Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Elitism and Nazism
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4581 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 21 of 125 (54179)
09-06-2003 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Raha
09-06-2003 6:02 AM


quote:
Of course. But I suppose idea that every creature is biologicaly pre-programmed to fight for survival and reproduction is one of the basic principles of darwinism. So if some "animal" decides not to "obey" this principle, it is at least interesting.
If you truly find this idea interesting, try reading Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. The central idea is to explain apparent altruistic behavior via natural selection. If the unit of selection is something other than a single organism, some behaviors seem easier to explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Raha, posted 09-06-2003 6:02 AM Raha has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Raha, posted 09-07-2003 7:25 AM zephyr has replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4581 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 25 of 125 (54346)
09-07-2003 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Raha
09-07-2003 7:25 AM


Selfish gene isn't really a theory. It's a different way of looking at the same principle of natural selection. As Dawkins put it, think of a two-dimensional drawing of a 3-dimensional cube. If you stare at it long enough, it will appear to flip back and forth between 2 different orientations. Same cube, different perspective. We know genes affect the fitness of an individual organism, so the two are inextricably linked. However, focusing on one as the unit of selection provides a different perspective than the other. Exploring and understanding both views leads to a fuller undersanding of selection.
Memetics, as I understand it, is not a way of explaining the holes in the selfish gene idea so much as a tentative logical extension of it. The Extended Phenotype elaborates on this aspect of selfish genes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Raha, posted 09-07-2003 7:25 AM Raha has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4581 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 112 of 125 (56071)
09-17-2003 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by MrHambre
09-17-2003 2:59 PM


quote:
Oh, but you do need the comparison. Testing the effects of natural selection would require you to count the moths in a population at various times and know what percentage were white, what percentage black, and so on. The changes in these percentages would determine the outcome of your selection analysis. You probably don't care if they are the same moths at each census, just whether moths sharing certain characteristics seem to be better-represented numerically in subsequent populations.
How many times has Syamsu been bashed over the head with the fact of competition among varying organisms?
He doesn't get it. He ignores it whenever anyone points out that there are limited resources in any ecosystem, predators that will eat the slowest and most obvious prey, and myriad other factors that produce the "differential" success of variants. I can't explain his insistence on removing this vital aspect of fitness, but it's a fact, and nothing seems to change it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by MrHambre, posted 09-17-2003 2:59 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024