selfish gene theory

[lorraineg]

I am doing a course on canine behaviour management and have to write an essay on the selfish gene. Can anyone help please (to do with animals not humans) the question is - Does the selfish gene theory make intelligence and thought an irrelevance?

[CharonY]

I do not see how the one follows from the other.

[pioneer]

The genetics will form the brain. The brain has certain natural capacities based on genetics. However the brain is far more flexible and has a level of autonomy apart from genetics. There would be no need to go to school if the genetics was all the brain was. We can learn new things the genetics can be proven to have no way of ever encountering in evolution.

 

As an analogy, one can buy a PC with a certain configuration. This is analogous to the impact of the DNA. This will set the baseline. This configuration may not be the best for running games. It also might have a windows operating system, and may not take well to MAC applications. But other than that, one can use that system for applications that we having even thought of yet; analogous to new things genetics has never yet encountered.

 

For example, the dog may not be able to do calculus due to genetic limitations within the brain. But the genetics behind the brain may not have anything within the brain that deals with red water bowls with a little light on it. If red water bowls with a little light becomes a common fixture for many generations, selective advantage might begin to hardwire this since this is where water is.

 

A good analogy in the computer world were web cams. People used these external devices using a USB plug-in. It was not part of genetics (part of the computer configuration) but added externally through learning. Now manufacturers (genetics) make web cams an integrated capability. Whether one uses it or not now, it is now part of the computer's (genetic) capacity. Not everyone will make use of it but it is there.

 

Relative to canine management, the positive impact of training lies in its ability to get "one up", on the inertia of genetics, via the dog's brain. It also lies in the ability of the trainer not to get "one down" on the inertia of genetics. Dogs have good natural instinct, which can be degenerated, at the brain level, by a neurotic owner. The dog learns bad habits and loses natural instinct because the owner wants FiFi to be a problem child or a fighting dog that needs mothering or fathering. Often rescue organizations, who receive these broken dogs, can fix them so the animal is new. All they do is get the dog closer to their genetic instincts, and may add a few tricks like roll over not part of the genetic package.

 

Dawkins coined the term "selfish gene" as a way of expressing the gene-centred view of evolution, which holds that evolution is best viewed as acting on genes and that selection at the level of organisms or populations almost never overrides selection based on genes.

 

This is not always true of dogs since their environment includes humans as part of the package. Human can work the brain of the dog. Mutt dogs are often healthier and have better over all survival genes. But selective advantage will go to pure bred dogs with superficial advantages even if it has hip problems down the line. In the wild this would be different but not when it come to humans and our use of brain over genetics. Machine come from the brain and exceed genetics but often have analogies to genetic capacity.

[insane_alien]

Another fine example of why we shouldn't listen to pioneer.

[pioneer]

Go to an animal rescue shelter and see how dogs can be changed. The genetics aren't changed, brain software is. We can't change the hardware, but we can change the software and make it possible for the dog to have selective advantage in a new home. The selfish genes would imply once broken it will be the same under similar conditions since genetics is it. Pet owner go to trainers, so the same dog ,in the same environment, will have more advantage in their homes.

[jimmydasaint]

pioneer, if you are saying that the environment is as important as genetics to the development of an individual, then I totally agree with you. However, the O.P. has to clarify their understanding of what is meant by selfish gene theory. I am referring to the sticky and quote the following:

 

The purpose of evolution is not, as Darwin suggested, survival of the species, it is simply the survival of the information in the genes of the individual. The individual is almost irrelevant to the genes - they are useful containers of the genetic code, but are in the final analysis expendable, and can be cast away if doing so can cause a greater reproduction elsewhere.

 

Life and evolution is pattern reproducing for no other reason than this: patterns which are good at reproducing tend to reproduce themselves - other patterns do not. The behavior we see in living things is simply behavior which has a history of causing replicating the patterns. The genetic code dictates behavior, and behavior changes the success of the replication process. The genetic codes which cause behavior which causes a more replication of the pattern becomes more prevalent.

 

The individual is a 'robot' that carries and nurtures the information of the genes, and it is in the 'interest' of the genes to ensure survival by reproductive success. Intelligence provides a 'selective advantage' to the success of the survival of the genes..... hang on, is this a homework question?

 

http://bovination.com/cbs/selfishGeneTheory.jsp

[pioneer]

When it comes to humans, those with the most selective advantage within the environment called culture, do not necessarily have the most children. In this case, the selfish brain is overriding the selfish gene. There is a brain advantage to this. What is also being passed on is useful brain information and resources. The rich guy could afford to have 100 children to pass on his genes. However, his selective advantage is within his brain and mind, through learning, experience and ingenuity, which is hard to pass on to 100. He will concentrate his brain based resources to a smaller classroom instead of an overcrowded classroom. School is better the smaller the class, since you get more individual attention.

 

If human genetics was at the top of the pile, like in nature, human would mindlessly reproduce to make as many replications as possible. Now we have more genetic piles. But since the brain is higher, there is no advantage to this, since he would spread the brain influence too thin.

 

Often in culture the first born or first son has an advantage. This is not due to the genetics being better the first reproduction cycle. I am not sure if there is any proof to that. This has to due with the mind, with only one child, easier, to cross brain transfer. Dogs living with humans are part of this environment. So they need to adapt to a situation where the self gene is not always in effect and the brain is planning reproduction. In this case, the use of the dog is not genetic but has a brain connection; helper or companion. We will often neuter the dog to eliminate the selfish gene, since that can be an inconvenience.

[insane_alien]

pioneer, do you actually read what people say or just make it up?

[jimmydasaint]

pioneer, people can correct me on this if I am wrong but, IMHO, the selfish gene theory says that only genes are important and the whole of evolution is to help genes 'survive'. So, humans, animals, bacteria etc... are not important, only the genes are important. If you are good at surviving as an organism then the genes also survive. This is what I meant by reproductive advantage. If you live and pass on your genes to your kids then the genes are also successful. I hope this makes sense.

[insane_alien]

jimmy, pioneer is known for not making a whole lot of sense or even being relevant to the conversation.

 

if by some miracle he decides to respond directly to a question his answer is ALWAYS irreleveant, wrong and out of touch with reality.

[CharonY]

jimmy, it is not quite correct to say that the carriers of the genes are not important. The gene-centered view just sees them as vehicles. As such it almost mean the opposite of

If you are good at surviving as an organism then the genes also survive..

The reason for the gene-centric view is that organisms exhibit behaviour that are precisely contraproductive for survival. But they are important for successful procreation. From the viewpoint of an organism this behaviour is bad for survival. From the viewpoint of the gene, it precisely allow its survival. The survival of the gene, that is.

 

And rather not try to divine the meaning from pioneer's post. Last time I tried I my eyes started bleeding and I messed up an important experiment.