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.
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?..
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.
In that case, why is the great success of the “selfish” such an utter failure and dooming the species to destruction in the near future? Would you say that the genes of other species destined to survive the human onslaught are more selfish and thus more able to adapt to the world after humans leave it? Do those genes care more?
God, I should have guessed that it had to do with your doom scenario. Whether that scenario is correct still remains to be seen, however. And remember, the species in itself is nothing, the genes are everything. The destruction of the species need not imply the destruction of our genes.
By the way, genes do not adapt:
[size=95]Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat. This process takes place over many generations, and is one of the basic phenomena of biology.
The term adaptation may also refer to a feature which is especially important for an organism’s survival. For example, the adaptation of horses’ teeth to the grinding of grass, or their ability to run fast and escape predators. Such adaptations are produced in a variable population by the better suited forms reproducing more successfully, that is, by natural selection.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation][/size]
Well, “God” either has nothing to do with it, or everything. Whatever. And why should I or anyone in particular “remember” that “the species in itself is nothing, the genes are everything” – especially since I for one never knew that or thought it in the first place? Also, if a species goes extinct, then how is it that its genes would survive? Can you explain that one, pray tell?
This kind of adaptation only occurs through gene mutation or changes in DNA.
Don’t try to accuse me of your own kind of tactics. I never said that the species in itself is nothing, the genes are everything; I said it in a certain context (namely, the context of evolutionary biology, which is the context of this thread, by the way). As far as evolution is concerned, the species in itself is nothing, the genes are everything. I actually thought of editing my OP to say it like that, make the context explicit. But I changed my mind, deciding that anyone should be able to see that. I guess I was wrong.
Theoretically, its genes could be divided over any other number of species. For instance, we share about 90% of our genes (from the top of my head) with the other great apes. The rest of the 10% could be carried by other species. Anyway, what I meant was that “species” is a very vague denominator. If only one human being survived, would “the species” still be alive?
Yes, but not through gene adaptations, as those don’t exist.
