Definition of evolution

You're confusing Dawkins and Darwin.

But don't fall into his trap of allowing him to post some context-free quotes by someone who often muddies the water in terms of what evolution is and it's remit (not deliberately, I feel, but as a result of the reception he generates).

Just stick to the scientific gestalt, if you want my advice.

Any single authority can be quote-mined to look silly - particularly if they like to hypothesise - like Dawkins.

If he's not doing it deliberately, the reception he generates muddies the water?

all the more reason to not look into Dawkins' own words and see for one's self ?

nah, don't bleeve yer own eyes sez Davo. don't trust yourself.

I advise him not to have a serial context-waiver provide him with some "quotes".

I had not noticed that an intentional relinquishment of rights, or it's written form, is providing quotes here. Must be evolution in high gear, eh, Davo ?

The opposite - as far as I can tell.

You're confusing Dawkins and Darwin.

Oops, I meant Darwin! And I thought he typed Darwin, too.

nope. nor did I type "Richard Dawson". Lucky, I suppose. that has happened to some, in conversation with "The Waiver". coffee time, Z.

then the fridge.

But I think if we said the words, "You win" to you, you would intellectually ejaculate.

Am I right?

just intellectually, Z ?

If he's not doing it deliberately, the reception he generates muddies the water?

]Not always. I think sometimes he deserves his reception, sometimes he provokes it accidently, and sometimes he is deliberately misunderstood.

...the word gene means not a single cistron but something more subtle. My definition will not be to everyone's taste, but there is no universally agreed definition of a gene. Even if there were, there is nothing sacred about definitions. We can define a word how we like for our own purposes, provided we do so clearly and unambiguously. The definition I want to use comes from G.C. Williams. A gene is defined as any portion of chromosomal material that potentially lasts for enough generations to serve as a unit of natural selection.

I am happy to replace 'gene' with 'genetic replicator' where there is any doubt.

I am using the word gene to mean a genetic unit that is small enough to last for a number of generations and to be distributed around in many copies. ... The more likely a length of chromosome is to be split by crossing-over, or altered by mutations of various kinds, the less it qualifies to be called a gene in the sense I am using the term.

I said that I preferred to think of the gene as the fundamental unit of natural selection, and therefore the fundamental unit of self-interest. What I have now done is to *define* the gene in such a way that I cannot really help being right!

gene to mean a genetic unit

Oh, I see ! sometimes he deserves his reception. Like, on Wednesdays he deserves the reception. Or on "off days". Holidays, maybe.
..or does Dave mean "reputation" ?

Deserves his reception during his speaking of a sentence, or writing of a line, then back again to not deserving his reception, as he's being "deliberately misunderstood" later on ?

Dawkins on "gene" . First about his title "The Selfish Gene":

No, I mean reception.

It certainly corrolates with his reputation.

Obviously.



Try this:

Sometimes he's very good at what he does - being a sort of athiest-biologist celebrity.

Sometimes he isn't so good.

Sometimes some people moan about him being crap when he is.

Sometimes some people moan about him being crap when he isn't.

Sometimes some people harp on about him being great when he's being crap.

Most of the time your pedantic trolling is just a load of old blethers.

Once in a blue moon there's something interesting in there.

See?



Ah - the quote mining - at last. Huzzah.

EDIT: Having said that, I don't think his definition is bad - he admits that there are multiple definitions, and that not everyone will agree with his, and then defines it for his purposes by his own admission.

Doesn't seem to contentious or dishonest to me.

His reception was your big thing. Not mine.

I'm showing what he wrote.

Not really, he's able to fight his own battles and I'm not a devotee.

I'm not a hater either - he's OK. Sometimes cool. Sometimes crap. A human.


No, you're showing a tiny fraction of what he wrote carefully selected to support your agenda.

But he's not necessarily discussing evolution here, is he?

He's discussing an honestly admitted to hypothesis (in the Selfish Gene) about the different ways genes ensure their propaation (his opinion, not necessarily my own).

Such a thing could apply as much to junk DNA as it might an allele responsible for a change in form, or whatever.

Hence his specification of what it is he is talking about when saying gene for the express purposes of that book.

It doesn't really change anything about the definitions of evolution given in this thread - and even if it did people would be free to disagree as Dawkins himself asserts.

The Selfish Gene is not a peer reviewed paper - it's an interesting set of speculations marketed as popular science.

He's discussing an honestly admitted to hypothesis

But again you evade the real issues. Why you keep harping on whether it is an honest explanation is beyond me, if it's not your fixation.

Now to what matters; whether or not the same equivocation of gene and genetic unit occurs broadly throughout teaching literature.

and since you are continuing your claim of how I do it all out of context, why don't you put just one of them in proper context , and show me up for what I am ?

Because you keep labelling it equivocation.

Which it isn't - not in this case - if he was equivocating he wouldn't admit to the numerous definitions before choosing one and explaining why.

He'd leave it undefined and flip from definition to definition without explaining why - using the plasticity of the definition to best make his case.

But instead he defines it before making his case.

EQUIVOCATION (From A Scanner Darkly)
A) My friend has given me a methadrine plant for my greenhouse.
B) I didn't think methadrine was botanical in origin.
A) Fooled you! I was talking about a factory you idiot!

NOT EQUIVOCATION
A) My friend has given me a methadrine plant, by which I mean factory.


See what I mean?

I refer you to my earlier post, where I have written a precis of my opinion of the context of the Selfish Gene - not a scientific paper that passed peer review - but a popular science book to provide food for thought on some unusual ideas about the motives behind the behaviours of genes.

In other words - not meant to provide a definition of evolution in and of itself.

He'd leave it undefined and flip from definition to definition without explaining why

and how is that me taking the quotations out of context in order to subvert truth ?

I did already state that not every sentence contains equivocation and not from everyone, etc etc.

I never stated that The Selfish Gene is peer reviewed scientific literature. we all know it is not. Nothing shady about showing what popular ideas are.

whereas , of course, you are interpreting the meaning of "equivocation" as implying a dishonest or sneaky act in progress.

I used this, as I painstakingly explained, Dave Allen, as what an authority says ( onlyfor that purpose if Dawkins is held as an authority, by my interlocutor).

GET IT ?

Well, what's the context of this thread?

And what has your objection tended to have been?

And what does Dawkin's definition of genes for the purposes of the Selfish Gene have to do with that objection?

You called it equivocation and supposed that such equivocation might bedevil biology in general.

Taking a word with many possible meanings and admitting that is a problem and therefore choosing one for your purposes is not equivocation.

It is the polar opposite of equivocation.

Popular science are not popular ideas - it just means presenting sometimes unpopular ideas in a format friendly to the layman. Dawkins thoughts on alturism (a primary topic of the book) are not all widely accepted, though they are respected by many.

In the context of calling the type of genetic unit relevant to evolution the allele it has no relevance.

Because alleles and evolution are not the subject of the book per se. Junk DNA and other exceptions also fall under it's remit.

So whether you were being shady or not - it's tangental to talk about this particular definition of genes/genetic material and crow about it not being an allele.

Because the author has admitted he isn't just talking about alleles.

Originally Posted by Zetherin
Genetic material never means anything that makes things happen. I don't know why you think that, and I don't remember reading where Aedes used the term "genetic material" in that manner. Can you provide an example?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Can you reiterate?

After I defrost the fridge I might have time to scan through Aedes' posts on a couple of threads. maybe he can let you know if he reads this.
do you accept Dawkins as an authority on Evolutionary Biology ?

Do you accept Dawkins as an authority on Evolutionary Biology ? Can I show what he says about the gene and genetics ? It's not that in every sentence that they are equivocating incorrectly or without notification.

but you seem unaware of it going on.
If they say "the genetics", they often mean "the whole ball of wax" - not just the gene.

observe that The Selfish Gene was not the only work quoted. The Extended Phenotype was written for his peers.

bunk.show it. show what you are hinting about.

of course it's not. How could admitting something ( unless using the same word in more than one way), be equivocation ?

talking about, admitting different meanings are used, is not the opposite of equivocating.

I didn't say poular science is popular ideas. try again.

adding punctuation might help me understand that sentence

You've twisted the purpose of my showing it, to say that I was supposedly purporting to show what peer reviewed literature says.