Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by timojin, Feb 2, 2017.
Unregulated selfish gene in the DNA ends life ?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Is the gene just a saying, or, do you have something more to add?
I ended with a questionmark . But the word selfish , the gene wants to initiate reproduction by the DNA . Example a virus DNA reproduce itself continually until kills the host cell, The same can be looked into cancerous cells, The cells ( cancerous ) tend to reproduce themself until kill the organism.
So, we're animals.
Wonderful Blue Dot in a hostile solar system.
What does solar system have to do with selfish gene ?
Address my first point so I'd know an answer matters:
The gene and a virus and cancerous cells do not have a brain, consciousness, awareness hence cannot have conscious needs, wants or motives
A ball rolling down a hill also lacks all of the above and ' acts ' under the influence of physics
The cells likewise ' act ' under the influence of biological processes
I I know they don't have brain , brain is an organism and hopefully you know the organism is made of cells.
The point here is the selfish gene on the DNA which will initiate reproduction were if there is no control will kill the host cell.
Your second and third paragraph is a hand waving.
Yep. But if the cancer happens early and often then that species dies out. So the DNA is not propagated - so genes that code for cancer (or more accurately, lack resistance to cancer) are selected against.
Likewise viruses. Viruses that infect and kill people rapidly can wipe out small populations, but are self-contained; once everyone in that population is dead, the virus dies. The most successful viruses are viruses like rhinoviruses that just sicken people a bit. Since it doesn't slow them down much or kill them, the people spread the virus through a much larger population.
The point here is the gene really isn't selfish and only follows biological processes
Carl gave it that attribute understanding (in my opinion) that most of the readers would know the gene really wasn't selfish
The characterisation was not to be taken literally
My next book will be called The Happy Gene about the gene being happy it reproduced
Try reading Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene".
Sure. The replicaton and machinery is not perfect.
That too is evolutionarily advantageous. A perfectly replicating machine would be quickly wiped out by a changing environment/ecology.
So, the patterns that are successful are those that have enough error that subsequent generations have the ability to adapt.
Death is a critical component of evolution.
If you look at it from the selfish gene point of view, the gene needs to be able to create a host that can adapt, and thus continue.
IIRC, the book talks about a gene as a group, not as individual entities. So, this gene isn't trying to propagate itself, it is trying to propagate its brethren.
You tel me because I would not touch it, Go on , bring his argument .
Evolutionary advantage . advantage of what ? to do what ? If you take 1000 brick and pile them up . You are telling me they will build a wall eventually because they are rectangular.
You are create enough , how much is enough , before he kills the host. What is an infection , is it not enough bacteria or virus the overcome our immune system that kills us , we die from the infection and the infection is an overpopulation of your selfish gene.
Because you are willfully ignorant.
Lady . I don't thin
Thanks for the complement.
That genes want to reproduce themselves. They do so by using the "machinery of life" to propagate copies of themselves.
Nice " machinery of life "
So what happened when the gene reproduce itself in case of Ebola , TB, ete. ete. or some plage as during middle ages that wiped out millions in relative short time.
To me that is your selfish gene . Thank God, He did not allow that selfish gene , but programmed a non selfish one .
You are the one throwing around his terms like you know something.
If it wiped out everyone, it would be gone itself. Which is why disease doesn't generally wipe out entire populations.
Diseases that wipe out large segments of populations are also pretty rare, because they tend to wipe themselves out to0. That's why, although you hear about Ebola all the time, it's very rare.
Rhinoviruses are a lot more successful because they do NOT wipe out an entire population. They are just as selfish - they want to multiply as much as possible, and their strategy is to not kill you so you keep walking around to infect other people. It just happens to be a better strategy than Ebola's.
No need for God - basic evolution provided the "selfishness" that both of them express.
Separate names with a comma.