Are our genes selfish?
If you ever have the misfortune of debating the origins of life with a committed evolutionist the same topics that seem to always come up: Those fraudulent Embryo drawings and “Junk DNA” - when will the evolutionists learn that some of the strongest evidence for Evolution are actually the proofs for the case of ID. Most evolutionary science continues to abuse a very small quantity of incorrectly observed evidence and from this an entire science has been extrapolated from that: It's the very definition of a pseudo-science.
But evolutionists never rest: As their current position crumbles they have found a new argument in a very old book. It's by the arch-wingnut of neo-darwinism, Richard Dawkins. The selfish-gene is an invention, or rather a flight-of-fancy of the then young professor Richard Dawkins, a maverick lecturer at the university of Cambridge, England. His book, published in 1976, also titled “The Selfish Gene” was an instant flop. Most critics found his style of prose grandiose, arrogant and obscurest, furthermore his far-fetched ideas were instantly dismissed for lack of credibility and his amoral stance.
Put simply, he states that some genes are “selfish”, that means they code for selfish behavior in the organisms that carry them. Dawkins gives an example of the cuckoo-bird, an creature which destroys eggs from another bird's nest and lays it's solitary egg in place. Dawkins explains this “selfish” behavior as a natural consequence of evolution, in that the cuckoo cannot be blamed for it's actions. It is merely the carrier of selfish DNA.
But do only lower life-forms posses selfish genes? Not according to Richard Dawkins: He claims that his theory is universal and applies to all living and extinct life-forms, I'm sure I remember somebody making exactly the same claim about evolution.
And what of man? Dawkins is typically evasive on the subject, but in the final mystifying chapters of his book he equates Junk-DNA with the selfish-genes. These are Dawkin's own words:
"It appears that the amount of DNA in organisms is more than is strictly necessary for building them: a large fraction of the DNA is never translated into protein. From the point of view of the individual organism this appears paradoxical. If the ‘purpose’ of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing. Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing. But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox. The true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA." (Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (1976), pp. 43-44)
We can extrapolate from these fantastical statements and deduce that Dawkins regards mankind as nothing more than a soulless automata guided by his selfish genes, that is to say we have no choice but to follow our base nature, or insticncts if you like.
In the “enlightened times” envisaged by Dawkins, criminals will evade punishment because they will have the right to claim that their selfish-genes made them commit murder or child-abuse. To Dawkins any form of anti-social behavior is excusable because we are all just vehicles for DNA.
Modern psychology has largely debunked Dawkins claim: Study after study has shown that the kind of behavior which Dawkins believes is genetic can be learned or is the product of free-will and choice.
Indeed, according to the Bible, any sin including selfishness can be overcome and forgiven. Dawkins' claims have thus been shown to be utterly lacking in merit. While he and his theories may continued to be celebrated by evolutionary biologists, in all other fields of science he is regarded as a lunatic.
RoyFitzRObert, what's your problem? Anybody can quote passages from the Bible (even the Devil, so I hear!). Don't you have anything useful to say? Does nobody here find this odd? Is this level of discourse par for the ID course? BIble verses?
hblavatsky,
You have misunderstood the meaning of the concept of selfish genes (as Dawkins used it). It does not mean that "they code for selfish behavior in the organisms that carry them." His claim was that the unit of selection was the gene and not the organism. So, if the gene creates a phenotype that leads to higher reproductive success, then we would expect that gene to spread through a population. And that phenotype could be selfishness, co-operation, redness or the ability to pump ions.
From your faulty understanding of a fairly simple concept, you have extrapolated and made some equally faulty claims on your own (which is interesting sine you say in your first paragraph: "Most evolutionary science continues to abuse a very small quantity of incorrectly observed evidence and from this an entire science has been extrapolated from that: It's the very definition of a pseudo-science.").
And hbvalatsy, ANYTHING can be used as evidence for ID.
Hawks wrote:
"You have misunderstood the meaning of the concept of selfish genes (as Dawkins used it). It does not mean that "they code for selfish behavior in the organisms that carry them.""
Indeed it makes much more sense to ascribe a trait such as "selfishness", which implies intelligence, self-awareness, intent and purpose to an inanimate, unintelligent assembly of molecules.
Yeah… I have no problem with that. Makes sense to me.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
TRoutMac wrote: "Indeed it makes much more sense to ascribe a trait such as "selfishness", which implies intelligence, self-awareness, intent and purpose to an inanimate, unintelligent assembly of molecules.
Yeah… I have no problem with that. Makes sense to me."
Dawkins goes to great lengths to explain that selfish genes don't act out of self-awareness or with intent. Selfish might have been an unfortunate term, but that is a poor excuse for people like hblavatsky to spout a heap of nonsense based on nothing more then her own misunderstandings.
Hawks wrote:
"Dawkins goes to great lengths to explain that selfish genes don't act out of self-awareness or with intent. Selfish might have been an unfortunate term…"
Seems to me like the one with the misunderstanding is Dawkins. If he didn't properly understand the implications of his own title for his own book, that's not my problem nor is it hblavatsky's problem… it's Dawkins' problem.
And to the extent that you put stock in anything Dawkins says, it's your problem as well.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
Some clarification of Dawkins’ book “The Selfish Gene” seems to be in order. Unfortunately the term "selfish" gives an emotional dimension not warranted. I'd prefer "survival-focused genes" myself. His thesis is that genes, in and of themselves, are selfish. They don’t “care” about anything other than making copies of themselves. Hence he explains the abundance of so-called “junk DNA” with no known function - it’s just selfish genes making copies of themselves that serve no useful purpose.
That definition of junk DNA is somewhat dated and has lost most of its following but the book itself is dated now too and it was fashionable thinking at the time. He didn’t posit that the selfish behavior of the genes manifests itself in selfish behavior of the person.
At the time of writing, and perhaps still today, it was a common belief that organisms use genes as a vehicle to make more copies of the organism. Dawkins’ spin on this was that genes use the organism as a vehicle to make more copies of the genes.
“The confusion comes from thinking of people’s genes as their true self, and the motives of their genes as their deepest, truest, unconscious motives. From there it’s easy to draw the cynical and incorrect moral that all love is hypocritical. That confuses the real motives of the person with the metaphorical motives of the genes. Genes are not puppetmasters; they acted as the recipe for making the brain and body and then they got out of the way. They live in a parallel universe, scattered among bodies, with their own agendas.” -- Steven Pinker
Try checking out this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Darwinian-Fairytales-Selfish-Heredity-Evolution/dp/1594031401
Patrick:
Thanks for that explanation… it does clarify Dawkins' terminology somewhat.
The thing that strikes me, and this is the broader comment I was trying to make with my recent comments, is how frequently Darwinists use language which, in some detached sense, invokes intelligence. That "Orgel's Second Rule" (Evolution is cleverer than you are) is an excellent example, but of course it is one of many examples. I take this as a tacit admission that intelligence must be involved at some level in some fashion… intuitively we all know this.
It seems to me that much of Darwinists' arguments revolve around trying to insert intelligence (even if it is their own… I'm thinking of what Michael Behe calls the "Clever Hans" effect) into the process while at the same time denying that intelligence is necessary.
I suspect that this intuition within Richard Dawkins surfaced to some extent in his title "The Selfish Gene" whether or not he had some other rationalization for having used that language.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
TRoutMAc,
when people try to explain certain concepts it is often useful to use analogies and metaphors. This can aid in the understanding of the issue at hand. This is why Dawkins used the term selfish for genes as his claim is that succesful genes are genes that are somehow good at making copies of themselves and that their sole "purpose" is to make copies of themselves.
Words that are teleological can inevitably creep into such metaphors/analogies (I even inserted the term purpose above). "Darwinists" don't use such terms "as a tacit admission that intelligence must be involved at some level in some fashion" but merely because it is a language that is intuitively easy to understand. Remember, metaphors are NOT meant to be taken literally. They are, after all, metaphors.
Can metaphors sometimes hinder understanding? Sure. Especially if all you actually do is to read the metaphor without even try to read what the metaphor is trying to represent.
Selfishness
Dawkins should recall the words "Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him."