4 ms·

Ok, well... I am a biologist and one of the first things you need to understand about "The Selfish Gene" is that much of what Dawkins presents as fact is very m

Ok, well... I am a biologist and one of the first things you need to understand about "The Selfish Gene" is that much of what Dawkins presents as fact is very much under dispute in the biological research community. Be very cautious about accepting anything he presents as "the one true way" of understanding evolution. It is anything but! One term you can Google for more information is "multi-level selection". I find the pack animal explanation actually rather interesting. It meshes well with some of the research that I'm doing on evolution as targeted at resource utilization efficiency. I think the real question is to what extent primitive man was a "pack" animal as opposed to a "group" or "tribe" animal. That is, I think there are many open ended questions regarding the social structure of early man (for one thing, if early man was a pack animal you'd have to explain the origin of monogamy, or at least limited polygamy, in place of the harem structure of most pack animals).

mdemare 17y ago
Evolution is essentially an algorithm. That's why we can use logic to predict that genes that regulate behavior for "less successful individuals to slink away and accept starvation" are unlikely to arise, since not a single one of the ancestors of that individual were less successful and slunk away to accept starvation.
- jballanc 17y ago
  There's a mister Hardy and a mister Weinberg that would like to have a word with you about that logic... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy-Weinberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy-Weinberg The other thing to keep in mind is that evolution works as a movement through nucleotide space over a fitness landscape. The fundamental flaw in much of Dawkins work is his reliance on a biologically unrealistic definition of a "gene". Sure, if you go with his definition of genes then logic can tell you all sorts of things about evolution that aren't necessarily true.
berntb 17y ago
Most criticism I've seen has been from marxist biologists? (Like intelligence being largely inherited, it seems to contradict some dogma in Marxism.) This sums up the old debate: http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html (As a non-biologist, even I know the stature of Maynard Smith, Mayr etc.) Is there some new development with support for e.g. species-selection, etc?
- awkward 17y ago
  Characterizations of Gould as a Marxist biologist are roughly as ad hominem as that article accuses Gould of being. As another non biologist, I understand that Gould's main contribution was punctuated equilibrium. he thought that the primary driver in evolutionary change was rare and relatively quick changes across a population - the external environment would change, or a new advantageous trait would develop which would transmit rapidly. It also clashes with attempts to determine more gradual models of genetic propagation throughout populations.
  - berntb 17y ago
    Well, I already mentioned that you should check who the critics were. Maynard Smith, Wilson and Mayr. AFAIK, they each have more than double the cred in the field as Gould and Dawkins have -- together. Marxist... Lewontin, Steven Rose Kamin et al can hardly be described as liberal or right wing... :-) Can you mention three non-leftwing well known biologists in that camp? One? The fun part about Gould is the criticism from intelligence researchers. They more or less accuse Gould of misrepresenting the contents of their field -- very similar to how Gould is described by evolutionary biologists... Edit: I might also add that there were lots of discussion about how new "punctuated equilibrium" really where. Edit II: First post by a user 460 days old? I am honored! :-)
    - awkward 17y ago
      Not to completely throw up a smokescreen to hide the fact that I think you're better read on this debate than I am, but your challenge is pretty reminiscent of what bugs me about this debate: It's often framed as a debate between politically motivated hacks vs their more sensible, less biased opponents, when there was real scientific disagreement at stake, and a disagreement that has at least some practical political implication. Admittedly, this defense works better when talking about controversy between Gould and Dawkins (who is not at all apolitical himself) than between Gould and Wilson. That, and I thought that the best place I could find on the internet to defend Gould would be in the middle of a thread full of amateur evolutionary psychologists making up stories about why depression came into being. :-) re your edit II: There was some stuff about this on Pharyngula recently that put it on my mind, and plus the combination of screeching flamewar and biological debate in this makes it pretty interesting reading.
Retric 17y ago
I think depression helps people "keep their head down" in oppressive situations. An aggressive alpha male can kill you so slink away and stay alive. If your younger than the alpha you can just wait him out. This might explain why it's so much more prevalent in teenagers where staying alive might gives you time to become the alpha. Slavery is a more recent example of this, if you are aggressive you will be killed, but keep your head down at the chance exists to reproduce. And most people alive today have some slaves/peasants ancestors. Today we end up with some suicides, but that's rare enough it might not outweigh the benefit when that feedback loop stays on track so you avoid jail etc.
- kingkongrevenge 17y ago
  Any mention of "alpha male" costs you your entrance ticket to the discussion. There is no such thing in humans. > An aggressive alpha male can kill you What advantage does an "agressive alpha" have over you? Any human can kill any other human very easily. Rock to the head, game over. We're not talking about walruses. Social power structures of any complexity are a post-agricultural development, and therefore of limited importance to human genes. The social structure in a hunter-gather band of 20 is simple and flat.
  - TheSOB88 17y ago
    Considering the biologist in this thread disagrees with you, you may want to tone down your arrogance. Also, I do not think you could kill me with a rock, unless I were sleeping and you were dropping it from excessive height.
    - kingkongrevenge 17y ago
      I see no disagreement. I could kill you with a coffee mug or a bic pen if you were unarmed. In the unlikely event you're unusually strong and alert I'd get my brother to help. Power in a band of humans has way more to do with how many relatives you happen to have than any silly conception of "alpha".

mdemare 17y ago

Evolution is essentially an algorithm. That's why we can use logic to predict that genes that regulate behavior for "less successful individuals to slink away and accept starvation" are unlikely to arise, since not a single one of the ancestors of that individual were less successful and slunk away to accept starvation.

jballanc 17y ago
There's a mister Hardy and a mister Weinberg that would like to have a word with you about that logic... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy-Weinberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy-Weinberg The other thing to keep in mind is that evolution works as a movement through nucleotide space over a fitness landscape. The fundamental flaw in much of Dawkins work is his reliance on a biologically unrealistic definition of a "gene". Sure, if you go with his definition of genes then logic can tell you all sorts of things about evolution that aren't necessarily true.

berntb 17y ago

Most criticism I've seen has been from marxist biologists? (Like intelligence being largely inherited, it seems to contradict some dogma in Marxism.) This sums up the old debate: http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html (As a non-biologist, even I know the stature of Maynard Smith, Mayr etc.) Is there some new development with support for e.g. species-selection, etc?

awkward 17y ago
Characterizations of Gould as a Marxist biologist are roughly as ad hominem as that article accuses Gould of being. As another non biologist, I understand that Gould's main contribution was punctuated equilibrium. he thought that the primary driver in evolutionary change was rare and relatively quick changes across a population - the external environment would change, or a new advantageous trait would develop which would transmit rapidly. It also clashes with attempts to determine more gradual models of genetic propagation throughout populations.
- berntb 17y ago
  Well, I already mentioned that you should check who the critics were. Maynard Smith, Wilson and Mayr. AFAIK, they each have more than double the cred in the field as Gould and Dawkins have -- together. Marxist... Lewontin, Steven Rose Kamin et al can hardly be described as liberal or right wing... :-) Can you mention three non-leftwing well known biologists in that camp? One? The fun part about Gould is the criticism from intelligence researchers. They more or less accuse Gould of misrepresenting the contents of their field -- very similar to how Gould is described by evolutionary biologists... Edit: I might also add that there were lots of discussion about how new "punctuated equilibrium" really where. Edit II: First post by a user 460 days old? I am honored! :-)
  - awkward 17y ago
    Not to completely throw up a smokescreen to hide the fact that I think you're better read on this debate than I am, but your challenge is pretty reminiscent of what bugs me about this debate: It's often framed as a debate between politically motivated hacks vs their more sensible, less biased opponents, when there was real scientific disagreement at stake, and a disagreement that has at least some practical political implication. Admittedly, this defense works better when talking about controversy between Gould and Dawkins (who is not at all apolitical himself) than between Gould and Wilson. That, and I thought that the best place I could find on the internet to defend Gould would be in the middle of a thread full of amateur evolutionary psychologists making up stories about why depression came into being. :-) re your edit II: There was some stuff about this on Pharyngula recently that put it on my mind, and plus the combination of screeching flamewar and biological debate in this makes it pretty interesting reading.

Retric 17y ago

I think depression helps people "keep their head down" in oppressive situations. An aggressive alpha male can kill you so slink away and stay alive. If your younger than the alpha you can just wait him out. This might explain why it's so much more prevalent in teenagers where staying alive might gives you time to become the alpha. Slavery is a more recent example of this, if you are aggressive you will be killed, but keep your head down at the chance exists to reproduce. And most people alive today have some slaves/peasants ancestors. Today we end up with some suicides, but that's rare enough it might not outweigh the benefit when that feedback loop stays on track so you avoid jail etc.

kingkongrevenge 17y ago
Any mention of "alpha male" costs you your entrance ticket to the discussion. There is no such thing in humans. > An aggressive alpha male can kill you What advantage does an "agressive alpha" have over you? Any human can kill any other human very easily. Rock to the head, game over. We're not talking about walruses. Social power structures of any complexity are a post-agricultural development, and therefore of limited importance to human genes. The social structure in a hunter-gather band of 20 is simple and flat.
- TheSOB88 17y ago
  Considering the biologist in this thread disagrees with you, you may want to tone down your arrogance. Also, I do not think you could kill me with a rock, unless I were sleeping and you were dropping it from excessive height.
  - kingkongrevenge 17y ago
    I see no disagreement. I could kill you with a coffee mug or a bic pen if you were unarmed. In the unlikely event you're unusually strong and alert I'd get my brother to help. Power in a band of humans has way more to do with how many relatives you happen to have than any silly conception of "alpha".