Breakthrough!- 'The 'Pandora Gene'

That brings up a few thoughts in my mind.

The first is that you're taking a mighty big step in moving from your supposition that it might be valid (that is, useful) to look at a particular gene as a Pandora's gene to the supposition that all genes might be such. You seem to assume that any ecosystem exists in a sort of unchanging equilibrium, and this is not the case. Habitats are always in flux, because of external influences (e.g., climate) and because of internal influences (shifting flora or fauna over time as a result of competition for limited resources, as has been noted as grassland gives way to scrub gives way to woods in an area that's been burned out). Even "old-growth" forests -- supposed climax communities -- are mere blips on an ecological time scale. Africa, for instance, has been de- and reforested a number of times over the eons.

Another is that you seem to consider the survival of the habitat as being somehow at odds with the survival of the individual animal. But the animal is only really in competition with its compatriots. The carrying capacity of a region for wolves, for example, is practically independent of which wolves survive. So the biological imperative in the wolf is not at odds with filling (or staying within) its niche. The creatures that will lose out are the other wolves. Granted, if all of the wolves become spectacularly successful hunters, they may decimate their prey population -- but then they'll either die out themselves or the prey population will develop new means of evading predation.

You seem to speak of "the ecosystem" as something that is static, that is an end in itself. But, in fact, enormous canges do occur, and selfish genes do win out and drastically alter things without any regard whatsoever for the status quo. Consider how different things were when dinosaurs were the dominant vertebrates and gymnosperms were the dominant form of plantlife. Now we've got mammals and angiosperms (though not exclusively, of course). Things change. And one of the reasons things change is that genes serve the species, not the ecosystem.

The concept 'selfish gene' assumes that all animals have the same social structure and ways of living.

Of course, ecosystems vary, but if we are to consider the importance of that for survival, it could be pointed out that the traditional concept of survival is flawed. For if we can talk of survival only of an individual species we lose the idea of success of life itself, and it is life that we are considering. An ecosystem better accomodates the idea of success of life, in which extinction is a healthy process.

Quote:

The concept 'selfish gene' assumes that all animals have the same social structure and ways of living.

No it doesn't. It's a metaphor, an anthropomorphization of bits of DNA. It's got nothing to do with the way animals (or plants or fungi or protists or archaea or bacteria) interact.

A bit of human genetics that I think is often mis-appreciated is the presence of the sickle cell gene. (This may have nothing to do with anything, but what the hell.) Because heterozygotes for the sickle-cell gene are resistant to malaria, the gene is maintained within a population where malaria is a threat, even though homozygosity is a death sentence both for the individual and for the genes he or she carries -- since sickle cell anemia pretty virtually ensures that the individual will not reproduce. I've heard the gene referred to as beneficial -- which it clearly is not. It is still present in only a minority of the population, and so the survival of the population is clearly not dependent on resistance conferred by the sickle cell gene. But where conditions are favorable for it, you'll find the sickle cell gene, because it's a selfish wee bugger.

Quote:

Of course, ecosystems vary, but if we are to consider the importance of that for survival, it could be pointed out that the traditional concept of survival is flawed. For if we can talk of survival only of an individual species we lose the idea of success of life itself, and it is life that we are considering. An ecosystem better accomodates the idea of success of life, in which extinction is a healthy process.

I don't think any ecologist/biologist/whatever would deny that extinction is a natural and inevitable process (even for humans, as far as I'm concerned). They might, however, be justly alarmed at how many extinctions may be oming about as the result of human activity. They might -- or might not, depending on outlook -- also object to the use of the term "healthy." The mass extinctions of the past were certainly "natural" events, but I don't know that there's any way of contextualizing the biosphere as an organism or community in which such an event could be considered an indicator of health. If anything, such an event represents a great challenge to the body biotic, and might better be considered a life-threatening disease than a natural process of growth/aging/whatever.

I think you'd enjoy reading Lewis Thomas. He's a bit of a Gaiaist, and one of his favorite metaphors is of the earth as an organism, which is definitely where you're going. I suppose, combining his perspective and what you've just written, that you might consider the extinction of species as a form of global apoptosis -- except that this would presuppose that the earth is moving toward some sort of final or adult state, which just makes the metaphor silly.

Anyway, I personally don't care much for any of the metaphors I've come across, but certainly they do help patch up gaps in our understanding (as long as the patches don't come to be seen as permanent fixtures).

It would be as inappropriate for an unsocial creature to attend to its brethren, as it would be for a gregarious creature not to attend to theirs. The selfish gene ignores these distinctions and considers the case purely from the gregarious viewpoint. The selfish gene operates upon the assumption that life is composed of pan-gregarious life objects.

Quote:

It would be as inappropriate for an unsocial creature to attend to its brethren, as it would be for a gregarious creature not to attend to theirs. The selfish gene ignores these distinctions and considers the case purely from the gregarious viewpoint. The selfish gene operates upon the assumption that life is composed of pan-gregarious life objects.

I don't think this is the case, though I admit that I've only received the "selfish gene" idea second-hand. While the idea may in fact have arisen out of the apparent contradiction of altruism (there, that again -- but this is the snag that is difficult to explain from an overly-simple viewpoint of reproductive success of the individual as the only barometer of its biological success), the selfish gene construct is not limited to describing behaviors by sacrificing animals. (It does have limitations, but this is not one of them.) The "selfish gene" model, as I understand it, is merely a shift of focus from the survival of individuals within a population to the survival of the population -- and its gene pool -- as a whole. It works just as well for an asocial bacterial colony or plant population as for a wolf pack.

I never quote from learned texts or assume that others ought to understand them in order to understand me. What I write ought to be understood by anyone who can read english.

Quote:

First, you used "Pandora's gene," which is a phrase coined elsewhere to descrive GM foods.

This usage was addressed at least a couple of times earlier in the thread, amidst speculation about what you might mean by the term.

Yes, you said that already.