Selfish gene - neodarwinian mysticism?

Richard Dawkins writes in his Selfish gene, chapter "Why are people"?:

quote:

---

However, as we shall see, there are special circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a limited form of altruism at the level of individual animals.

---

Page not found – Marcus du SautoyI don't see how a lifeless matter - which a gene is - could achieve any "selfish goals". Dawkins using his "Necker cube" metaphore postulated "gene's-eye view of nature". Because genes do not have eyes and do not have will I consider the whole "selfish gene" nothing else as gnosticism or mysticism.The ancient civilisations adored the lifeless Sun. It seems to me that the modern darwinism attributes to the lifeless pieces of DNA (or genes) the will to survive and "selfishness".
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.Edited by MartinV, : I propose the question to be discussed at "Biological evolution".Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This conclusion does not obviously follow from the statement before it.Since it is at the center of what you want to discuss I suggest that you fill in the large gap between the first two sentences. This is separate from the possibility that the first sentence is very wrong as well. I'd leave that for others once you fill in the gap.

I anicipated there would be something like "anabase of Czechoslovak army in comunist Russia 1919" before the thread will be released as fit for discussion. Would you like me to quote Dawkins thoughts about "recognition" of selfish gene from his famous book?For unprejudiced non-neodarwinian admins and by-passers - the same problem I had to face with the thread "Descent of testicles". Neodarwinists didn't have any explanation of the phenomena and tried to block the discussion. Have a look at the thread. It was the AdminNosy who supported chickane of me at that time at "proposed topics".Compare the neodarwinian arguments here:
http://EvC Forum: Descent of testicles. -->EvC Forum: Descent of testicles.I have to argue with neodarinian admins here to release the thread. Their arguments were wrong regarding the latest research. I don't see why the www has the name "Evolution vs Creation". It should be named "Neodarwinism and neodarwism and nothing else is correct". Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

If you feel your are being treated unfairly then you should post your concerns over at Windsor castle. Please leave such issues out of this forum. This would be the preferred approach.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I've posted my complaint to the link you recommended.

You might find that fixing the gaps in your OP would move things along faster. I'll leave this to Admin now.

I've just rewrited my introduction post completely. Is it ok now?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

To be honest I'm surprised this even got promoted. Your entire OP seems to be predicated on the fact that you can't understand the concept of metaphorical language, perhaps it is because English isn't your first language.Also it may be because you yourself so much favour the biological theories tied up with Germanic mystical concepts, i.e. all the vitalist idealistic morphology stuff you have been bringing up, that you are so ready to see such behaviour in others whether it exists or not.To suggest that a 'gene's-eye view' implies that gene's have actual eyes is a ridiculous position and to use it as the basis for dismissing the entire concept is simply flabbergasting. Would you argue that a 'gene-centric' approach is wrong simply because genes don't occupy the exact physical centre of something? Well they don't, it is just one more thing you are substantially misinterpreting.TTFN,WK

Actually I have read "Selfish gene" in Slovak translation. I don't see your curious point that those people whose first language is not English automatically do not underestand what a metaphore is. Are you serious?So how do you read professor Richard Dawkins words:

quote:

---

However, as we shall see, there are special circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a limited form of altruism at the level of individual animals.

---

Do you consider them as a metaphore which has nothing to do with reality? Is it something like poetry, sci-fi or what?

MartinV writes:

quote:

---

I don't see your curious point that those people whose first language is not English automatically do not underestand what a metaphore is.

---

Just to pick nits: It's "metaphor," not "metaphore." But that's a spelling flame and the lowest comment.That said, it isn't that you don't understand metaphor, per se, but rather that you might not understand the specific metaphors used in English. For example, in English, clocks "run." In Spanish, clocks "walk." They are both referring to the same concept, the functioning of a clock, but they are using different metaphors to express that concept.

quote:

---

Do you consider them as a metaphore which has nothing to do with reality?

---

But that's the point behind a metaphor: You are using terms that have nothing to do with "reality" in order to describe reality. A clock does not have legs. It can neither "run" nor "walk." And yet, we use those terms to describe reality.When we talk about a "gene's eye view," we don't literally mean that a gene has eyes. When we talk about what a gene "wants," it isn't an indication that we think a gene is conscious in any sort of way. They're just metaphors to describe the chemical reactions connected to genetics.A gene at its most basic is simply a self-replicating chemical. If successive generations of that self-replication process no longer allow the chemical to self-replicate, then it will cease to be. Different chemical pathways will be more successful in maintaining the chemical ability to self-replicate than others. Some of those pathways involve physical activity that are not part of the direct chemical reaction of self-replication but make it more likely that a self-replication reaction will take place.For example, you can make water out of hydrogen and oxygen gas but once you've used up the existing hydrogen and oxygen, the reaction stops. If the reaction is going to continue, then more hydrogen and oxygen must be introduced. If the chemical pathway that exists has a side effect of introducing more hydrogen and oxygen into the mix, then that will keep the water reaction going.The overarching concept is that large-scale activities are driven by this self-replication cycle. The pathway that we have that results in the self-replication of the gene involves a great deal of meta-activity that makes it more probable that the self-replication reaction will take place.But see how needlessly complicated that phrasing is? That's why we use metaphor. We talk about what a gene "wants" not because we think it is conscious but because it's an easier way of talking about the continuing process of a self-replicating chemical reaction.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Thread moved here from the Biological Evolution forum.

Hi Martin,I thought the comments posted were so apropos that I've moved your thread back to [forum=-25]. Discussing Dawkins' selfish gene ideas would be fine, but discussing how to properly interpret metaphor in the English language is a [forum=-14] topic. That when people use phrases like "a gene's-eye view of nature" they're being gnostic or mystical is not a serious premise for a thread.My criteria for thread promotion includes things like accuracy, soundness of argument, and viable evidence. My personal opinions do not enter into my assessments of thread proposals, so even though I personally find Dawkins' selfish gene ideas hard to accept, I could not consider promoting a thread arguing against them unless its arguments had a valid foundation.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This is what happens if you don't form your OP well. The problems with yours were obvious (but, of course, not to you).You wanted things rushed into discussion. Your OP was well formed and what you thought was clear. You don't like criticism of your OPs. So I opened it for others to give their opinion rather than giving you mine again.However, it was so obviously weak that it ends up looking foolish.Why not try to learn from criticism instead of continuing as you have been?

It's your opinion that my opening posts look foolish. Fortunatelly there is an archive of proposed topics.It took 18 messages before my previous thread "Descent of testicles" was released. The chickane of neodarwinian admins were unbelievable - I solved the problem at another threads too. Check it here:http://EvC Forum: Descent of testicles. -->EvC Forum: Descent of testicles.My previous "foolish" OP turned up to be a strong argument against neodarwinism. You have to admit that the "cooling sperma" from neodarwinian textbooks is a nonsense. But I do not complain. Neodarwinists attacked professor Portman who criticised neodarwinian "cooling sperma" explanation. They used harsh words in their scientific journals. Everyone check it - message 55 here:http://EvC Forum: Descent of testicles. -->EvC Forum: Descent of testicles.Everything that do not fit into their schema should be banned. Either
"descent of testicles" or criticising bizzare "selfish gene" concept must be marked apriori as foolish and banned.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.