@paulhanke,
paulhanke;108467 wrote:... so with each new scientific observation, who is it who is the "victor", and how are they "writing history", as opposed to reading (even if it be a case of misreading, as in luminiferous aether) it? ...
paulhanke, even though we can say that theories are in competition, and that one wins over the other, as being "better", that's rather irrelevant.
Those who claim victory, I would say, are those able to spread their word and sell it effectively, afterward.
LIke Dawkins. Selling effectively. Standing proud on "Darwin's Ground" , ZamZam water for sale, flowing from his fingertips.
pg 31. Changes the meaning of "gene", to be able to say that a single gene, yes a single gene is responsible for all the mimicness, by saying that many genes acting together are doing "whatever we're talking about" - thus it's a single gene ( through his fallacious equivocation ).
Noted, his assertions on mimicry, and use of the classical butterfly tales, because
they're it.
How the
expressed function of many genes acting together, is now a single gene.
The selfish gene - Google Books
and criticism of this fallacious and deceptive equivocation, comes from a scientist supporter of Dawkins, who gets rubbed the wrong way on that issue.
Sandwalk: The Richard Dawkins Definition of a Gene Is Seriously Flawed
Quote:He defines his genetic replicators in terms of alleles which means that they don't exist unless there is variation in the genome.
Dawkins will call 'whatever is happening", "genetics/genotype/gene". Even the environmental inputs ( which he includes in "phenotype" which is dependant on genotype), thus are included in his fabrication of that single selfish gene, which once conjugated into being, does "whatever is happening"
Googlage of "mimicry animals" pops up this for me.
The Arts of Deception - MIMICRY AND CAMOUFLAGE in the Rainforest
and it gives interesting signs to look for in the Muellerian mimicry, which is sharing of risk, and deterrent value ( of bad taste).
With Monarch and Viceroy they have bad taste, if we believe the small literature saying that.
Having a deterrent is not mimicry though. Taking unearned advantage of that deterrent value, getting undue enrichment, is the "deceitful" purpose of mimicry then. It's a Protestant thing. Like writing a novel was deceit, in Dickens' time. Like taking a "head shot" was cheating the early movie-goer.
However, sharing of risk is accomplished through looking alike, orienting alike, moving alike...as with some kinds of groups of fish; look alike, and turn this way or that alike, and the predator cannot easily differentiate the target. The "how" is by Behaviours. The "why" is by Will. All sing the same song, same page, and the song continues
To put it into perpective, our children are being taught what they are, in large part because of Dawkins' Ministry, which all stems from his need to fight his childhood nightmares stirred by Lord Tennyson's works.
But when you let your fears dictate what you think, and you start selling your fears and the remedy, you sometimes might forget that plagiarism is copying, but mimicry is not copying.
A comic might mimic, but he will not be infringing on the rights of the mimicked. He is not unduly enriching himself through copywronging. :bigsmile:
Then Dawkins needs to say that genes are the cause of actual copying behaviour...the "gene" including the expression regulators and all else, including any signalling from the environment.
Still, though, a comic might mimic, but he will not be infringing on the rights of the mimicked. He is not unduly enriching himself through copywronging. :bigsmile:
A tree frog is not copying a leaf when he folds himself into the crevice, nor can we say the purpose of the action is to copy a leaf.
On another note; if you say his act is
a fooling of predators, then we would have to assume that he knows the stats on frogs picked when fooling vs. frogs picked when not fooling, and then chooses the wiser action.
: