human sexual selection

Well, not so much individual survivability as well as genotypic survivability. Evolution’s not about the survival of organisms but of genes, and not of individual genes but of gene types (a reproduction of a gene is as good as the “original”).

Because genes reproduce generationally through the mechanism of the individual organism, it is pertinent to talk about the survivability of that individual organism, as well as of the species of which that individual is a part.

“Evolution” is just the name we have for this process of growth and change, it captures a process taking place on many levels, and if desired the genetic level may certainly be seen as the predominant one in this regard. But just as gene types (forms) evolve only through the likewise evolution of their individual genetic “parts” (individual genes), the genetic level itself evolves through and not without its higher counterpart, the organic level, because without successful survival behaviors on the organic level genes themselves, or the genotypical forms to which individual genes give rise, cannot and do not reproduce or evolve.

In effect, it is all one process with many involves pieces and parts; separating them out in any rigid or definitive manner can be helpful in conceptualizing what is going on, but it also tends to obfuscate the unity and interdependency of the process as a whole.

For clarity’s sake, we could say that no part or level of the evolutionary process is ontologically “primary” or superior to any other part or level. That is really the main lesson we ought to draw from the notion of evolution: mutual interdependence, reciprocal causality and (the attempt at) an ontological objectivity.

I disagree with this part. The gene is the unit of evolution. By “gene type”, by the way, I just mean that a “copy” (reproduction) of a gene is as good as its “original”. For instance, we have the code:

XBLA

This is the “original”. We can reproduce it:

XBLA

These are twice the same “type” but not twice the same “individual” code (by definition).

Yes. The genotypical form would consist of the specific order-combination of individual genes, but we must remember too that a single gene is itself made of lesser combinations of parts, nucleotides, and that these nucleotides are themselves composed of smaller atomic components. Each part of this process has its own mechanics and depends on every other level of the process for its own function. And even what we call a “gene” is itself arbitrary, a chosen grouping of nucleotide base pairs that we believe relate, as a whole, to a certain phenotypical expression via protein synthesis. A gene is not a specific unit, and it certainly is not irreducible, so the stretch that it is the “primary” unit of evolution is dubious, at best.

As far as the “selection” element is concerned, this in fact only takes place, evolutionarily speaking, on the higher level of the organism and its behavior within its environment. Selection is the process defined by the relationship between an individual and its environment, regarding survivability (successful procreative ability) and thus has meaning only over a group of individuals, from one generation to the next (i.e. at least two individuals, the minimum being one parents and its offspring).

For instance, an organism reproduces a fertile offspring; thus we have selection of the genes of that particular organism which are transmitted to the offspring. This is the most basic selection component to evolution. Genes themselves, among themselves, are not “competing” except through the higher medium of survivability of the overall organism with respect to the needs of its environment.

Wow! You guys are so smart!

That’s hot!!!

Again, I only disagree with a small part of what you’re saying. In this case:

My point is that it’s the gene which is “selfish”, not its components or that of which it is a component. The gene does not “care” about its components or about that of which it is a component for their own sakes, but only for the sake of itself.

Your point… or Dawkins’?

Ah, jonquil, the self-proclaimed Enneagram type 4, meaning she’s sooo concerned with originality. Why, one may ask? What does the need for originality imply?..

Um.

A gene doesn’t “care” about anything…

Consciousness…

It does inasmuch as it’s “selfish”.

If you are taking your view of the “selfish gene” from Dawkins, then why not say so? I like the Enneagram, and I am a type four, and originality is important to me… that is true.

Ermm… Sauwelios. Do you realize what is implied in this view?

If you’re trying to accuse me of plagiarism, you’re being ridiculous: it’s common knowledge that the term “selfish gene” refers to Dawkins.

That either a gene “cares” or it’s not “selfish”?

No problem then… if it’s comon knowledge . . . .

It would have to be the former since you operate on the premise that it IS selfish. If a gene “cares,” then . . . .

To be precise, I operate on the premise that it is “selfish”.

Yes, then?

Genes r us, as in they are reflective of our sociotel standing…

Please stay on topic Pan…