Talk:The Selfish Gene

From Academic Kids

I cut this sentence:

Instead of thinking in terms of evolution shaping organisms to reproduce more effectively, it is more accurate to think in terms of those genes which are replicated more effectively being selected.

I see the problems Vicki Rosenzweig saw in the earlier version and while I aprpeciate her efforts, I just don't thin it is salvagable.

First, I think the first sentence of the article is much much clearer, and sufficient. Second, this sentence is obfuscatory, because it reintroduces the issue of evolution. In standard Darwinian theory, evolution acts on species, and natural selection acts on organisms. According to this theory, it is the gene, and not the organism, that natural selection acts on. Very interesting and very clear. The question is, does this change the way evolution itself acts? This is the subject of the second (now deleted) sentence. But I do not think sociobiology requires a radical reformulation of evolutionary theory (beyond the reformulation of natural selection); it does suggest that a different understanding of natural selection helps us understand evolutionary trends, and I think the rest of the article is clear about that.

So it just seems to me that the simplest solution is to get rid of the sentence. Do others agree with me that the article makes sense without it? SR

Yes. I'm still concerned about NPOV--is this idea generally accepted by biologists? (The article states it as a given, not one of several competing hypotheses--if that's the case, cool.) Vicki Rosenzweig

---

I didn't see much resemblance in this article to the book at all, so I thought it deserved a major rewrite. Did any of you folks actually read the book? --Lee Daniel Crocker

I did, and I think the article is decent. I just threw in a reference to ESS's, because that's an important focus in the book. Zensufi 00:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Sorry, not me. But I always loved the title. It implies via metaphor that the gene has a desire, as if it had intelligence. I enjoy the delicious irony of imputing intelligence to a gene while denying it to God.

Don't worry, I'm not going to wreak havoc in this article. It's very NPOV as it is. User:Ed Poor

---

This is a major improvement -- good job! I don't see any major NPOV issues; I think most biologists accept the notion that the gene is the object of natural selection, and I think the article does a good job of presenting the arguments.

I do see one problem in this sentence:

Describing genes with the term "selfish" is not meant to imply that they have actual motives or will--only that the results of their actions can be described as if they do.

Genes do not "act," at least not in the same way as people (I suppose you could say they "act" in the same way as reagents do). I wouldn't make a big deal of this except for the context, which is a sentence that specifically aims to de-anthropomorphize the concept. The predicate of the sentence therefore has to steer clear of any language that could suggest intentionality. So I am changing 'actions" to "effects," although I invite LDC to come up with another solution. SR

---

You're right, that's what the sentence was trying to do and your wording is better. --LDC

---

I wrote the version that this edit is being based on, and FWIW I have read the book and I have a genetics degree.

This rewrite is an improvement, especially in dealing separately with genetic determinism, but it's still not ideal.

The problem is that the article comes too close to implying that "selfish gene" is Dawkins' provocative spin on evolution and is nothing more than a useful way of looking at the problem.

In fact, the central point of the idea, that the gene is the unit of selection, is a more accurate recasting of evolution than Darwin. Darwin couldn't have explained natural selection in these terms because the basic mechanisms of genetics weren't understood at the time.

To say "most of the time the gene and the organism share common goals" and to treat the selfish gene as explaining certain additional phenomena is understating the case.

What I was groping for is a clear statement that if the selfish gene idea is true, an organism is expected to evolve to maximise its inclusive fitness - the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual).

As far as NPOV goes, I think the selfish gene idea is accepted as a central tenet of neo-Darwinism. Any mathematical geneticist will view things in terms of inclusive fitness. I know that Gould doesn't accept it, but he is the exception.

So basically, I think we need an article that pushes the importance of the concept more strongly than the current one does.

The sentence about the gene and the organism having "common goals" really needs to be changed. One reason why philosophers have picked on Dawkins is this sort of sloppy thinking (mainly, to be fair, from disciples rather than Dawkins himself) about "goals" and "aims" and so on. Genes don't have goals, the process of evolution will tend to select particular genes - talk about "goals" implies that the genes want to be selected, or act with the intention of being selected. Organisms, even ones which operate on a very basic mental level, have goals and intentions even if they are driven by instinct rather than rationality, but genes don't. This is rather like saying "water wants to flow into the sea" - water flows into the sea because of gravity and topology, not because it has the goal of flowing into the sea. Dawkins protests vigorously that he doesn't impute motives to genes, while using this sort of language which does impute motives, and the article ought to back off from this. I'll try to think of another way of putting it. --Andrew Norman 14:00, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

He very clearly says he is using that language merely for convenience, in a way to make it more accessible to laypeople. Unfortunately it seems like his plan backfires and the laypeople take it literally.  :-) - Omegatron 15:58, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

That's the problem - he spends a lot of time getting himself out of the hole he's dug himself with his use of language (and most of the intemperate attacks, in the seventies in particular, were due to people feeling he had intentionally not dug himself out completely). The Wikipedia article, as it stands, doesn't make it clear that the "selfish" gene isn't literally selfish, and it needs to do that. As I said, I'll have a think unless someone else comes up with a better way of putting things.--Andrew Norman 16:49, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think I've improved the wording somewhat - and I think it's important to put in links to Fisher and Williams, because Dawkins himself would admit that the book is almost entirely based on their theories and research. One thing puzzling me (and I can't find my copy to check) - does the selfish gene theory actually explain "junk DNA"? Surely, if the DNA doesn't express itself, it can't be selected and is therefore not involved in evolution?--Andrew Norman 19:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

pp 44-5 in my edition (1989): "Sex is not the only apparent paradox that becomes less puzzling the moment we learn to think in selfish gene terms. For instance, 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 organisms this seems 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 harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by other DNA." There is also a mention of it on page 182 and an interesting rebuttal to Gould's argument in the endnotes on page 275. There is, according to this, a more full discussion of this "junk DNA" in The Extended Phenotype on pp. 156-164. Finally, Andrew, it seems to me that in Dawkins' explanation, genes need not have an effect on the phenotype. "Junk DNA" is a specific kind of selfish gene that happens to not have an effect on the phenotype. They survive, because they have properties which tend to them not being broken up or changed as they pass from one generation to the next. Zensufi 22:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I've been reading it lately (very slowly). Are there common criticisms of the notion? Include if so. - Omegatron 23:50, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Critique / Clarification

Removed the clarification of the theory as an indeterminist model of causality. The notion of an "indeterminist model of causality" seems oxymoronic.

Also, has anybody ever encountered any critique of the Selfish Gene model? I haven't had time to educate myself fully on the theory, but something about it is making my Spidey sense tingle--it just seems intuitively "off," and I wondered if there was any critical analysis out there.

--Pariah 03:20, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

According to the book, the alternative theories are things like group selection and species selection, as opposed to "gene selection" which can also be called kin selection. - Omegatron 04:34, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Omegatron. I suppose there's a certain explanatory value in a gene or kin selection theory, for talking about certain self-sacrificial behaviours. Something still doesn't sit right about it--my pseudo-science detectors are very suspicious. I guess I'll have to read the book. So many books, so little time... --Pariah 09:42, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it all "explanatory value"? Yes, I recommend the book. Do you know of any "opposing" viewpoints that would be in similar books that I could read? - Omegatron 19:50, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

You need to look at kin selection, and memorise Hamilton's rule. As a trained biologist, I baulk at the idea of group selection. Adaptation and Natural Selection is quite readable; Dawkins does go over the top a bit sometimes (and most of the book does go into trying to explain what a chromosome is...). A critique of adaptationism can be found in Not in Our Genes! by Lewontin, Rose and ... (but I'm an unavowed adaptationist). The big advocate of group selection was V.C. Wynne-Edwards who has a couple of books. Group selection is generally ignored unless there are high extinction rates of small groups, and there are a few examples, SIV I think is one, but they are few and far between. Nature is red in tooth and claw. Dunc|☺ 22:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not even an amateur biologist. I am just telling what I know of the book. - Omegatron 06:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Gene-centered view of evolution

This could be merged with the above, since it's not just about a book but an idea. --Erauch 00:17, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

That's a bad idea. You might as well try to merge Adaptation and Natural Selection, which predates this book by 10 years, or even The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection which is even older. The book is also significant in terms of memetics and the history of popular science writing. Dunc|☺ 11:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK. But some of the material not specific to the book or its presentation would fit better in an article on the idea rather than the book. --Erauch 14:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Segregation Distortion

I'm not a biologist but I read up a bit on this. Neither the Wikipedia article or any of the items I read support the position that a Segregation Distortion gene is bad for the host. Anyone want to explain why this is the case (assuming it is true)? If it is not true let's remove it from the article. Robertbrockway 18:49 May 22, 2005 (UTC)