR/><BR/>Not sure what to make of your second post--it's my impression that there's a large and thriving field of behavioral ecology that still takes stuff like kin selection pretty seriously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7426084885483605132008-04-04T14:55:00.000-04:002008-04-04T14:55:00.000-04:00"The value of the gene-level approach is most clea..."The value of the gene-level approach is most clearly seen in the cases like kin selection for "altruism" etc."<BR/><BR/>No: empirical evidence for any such thing is murky and controversial at best. Further, as new data comes along it just becomes more ugly, contorted and full of parches (what you guys call "expanded), demonstrating a remarkably irrefutable status for a "scientific" hypothesis. It shows all the barroque hallmarks of a "soft" and confused science.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19134699786017741572008-04-04T14:49:00.000-04:002008-04-04T14:49:00.000-04:00"Fascinating examples of phenotypic plasticity"Tru..."Fascinating examples of phenotypic plasticity"<BR/><BR/>Truly so.<BR/><BR/>"I don't see much of a role for epigenetics here (but I confess I don't know much about epigenetics)"<BR/><BR/>You are right, you haven't even thought about properly. Let me help you out. Say you have two different sister species, that live in different climates and have different physiologies. Now, their different physiologies may have a genetic component, for sure. But is there not still an epigentic component, such that you could make their physiologies more similar if you grew one species in the climate of the other? What difference remains you may call genetic, but then you must also acknowledge there is still an active, important epigenetic factor determining the differences between species.<BR/><BR/>Would you say acclimatization has had no role in the evolution of these species to different climates? remeber that o matter how large my gentic capacity for responde may be, wihthout the epigentic factor acting upon it, there is no new phenotype.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61021139872994519582008-04-04T11:16:00.000-04:002008-04-04T11:16:00.000-04:00Not only have I heard of it, I know how to spell i...Not only have I heard of it, I know how to spell it (usually <B>ac</B>climatization). Fascinating examples of phenotypic plasticity. I've done some work on the laboratory-experiment version (acclimation). What's most interesting is that not all species have the capacity to acclimate, i.e. phenotypic plasticity itself has a genetic underpinning. I don't see much of a role for epigenetics here (but I confess I don't know much about epigenetics).<BR/>I actually agree with you that selection at the level of the individual organism is sufficient to explain the kind of physiological adaptation that most interests me. The value of the gene-level approach is most clearly seen in the cases like kin selection for "altruism" etc. Remember that Dawkins's training is in behavioral ecology, probably the most adaptationistic of all biological disciplines.<BR/>Pluralism!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21766552139908518052008-04-03T20:14:00.000-04:002008-04-03T20:14:00.000-04:00"That is why the more independent the effect of a ..."That is why the more independent the effect of a gene becomes from that background, the more easily it is for <BR/>it to be selected"<BR/><BR/>In the PNAS article the idea is that certain backgrounds are more likely than others!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33346767216231827202008-04-02T13:40:00.000-04:002008-04-02T13:40:00.000-04:00I consider instances of selection of genetically d...I consider instances of selection of genetically determined differences is an important part of evolutionary understanding. What I think is up for discussion is whether this is enough as an explanation of adaptation (such that epigenetic adaptation can be ignored) and thus whether indeed selection, be it of groups, individuals or genes, is the general framework for evolution. <BR/><BR/>If you're an ecophysiologist, you're most probably measuring oxigen consumption, increasing conductivity by putting some mammal into helium, measuring the calories put in in food and out as droppings, relating everything to climate of each species, perhaps measuring heritability for some physiological trait... I've done a bit of it myself, studying the energy value of different furcoats in fossorial and non-fossorial rodents. <BR/><BR/>What does all this have to do with the notion that gene selection takes priority over individual selection? <BR/>The fact you are a Dawkins fan is<BR/>quite separate from the actual demands of the science you do. <BR/><BR/>Have you ever heard of the phenomenon of climatization, Sven?A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87267695176119241022008-04-02T13:06:00.000-04:002008-04-02T13:06:00.000-04:00(not sure why I'm bothering, but:)Well, I f you do...(not sure why I'm bothering, but:)<BR/><BR/><I>Well, I f you do not understadn my point, all I can do is shrug. To those who understoood: Isn't it funny how things are?</I><BR/><BR/>Sanders, maybe you've noticed by now that NOBODY understadns [sic] your various "points." Your communication style ensures that little you may have to say will ever be understoood [sic].<BR/><BR/>Your view of Dawkins's views (and, by extension, Hamilton's and Williams's) is a caricature. Do you really know other "true" evolutionary biologists ("like you") that have your level of disdain and vitriol about those views? Because I don't.<BR/>(For the record, I am a comparative physiologist for whom these arguments are tangential. I know a lot of biologists, though, and I have never encountered another that feels so strongly that gene selection is purely a crock of shit. I will say, though, that my studies, directly of organisms rather than theory or genes or molecules, have convinced me that adaptation is nearly ubiquitous, within various well-established constraints, of course.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31287111667649532742008-04-01T20:53:00.000-04:002008-04-01T20:53:00.000-04:00"No gene makes the same contribution "regardless o..."No gene makes the same contribution "regardless of genetic background". You are attacking a strawman"<BR/><BR/>If a gene does not have a consistent effect under normal, (standing) variation of genetic background (viable mutations), that gene is going to be difficult to select.<BR/><BR/>That is why the more independent the effect of a gene becomes from that background, the more easily it is for it to be selected and the better candidate it becomes for a properly selfish "GENE", a la Hamilton.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22902882767261225112008-04-01T20:28:00.000-04:002008-04-01T20:28:00.000-04:00Well, I f you do not understadn my point, all I ca...Well, I f you do not understadn my point, all I can do is shrug. To those who understoood: Isn't it funny how things are? Some are allowed to presnet what actually should have been a disappointment, as an "expansion"...and on PNAS, no less...<BR/>Obviously the "greenbeard" hypothesis will keep on surviving, impervious to any new data and with no supergene ever been docuemtned. Such is the way it goes with some.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81116955418391973642008-04-01T20:22:00.000-04:002008-04-01T20:22:00.000-04:00No gene makes the same contribution "regardless of...No gene makes the same contribution "regardless of genetic background". You are attacking a strawman. (In case you want to claim that this implies individual selection, individuals don't have a fixed fitness independent of their environment either)<BR/><BR/>If you claim that the PNAS article is a refutation of Hamilton, instead of building on his ideas and modifying it in light of better evidence, you are deluded.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25392459444276673152008-04-01T19:17:00.000-04:002008-04-01T19:17:00.000-04:00Windy, unless you don't know it, the supergen of H...Windy, unless you don't know it, the supergen of Hamilton is by no means defiend by magnitude effect, but rather, it is a "compound" gene, a stretch of the DNA that includes several genes and that can be all selected together as upon a single locus. The idea of the Hamiltonian supergene is that, by providing simutaneously both color and recognition of it, it would be gene able to favor the replication of copies of itself, regardless of the "interests" of the "vessel" of the individual.<BR/><BR/>Starting to click by now? <BR/><BR/><BR/>By isolated I meant precisely that independence from individual genetic background. This can only happen if a gene makes a contribution to fitness regardless of genetic background, that is, it's effect can be "isolated" form the background.<BR/><BR/>Now, read my comment again. See which is my point now?A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74755325753263739562008-04-01T18:44:00.000-04:002008-04-01T18:44:00.000-04:00If the recognition genes are interspersed in the g...<I>If the recognition genes are interspersed in the genome, and not linked into a supergene along with the OBY locus, then the study has proven conclusively that there was NO Hamiltonian supergene in this case. I am not impressed; we'll just have to keep on waiting for the legendary supergene, I guess.</I><BR/><BR/>*headdesk* No, that's not the point. They are expanding on Hamilton's work.<BR/><BR/><I>I mean, if its not the selection of an isolated supergene, how can you say this situation exemplifies "gene selection" ruling over individual selection?</I><BR/><BR/>What the fuck is an "isolated supergene"? i don't remember Dawkins saying anything about selection on isolated genes floating in space or something, but genes working in tandem with other genes. And how does individual selection explain the bluebeard effect?<BR/><BR/>And aren't you usually the one who's advocating for single genes of large effect being very important in evolution? So what have you got against supergenes all of a sudden?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28355396879328334102008-04-01T17:12:00.000-04:002008-04-01T17:12:00.000-04:00HUH? If the recognition genes are interspersed in ...HUH? <BR/>If the recognition genes are interspersed in the genome, and not linked into a supergene along with the OBY locus, then the study has proven conclusively that there was NO Hamiltonian supergene in this case. I am not impressed; we'll just have to keep on waiting for the legendary supergene, I guess.<BR/>I mean, if its not the selection of an isolated supergene, how can you say this situation exemplifies "gene selection" ruling over individual selection? Since the combination of genes is crucial, individual selection is crucial. <BR/><BR/>Also notice, Windy, that "greenbeard" situations are not the general logic of evolution. Dawkins's vision is that gene selection is the general evolutionary mechanism. Remember, the lumbering robots thing? Honesty, Windy, even among the most darwinian people I know, few would think that greenberad or conflict research would somehow justify dawkins cartoonish views of gene-centered evolution.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20284158552871301982008-04-01T15:55:00.000-04:002008-04-01T15:55:00.000-04:00You may want to read what Lewontin and Gould have ...<I>You may want to read what Lewontin and Gould have to say about this, or E. Wilson himself for that sake (the notable ant expert and sociobiologist that recently flipped to group selection as an alternative to "altruistic genes")</I><BR/><BR/>And has been soundly criticized by kin selection experts like Stuart West. Just because Wilson flipped, doesn't mean everyone else is required to.<BR/><BR/>And group selection is not an "alternative" to gene selection in the Hamiltonian framework, since you need to distinguish between what Dawkins terms 'vehicles' and 'replicators'.<BR/><BR/><I>Windy, do you do research? How often do you use the conceptual framework of "selfish genes" (or altruistic genes) in your publications?</I><BR/><BR/>I do population genetics where this is not directly applicable. I'm planning a new project where it is, though. Stay tuned!<BR/><BR/><I>Alternatively, just refer me to the nicest paper you know that empirically studies "selfish genes".</I><BR/><BR/>Selfish genetic elements or anything in a Hamiltonian framework?<BR/><BR/>For the latter, check out "Self-recognition, color signals, and cycles of greenbeard mutualism and altruism" by Sinervo et al in PNAS 103: 7372-7377 (2006).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63788072741856895572008-04-01T11:41:00.000-04:002008-04-01T11:41:00.000-04:00Windy, get a grip.dawkins porposal is that evoluti...Windy, get a grip.<BR/>dawkins porposal is that evolution is, in essence, GENE selection: not even of individual organisms, which are but "lumbering robots".<BR/>Do you really believe this? Because Mayr and Gould certainly didn't. And neither do I.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42971517774843155032008-04-01T10:29:00.000-04:002008-04-01T10:29:00.000-04:00Alternatively, just refer me to the nicest paper y...Alternatively, just refer me to the nicest paper you know that empirically studies "selfish genes". I guess that if the evidence is appalling, I should shut up, shouldn't I? <BR/><BR/>We'll see if selfish genes can indeed be a "genral framework" for evolutionary understanding.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69241529738630445432008-04-01T10:24:00.000-04:002008-04-01T10:24:00.000-04:00Kin selection and selfish genetic elements are har...Kin selection and selfish genetic elements are hardly "uncontroversial", to say the least. In any case, both altruistic genes and the book you mentioned are only conceptually applicable to a subset of biological phenomena and further seem to be condemmned to eternal controversy and extreme intellectual entanglement. You may want to read what Lewontin and Gould have to say about this, or E. Wilson himself for that sake (the notable ant expert and sociobiologist that recently flipped to group selection as an alternative to "altruistic genes") <BR/><BR/>The truth being, that biology is simply not as genetic as Dawkins or Hamilton would think. Things just don't work that way. <BR/><BR/>Windy, do you do research? How often do you use the conceptual framework of "selfish genes" (or altruistic genes) in your publications? Care to show us a reference?A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65282385221143442702008-04-01T05:30:00.000-04:002008-04-01T05:30:00.000-04:00Do you really think that Dawkins "evolutionary bio...<I>Do you really think that Dawkins "evolutionary biology" is what flies among true evolutionary biologists?<BR/>You may want to know the reality about the status of Dawkins ideas, from some actual evolutionary scientists like me.</I><BR/><BR/>Or you might want to talk to some of them who don't erect these strawmen about ultradeterminist Dawkins. I know that even many evolutionary biologists don't understand gene selection, but about the status of Dawkins' ideas: Dawkins basically popularizes Hamilton, one of the most original thinkers in evolutionary biology after the modern synthesis. If you want to take on the ideas instead of ad homineming Dawkins, take on Hamilton and modern researchers of kin selection like Stuart West. Or read Burt and Trivers' recent huge book on selfish genetic elements (which shouldn't exist if Dawkins is so full of crap as some people claim)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35270269846831483352008-03-31T11:10:00.000-04:002008-03-31T11:10:00.000-04:00Since you are obviously not an evolutionary biolog...Since you are obviously not an evolutionary biologist I ask you:<BR/>Do you really think that Dawkins "evolutionary biology" is what flies among true evolutionary biologists?<BR/>You may want to know the reality about the status of Dawkins ideas, from some actual evolutionary scientists like me. Even PZ and larry, who are no evolutionary biologists, know better: PZ knows dawkins is a gentic reductionist; Larry knows he is a sickly ultraadaptationist.<BR/><BR/>So, I thought I'd inform you about the reality. Evolutionary scientists are not about to pick up Dawkins on their shoulders. In fact, most that I know despise him (though there are a few fans still around) <BR/><BR/><BR/>The only academic places where Dawkins views are taken seriousy are precisely in the non-biologicla places that wish to call themselves "evolutionary", such as, such as "evoutionary" psychology, and the london school of economics.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Do you know much evolutionary biology? If you want your car fixed, and you KNOW you don't know how to fix it... would you take it to a mechanic, or to a car-salesman?A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.com