Ch. 3 - Immortal coils

[tbarron]

He almost makes genes sound like parasites. They just kind of inhabit a body and when that body dies they just move on to the next. Very horror movie, science fiction.

From the genes' point of view, they invented the survival machines so how could they be parasites? They're just intrepid explorers navigating the universe in the cool rocket ships they've built for themselves. Until one day the rocket ships become conscious and rebel!

Something that piqued my interest was “universal qualities” of long living genes. Certainly different species adapt to their environment depending on what that environment looks like. Are there universal qualities that all species develop? Adaptability certainly is something that makes a species more likely to survive for longer periods. Would this be a gene trait? Is it possible for all species to have a universal quality?

Would the ability to reproduce be an example of a universal quality? Without it, no species arises, so maybe calling it a universal quality is a tautology.

[seespotrun2008]

Would the ability to reproduce be an example of a universal quality? Without it, no species arises, so maybe calling it a universal quality is a tautology.

Good point!

[tbarron]

I'm having a bit of a problem with the premise of this book for several reasons.

- Dawkins doesn't define a gene very well. Is it a single set of cells or is it mulitple genes working together towards some effect? He leaves this open.

Can genes be said to "[work] together towards some effect"? My understanding is that while genes have effects, they are not conscious or intentional. Some happen to be more effective at making copies of themselves than others, so after they've been bumping into each other for a long time, there wind up being way more copies of "effectives" ones than the other kind.

But I get what you're saying. From the quotes in earlier posts, it sounds like the definition Dawkins gives in the book is was intentionally somewhat vague (my copy of the book is on order).

- Random mixing of genes in individual sperm or egg cells means there is no guarantee that a "successful" gene will be propagated.

True, but the fewer "successful" genes get propagated to a particular individual, the less capable that individual will be at surviving and passing the ("unsuccessful") genes forward to another generation. The lucky individuals that get more "successful" genes will theoretically be more capable of surviving and reproducing.

- Dawkins admits the interaction with the environment is not a the level of the gene, it's at the level of the individual organism.
- Given this it seems Dawkins describes gene longevity through generations as an effect of evolution, not the driving force.

I think part of the point is that there is no driving force. Genes copy themselves because it's in their nature. There's no consciousness or desire or intentionality about it, they just do. The ones that manage to make lots of copies wind up dominating the environment.

Or maybe the driving force is a combination of the sun and geothermal effects since those are the sources of energy on planet Earth.

What would you say is the premise of the book? Or is your difficulty nailing down what the premise of the book is?

tom

[CWT36]

Our culture is already working in the direction of delaying conception and therefore increasing lifespan. Delaying marriage, having kids later than previous generations, and contraception all accomplish this. I gather the theory is individuals who delay having kids and die of genetic problems prior to procreating do not pass those genes on to future generations.

Exactly. By delaying reproduction you inherently do not pass on genes that support early death and you drastically increase the ratio of long life genes. Taken to the extreme you could pretend there was one gene out there for immortality, eventually that gene would be passed on to nearly everyone.

[tbarron]

Our culture is already working in the direction of delaying conception and therefore increasing lifespan. Delaying marriage, having kids later than previous generations, and contraception all accomplish this. I gather the theory is individuals who delay having kids and die of genetic problems prior to procreating do not pass those genes on to future generations.

Exactly. By delaying reproduction you inherently do not pass on genes that support early death and you drastically increase the ratio of long life genes. Taken to the extreme you could pretend there was one gene out there for immortality, eventually that gene would be passed on to nearly everyone.

Do you really think that's what's happening? I just googled "first generation outlive" and got a lot of hits on the idea that with the obesity epidemic the current crop of children may be the first generation to be outlived by their parents. That would seem to be shortening expected life span.

[CWT36]

Do you really think that's what's happening? I just googled "first generation outlive" and got a lot of hits on the idea that with the obesity epidemic the current crop of children may be the first generation to be outlived by their parents. That would seem to be shortening expected life span.

I have no reason to believe that it is happening, but it does provide an interesting thought experiment. The obesity problem is certainly going to have a major impact on our society, but you have to consider the difference between morbidity and mortality.

It's a tangential topic, but consider what we see today in war injuries. We have done such a good job with body armor and vehicle armor that the relative number of combat deaths has been drastically reduced. However we're experiencing huge increases of soldiers suffering traumatic brain injuries. They're not dying, but they're living a very different life.

We may see the same thing as the obesity generation ages. They'll probably be more and more middle age people using mobility scooters because they don't have the stamina to walk or they've lost limbs to diabetes. But our medical advances will likely still keep them living longer.

[LanDroid]

Can genes be said to "[work] together towards some effect"? My understanding is that while genes have effects, they are not conscious or intentional.

But they do work together, complicated mechanisms may require many sets of genes turning on & off in just the right sequence to work correctly.

- Random mixing of genes in individual sperm or egg cells means there is no guarantee that a "successful" gene will be propagated.

True, but the fewer "successful" genes get propagated to a particular individual, the less capable that individual will be at surviving and passing the ("unsuccessful") genes forward to another generation. The lucky individuals that get more "successful" genes will theoretically be more capable of surviving and reproducing.

Well let's just say it's a surprise to me that an organism might have an astonishingly beneficial mutation that is not actually passed down to any offspring.

- Dawkins admits the interaction with the environment is not a the level of the gene, it's at the level of the individual organism.
- Given this it seems Dawkins describes gene longevity through generations as an effect of evolution, not the driving force.

I think part of the point is that there is no driving force. Genes copy themselves because it's in their nature. There's no consciousness or desire or intentionality about it, they just do. The ones that manage to make lots of copies wind up dominating the environment. Or maybe the driving force is a combination of the sun and geothermal effects since those are the sources of energy on planet Earth.

What would you say is the premise of the book? Or is your difficulty nailing down what the premise of the book is?
tom

OK, maybe driving force is a bad choice, and as you say genes are not conscious and there's no "desire or intentionality about it". However organisms may have consciousness or intentionality. Dawkins describes a litter of puppies where it would be beneficial for the runt to voluntarily die for the good of the others.

1. How would a gene know it is part of a puppy?
2. How would a gene know the puppy it is part of is a member of a litter?
3. How would a gene know the puppy it is part of is the runt of the litter?
4. How would a gene know it would be best to die for the benefit of other puppies it is unaware of?

I'd be more willing to believe a puppy capable of learning these things than a gene.

As to the premise of the book, I'd say it's captured in the title. Genes have intentionality and awareness, they somehow conspire to attain immortality through generations... I'm probably way off, but like I said, having problems with that...

[Interbane]

Lan: "Genes have intentionality and awareness, they somehow conspire to attain immortality through generations... I'm probably way off, but like I said, having problems with that..."

Yeah, this is way off Lan. Intentionality and awareness are characteristics of sentient creatures. A gene isn't a sentient creature, it's a jumble of organised proteins. You have to hold this distinction high and clear while analyzing the connection between gene and vessel. We tend to anthropomorphize physical processes more than we should. I think Dawkins clarified this point when he talked about choosing a name for the book. He did not want 'Selfish" at first since it personified genetic evolution, and thus is an error. However, the phrasing has emotional impact, and is a good way to view the process metaphorically rather than literally.

[Interbane]

Colin: "They'll probably be more and more middle age people using mobility scooters because they don't have the stamina to walk or they've lost limbs to diabetes. But our medical advances will likely still keep them living longer."

Mind over matter! Someday we'll all be nothing more than brains in bottles with robots as our vessels. Oh the irony!

[DWill]

I'm lingering over The Selfish Gene, doubt that I'll be able to join the discussion of The Extended Phenotype. It must have been a kick for RD to come up with the chapter title, fan of Shakespeare that he is. The title doesn't exactly fit the content, though, since it's not the 'coils' that are immortal but the genetic units that make them up. Still, it's hard to pass up such a pun opportunity.

RD's claim for gene selection, vs. group or individual selection, made sense. Groups are amorphous and temporary, and therefore there's little possibility that an allele of a group can exist, which is essential for selection to occur. Individuals also consist of too large a collection of temporary traits to be usable in natural selection.

Interesting that traditionally we have held to a belief that each one of us, a temporary and unique collection of traits, can be preserved in another dimension for eternity. The fact seems to be that nature has no need for uniqueness; indeed, uniqueness is inimical to natural selection. Genes must be almost always unvarying, perfect copies of each other, and this makes them, not us, the immortals. We humans are as unique but also as ephemeral as snowflakes. There has never been two of us alike (including identical twins, who may not have exactly the same in utero experience, and then each has different life experience influencing personality). But this existential situation can be seen as a rather cool thing; it depends on how you view it. I choose to take some satisfaction in the fact that some of 'me' goes spiraling down the generations of the future, even though this is not the unique me and in fact a lot of it is also common to a pumpkin. But I like pumpkins, too.