Religion without hell?

I have to ask - have you actually read "Selfish Gene"? This isn't even his best or most popular work - it's an interesting perceptual piece but hardly earth-shattering, and certainly not being used as the basis (as you have repeatedly stated) for some kind of neo-nazi political movement. You are far over-emphasizing the influence of this one "popular science" book. Dawkins's "Climbing Mount Improbable", "Blind Watchmaker", and "Unweaving the Rainbow" are all much more popular and probably more influential.Other than Dawkins, for whom you somehow have developed a special hatred, have you ever read ANY other science popularizer? I'm thinking of people like Gould, Zimmer, Futuyma, Mayr, Eldredge, Conway-Morris, Wilson, etc on the evolution side, or Sagan, Azimov, Hawking on the cosmology side, or Shermmer and Gardner on the basic science side? Do you have ANY basis for your assertions that scientists - especially evolutionary biologists - are today foisting a racist conspiracy on the world?Haeckel I admit could probably be considered a racist since he created a society in Germany - the Monists - around the turn of the 20th Century that tried to prove Europeans were the epitome of evolution. Of course, the Monists went out of existence in the early 1920's - in the competition of ideas theirs were untenable primarily BECAUSE they were racist at core - and were overturned by accumulated evidence. Even so, Haeckel's biology was pretty sound; it's the social and political aspects of his personal interpretation that were fallacious.I wish you would get off this bald assertion kick and actually post some evidence for your claims.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
In my opinion Dawkins is seriously evil. I don't think it's wise to bring in evidence other then the evidence you can produce yourself. You give some (faulty) interpretation of Haeckel, and omit any mention of Lorenz. The rest of your post also has much emphasis on damagecontrol. I think it's useless to discuss this way.

​

As before, take the selfish gene theory and philosophise about it for some hours, as Dawkins encourages people to do. Put it in the back of your mind for some time, and see how nature and society appears to you on account of it.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

What in the world are you talking about? What "evidence" are you talking about? You have consistently failed to provide any evidence of any assertion you have ever made. I HAVE considered the selfish gene concept - I actually read the book. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: I don't subscribe to all of Dawkins's theory. I don't think he makes a compelling enough case for selection at the genetic level. His idea is interesting because he is describing a genetic basis for behavior and talks a lot about the concept of memes (a valid if somewhat subjective idea). Of course, I'm an ecologist by training - I work with the results of natural selection on the individual organism, population, community and ecosystem levels. I haven't seen evidence that selection operates at the genome level. Therefore, once again, I question your insistance that Dawkins - especially - is particularly influential in the world of biology. Is that what you mean by damage control? If so, you have not provided any evidence that Dawkins is either "evil" or pernicious. Please do so now.You have failed once again to answer my questions:1. Have you read "Selfish Gene"?2. Have you read any of Dawkins's other works?3. Have you read any other evolutionary scientist or science popularizing? If so, which ones?Additional questions: How is my interpretation of Haeckel faulty? I told you he was wrong - his sociological theories were a bunch of bunk.What have you got against Lorenz (I assume you mean Nobel Prize winner Konrad Lorenz)? Or are you talking about some other Lorenz?

As to Lorenz, I have no idea. He was German during wartime - the most militarized nation since Sparta. He spent most of it, supposedly, in various Russian prisoner of war camps. Okay - he worked in a race office. Bad man. What does that have to do with Dawkins? As to that, what does that have to do with anything whatsoever? Lorenz was a nazi, according to you. Okay, he was a nazi. This has WHAT exactly to do with evolution? If you're still trying to insist that biological evolutionary theory is some kind of social darwinist evil plot based on the actions of now-dead fascists, you're really barking up the wrong tree. Are you claiming that all evolutionary biologists, ecologists, botanists, paleontologists, mainstream geologists, not to mention microbiologists, etc are all either deluded or members of some sinister racist plot? Because of the social and political beliefs of a few people who also happened to be evolutionists? That would be like me proclaiming that all Moslems are anti-Western terrorists because of a few nutcases. You really need to take a hard look at your rationale for this one.

quote:

---

The evidence of Dawkins being evil would show, or not, if you would do as I say, the evidence from personal experience.

---

WHAT EVIDENCE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, SYAMASU? I have absolutely no idea to what you are referring. You have not given me any "primary evidence" to ignore!! I can't respond intelligently until you explain what it is I'm supposed to be examining!If somehow you think Dawkins is the leader of a nazi cult based on "Selfish Gene", you MUST ABSOLUTELY provide some kind of evidence from the real world - not your private fantasy universe - that this is the case. I can't consider your imaginings to be legitimate without some kind of evidential support. I mean, is there some group somewhere proclaiming itself Fascists for Dawkins? An Evil Dawkinsonian Conspiracy to rule the world? Even a ridiculous pseudo-cult like the Monists would be acceptable as evidence that you're not just making the whole thing up. You want to convince me? SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!!!!! I can't make it any plainer than that.And you still haven't bothered to answer my questions. What is it about you that you ignore everything anyone says to you, while at the same time calling people liars, ignorant, etc?

​

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 07-01-2002]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Before I respond, let me make perfectly sure I understand what you're asking for. You want me to engage in a thought experiment concerning the implications of the "selfish gene" concept - i.e., the genetic basis of altruistic behavior as Dawkins has presented. Is this correct? If so, I'll plan on opening a new thread as I don't want to even more disrupt this thread off-topic.By the way: I didn't dismiss the Lorenz information you provided as not being meaningful. I dismissed it as being irrelevant - as I would for the relevancy of ANY individual's beliefs as they relate to non-scientific endeavors.

Syamasu: After considering the issue somewhat overnight, I think I would be willing to devote the time necessary to developing an essay describing the scientific basis for the evolution of altruism and its application to humans. However, as you might imagine, this is a significantly broad topic, and I won't be able to get to it for several weeks.On the other hand, I'd like to leave you with the following bit of information. I don't consider Dawkins's ideas as posited in "Selfish Gene" to be particularly troubling from either a scientific OR philosophical standpoint. I think you are under certain amount of misapprehnsion concerning what he's actually saying in that book. And remember, as I've stated before, I don't necessarily find the idea on the genetic side particularly compelling, nor do I find his other concept - memetic evolution - to be particularly well supported yet. However, both provide very interesting perspectives.In a nutshell, this is what I think he's saying:1. Interallelic selection: This is the genetic heart of Dawkins's "selfish gene" (an admittedly poor choice of terms). In interallelic selection, different alleles of the same gene compete for the highest number of copies transmitted to the gene pool of the next (and subsequent) generations. The allele that brings the highest fitness to its carrier usually "wins". Some alleles may, however, use a different strategy to increase the numbers of copies of themselves in the gene pool of later generations - even at the expense of the biological fitness of their carriers. Certain alleles are even able to damage gametes bearing a different allele on the homologous chromosome during or after gametogenesis. The carriers of such "selfish alleles" produce less offspring because they produce fewer gametes, however ALL the gametes bear the selfish gene, thus increasing the frequency of the allele in the population. Alternatively, a "selfish allele" can genetically program their carrier to help other carriers of the same allele - thus increasing the fitness of the beneficiary. This is Dawkins's basis for altruistic behavior through the process of kin selection. Logically it makes some sense considering there is little difference (from the allele's standpoint - not the individual's) in whether the organism is genetically programmed to produce one more offspring than the population average or whether it programs the organism to assist its parent to produce two more brothers/sisters, or it's aunt/uncle to produce four more cousins, since the net frequency of the allele in the population will be the same. It's an interesting way of looking at the difference between exclusive fitness (which is based on the individual organism) and inclusive fitness (which also takes into consideration fitness realized by helping relatives to reproduce)2. Memetic evolution: Where the procedure breaks down is at the level of social organisms with complex communications or learning systems. This is most notable at the level of primates, especially humans, but can also be applied (to a greater or lesser extent) in other social organisms such as dolphins and killer whales or those with complex dominance or group hierarchies (for instance) such as wolves, lions, etc. Here Dawkins introduces his idea of the meme - a more or less complex discreet cultural (learned) element - the cultural equivalent of a gene - that can be transmitted down the generations just like genes. According to Dawkins, memes are also "selfish" and somehow self-perpetuating, with evolutionary selection pressures akin to natural selection.Neither of these two concepts appears to me to be either "evil" or particularly dangerous or pernicious. As perceptual tools, they are very interesting, especially taken together. I don't however, find them particularly persuasive or compelling. And they certainly don't lead to racism or anything else.[Edited to add: I want to re-read the chapters on gamesmanship and aggression to make sure I'm not missing something significant. If so, I'll post it tomorrow.]

​

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 07-03-2002]

Again, I feel compelled to point out that I don't see all of Dawkins's selfish gene theory to be completely valid. I simply don't think that there is any empirical evidence for de facto interallelic competition/selection. It is merely a different way of looking at natural selection - a reductio argument, if you will. Natural selection operates on the phenotype, not the genotype. The effects, obviously, of this phenotypical selection are "felt" at the genome level - they don't operate at the genome level.As far as Dawkins saying "universal love" doesn't exist, based on my readings and understanding of both ecology and biology, I'd have to agree with him as far as that goes. However, a lot of that depends on how you define "universal love". If you mean "universal altruism", I'd say the evidence leads to the opposite conclusion whether you're talking about humans or some other animal. If you have some other operational definition, then please provide it.As far as formal treatment goes, "Selfish Gene" was never intended as a formal treatment of the subject. He's not trying to articulate some universal "Truth" (tm). As for my yet-to-be-written essay, I think you're sadly mistaken about my intent: I have no intention of "formalizing" the selfish gene concept for the simple reason that I don't subscribe to it. As I've mentioned repeatedly. You really should read the book so you know what it is you're arguing about.

quote:

---

You have not actually stated what it means for you to have these selfish genes in your body, or that of your family, and people in society generally. So I think your denial that Dawkins theory is pernicious etc. is empty, until you begin to address questions like that, or dismiss those questions for some reason.

---

That would be, in fact, what the essay will conclude with. A lot of background needs to be covered to show why and how I arrived at my conclusion. On the other hand, I did give you my preliminary answer to this question above: "I don't consider Dawkins's ideas as posited in "Selfish Gene" to be particularly troubling from either a scientific OR philosophical standpoint." You'll have to be content with that until I can find the time to write more detail.

quote:

---

I think the selfishness you point out could also be described as a mechanism that guards against mutation.

---

This is an interesting comment. Considering that there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies show how common mutation actually is in various organisms including humans, it would appear that if there was such a mechanism it was extraordinarily weak and inefficient. Cells, of course, do have built-in error-correcting and repair mechanisms. Mutations occur when these mechanisms fail. Dawkins, however, is talking about preferential replication, not mutation.

quote:

---

It's not likely we will ever come to know for sure which is the more appropriate way of describing when we go about it in the way Dawkins does. I still think that Dawkins' selfishness logically just means for a unit of selection to contribute to it's own reproduction. It wouldn't matter how much a particular gene contributes to another gene's reproduction, it would still be noted as a selfish gene, and not an altruist gene, just because it contributed to it's own reproduction.

---

Well, yeah. That's basically what he's saying (although based on your previous arguments concerning reproduction, I'd choose to call it replication.) Dawkins in fact argues against the existence of altruistic genes. I personally don't think his contention is supported. For example, the fosB gene in mice to me seems to be a good candidate for what I would consider an altruistic gene, since it's presence or absence turns on or off the nuturing or maternal instinct. (ref: Brown, J. R., H. Ye, R. T. Bronson, P. Dikkes, M. E. Greenberg. 1996. A defect in nurturing in mice lacking the immediate early gene fosB. Cell 86:297-309)

quote:

---

Memetics is I think a reformulation of previous comparisons of organisms to language, with the change that now language is mainly compared to viruses in stead of independent organisms.

---

No, Dawkins's memes are discreet cultural ideas or packets of behaviors that are inheritable or transferable. In humans, language would be the channel/mechanism by which "inheritance" of memes occurs. Other organisms have different methods (imprinting, mimicry, the "tutor effect" etc).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
If you don't make a formal treatment, or find one, then your essay would not have much of a basis to begin with. In any case I would be glad if you produced it, since essays facillitate criticism more then these discussions. I've been waiting for an essay on Darwinism and Nazism for 3 years now, from some people on talk.origins, so by that experience I don't have my hopes too high that anything will materialise in the foreseeable future. Until such time that you do produce something I will consider your denial essentially empty of reason.

---

If this is your attitude, why would I bother? In fact, why would anyone bother? No wonder you've never received a response from TO. You need to learn how to talk to people without denigrating them or insulting them. You'll probably get better responses. Try it some time.

quote:

---

Since "guarding against mutations" is just different words to describe the same thing you described before, I don't see how you can say it doesn't exist. You can say they are not appriopate words to describe.

---

Since "guarding against mutation" has absolutely nothing to do with the "selfish gene" concept, you're wrong. The phrase does not represent an accurate or even related concept.

quote:

---

Dawkins is trying to formulate universal truths (tm), that is why he talks in terms of "the truth", which is unusual for scientists, since they mostly talk in terms of facts and theories. One universal truth he (re)posits is that Nature is red in tooth and claw, which is basicly false, since as before, Nature is more accurately metaphorically described as wet in penis and vagina.

---

Yet another completely unsupported assertion. Show by page number where Dawkins states he is formulating "universal truths" in the book "Selfish Gene".

quote:

---

Another universal truth is the supposed "blind pitiless indifference" at the bottom of Nature, which in this book he establishes by denying universal love. Plain preaching of evil.

---

Goodbye, Syamasu. You are not worth dealing with any further.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[/B][/QUOTE]