human sexual selection

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…

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.

I do not know what you’re talking about by “your own kind of tactics.” But since you really wish to say that the species is nothing and the genes are everything in the context of evolutionary biology, and that this would be true as far as evolution is concerned, let me reply to that. Yes, the genes are the building blocks of life and in specific determine the identity aspect of a species. However, I don’t think you can have a species without genes, and genes without expression in an organism seem pretty meaningless to me. The one needs the other; both are important. Is this what you thought I was going to say? You seem inclined to want to predict my replies, these days.

I see. Then the next phase of evolution will constitute a new alignment of genes. I don’t think any large life forms on land will survive, so I’m wondering what genes of ours would survive in the organisms that do move on to the next stage of evolution.

Question: isn’t it possible for genes to mutate? Isn’t that a form of adaptation?

No, that’s just random mutation.

Would you consider the possibility that mutation is not -just- random? If not, why not?

No, because there’s no reason to suppose it’s not random.

I thought it was on topic…

…is more amusing than on-topic, which is ok for the social forums (MB, Rant, HoQ) but not here, as one of the contributors to this thread reported, and which I have followed up in an official capacity. :wink:

Welcome back TTG - where you been hiding?

Are you saying that someone actually complained about that…? Perhaps they were merely envious :smiley:

:smiley: Thank you, it is nice that this tsunami was able to flow back here for a bit… :-$ :-" :banana-dance:

Patently being wiser and smarter has evolutionary advantages as does being fertile all year round. Although of course being dumb as an ox has advantages to non predatory animals.

This would offset any disadvantages with energy concerns, in fact this is probably what drove the brain to become bigger and smarter in the first place in an iterative loop between environment man and technological advancements such as tools, hunting weapons, fishing nets etc and eventually language.

This calling a gene ‘selfish’ is only a means of capturing the idea that genes are said to “compete” with one another. This isn’t competition in the human sense, even calling it competition is an anthropomorphizing. What is going on is that genes are always changing from one generation to the next, according to the effects of reproductive habits of the species of which those genes are a part. Some genes will get selected in reproduction, some will not. And since gene expression leads to protein development and thus the entire host of phenotypic expressions in the organism, it can be said that genes contribute to their own “chances” of being passed on or not into the next generation because genes indirectly affect reproductive behavior of the larger organism. No, genes do not determine this behavior, they are one part in a much larger and more complex process. But of course they do matter.

So we say thay are “competing” because genes that lead to more beneficial developments of the larger organism in terms of successful reproductability will tend, over time, to replace genes that are less successful at this. But at no point is this process directed, meaningful, intentional or willed, it is as mechanistic as the engine in your car, and only (somewhat) less predictable because the genetic system is so immensely complex and as yet not completely mapped and derived.

Genes are not “competing” with each other, and they do not “care” about anything. They are gears in a massive clockwork machine, subject to rules of the game within this machine and within the larger machines that overdetermine the organic machine itself. Talking about these sorts of mechanistic and impersonal processes in human terms can be enlightening, due to the effect of metaphor on the potential for human comprehension, but it also becomes too easy to get lost inside this metaphor, to anthropomorphize an impersonal natural process in a way that reads meaning, purpose, intentionality or “will” into it…