Human freedom is constrained by the mind's content and physical ability

[untermensche]

That a cause must cause something.

The gene is acted upon in the various ways it can mutate. It is acted upon in transcription and translation.

It causes nothing. It isn't the cause it remains in the genome. It can't be an agent of any kind.

genes -> evolution

Hard to defeat arguments of this complexity.

Genes are bookkeepers of evolutionary change.

The scorekeeper is not responsible for either winning or losing the game.

 

[Juma]

genes -> evolution

Hard to defeat arguments of this complexity.

Arguments shouldnt be more complex than they need to be.

If you cannot defeat it you have lost.

Show that there can be evolution without genes or give up.

 

[untermensche]

Hard to defeat arguments of this complexity.

Arguments shouldnt be more complex than they need to be.

If you cannot defeat it you have lost.

Show that there can be evolution without genes or give up.

If you ignore my real points and only respond like this you are a waste of time.

Does the scorekeeper have any say in the outcome of the game?

 

[fromderinside]

Does the scorekeeper have any say in the outcome of the game?

How are genes score keepers?

 

[fromderinside]

double post

 

[untermensche]

If you ignore my real points and only respond like this you are a waste of time.

Does the scorekeeper have any say in the outcome of the game?

How are genes score keepers? Genes are the units from which scores can be compiled not the mere keepers of score. Without genes there are no units. Without units there are no scores. Gene assemblies, genes, make scoring possible.

The phenome either scores or doesn't score. It either has reproductive success or it doesn't.

The genes just record the score.

 

[fromderinside]

An allele is a variant form of a gene. Some genes have a variety of different forms, which are located at the same position, or genetic locus, on a chromosome. Humans are called diploid organisms because they have two alleles at each genetic locus, with one allele inherited from each parent.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/allele-48

So tell us how a phenotype by scoring or not scoring makes genes the score keeper? Seems to me while not everybody got through the phenotype represented and ones not represented probably all are reflected in the phenome. In fact different variants with the same genetic grouping may be reflected in other selected phenotypes.

More importantly if the gene at the allele is lethal no winner is drawn still in another where the lethal gene accompanies the selected gene, but is not not realized in the phenotype it remains and it may not be lethal when selected at other alleles.

Seems your typification is a bit woo, perhaps even woo woo.

 

[untermensche]

An allele is a variant form of a gene. Some genes have a variety of different forms, which are located at the same position, or genetic locus, on a chromosome. Humans are called diploid organisms because they have two alleles at each genetic locus, with one allele inherited from each parent.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/allele-48

So tell us how a phenotype by scoring or not scoring makes genes the score keeper? Seems to me while not everybody got through the phenotype represented and ones not represented probably all are reflected in the phenome. In fact different variants with the same genetic grouping may be reflected in other selected phenotypes.

Since it is a random combination of the genome of the "mother" and "father" that makes up the individual organism obviously it is the expression of that random combination that determines reproductive success, not the individual genomes prior to random combination.

The woo is giving agency to something incapable of agency and it is amusing to read texts that do this.

Some of these genes that have a deleterious effect on the organism serve a purpose for the species. The individual organism that grows old and dies after reproducing allows the living more resources.

 

[Juma]

Arguments shouldnt be more complex than they need to be.

If you cannot defeat it you have lost.

Show that there can be evolution without genes or give up.

If you ignore my real points and only respond like this you are a waste of time.

You havent provided any real points. You only repeats "book keeper" like a refers to Goulds text which you yourself cannot extract any argument from.

But as fromderinside points out: what is it that the genes are supposed to keep book of? Take the genes for egglaying. There presence makes the hen, lizard or platypus lay eggs (and are of course only able to do that if there are other genes in the organisms DNA that provides a framework for this, that genes are interdependent, is not a counter argument) thus it is obviously causing egglaying. But what is it book keeping?


Wether species refers to an individual or a class is of no importance whatsoever. Everything is a class or individual. (Designing system will learn you this very fast: a syringepump in a biomedical system is either: an individual, a product version specific item, a product version independent item, any syringe pump in the system, etc
Each of these can be seen as an instance or a class. It is only a point of view.

 

[Juma]

Some of these genes that have a deleterious effect on the organism serve a purpose for the species. The individual organism that grows old and dies after reproducing allows the living more resources.

Yes? And what do you think that is an argument for? It shows that the genes is good, because they survive.

The mechanism of evolution is:

1) genes coding the features
2) sexual reproduction
3) selection

 

[untermensche]

If you ignore my real points and only respond like this you are a waste of time.

You havent provided any real points.

You haven't read anybody contrary to your beliefs on this. That is my point. It is not up to me to educate you.

But as fromderinside points out: what is it that the genes are supposed to keep book of?

What does the scorekeeper record? The score of the game. Is it a win or a loss.

After millions and millions of loses and wins the scoreboard does look complicated.

But all it is is a scoreboard.

Take the genes for egglaying. There presence makes the hen, lizard or platypus lay eggs (and are of course only able to do that if there are other genes in the organisms DNA that provides a framework for this, that genes are interdependent, is not a counter argument) thus it is obviously causing egglaying. But what is it book keeping?

It is recording a long winning streak for the expression of many genes that are all interconnected in a massively complicated organism.

It is recording something, not causing something.

Wether species refers to an individual or a class is of no importance whatsoever. Everything is a class or individual. (Designing system will learn you this very fast: a syringepump in a biomedical system is either: an individual, a product version specific item, a product version independent item, any syringe pump in the system, etc
Each of these can be seen as an instance or a class. It is only a point of view.

From Gould 'The Structure of Evolutionary Theory', Chapter Eight: Species as Individuals in the Hierarchical Theory of Selection, Page 597-8.

For example, biologists spent more than a fruitless century trying to decide whether the parts of siphonophores are "persons" in a colony or organs of an organism-only to recognize that the question cannot be answered because both solutions can justly claim crucial and partial merit.

Are grass blades or bamboo stalks bodies in their own right (as some aspects of functional organization suggests), or parts (called ramets) of a larger evolutionary individual (called a genet)?

As so much uncertainty surrounds the issue of how we define an "individual" at the supposedly unambiguous level of Darwin's own intent, we should not be surprised that attempts to restrict the concept to organic bodies have yielded more confusion than resolution. Perhaps we should try a different and more general approach. Perhaps we should attempt to specify a set of minimal properties required to designate an organic entity as an "individual"-and then ask whether any objects at levels above and below traditional bodies possess these properties, and therefore qualify for inclusion under an expanded concept of individuality. If so we might obtain a useful definition divorced from the happenstance of scale, and therefore sufficiently general to provide a deeper (and clearer) understanding for this central concept in Darwinism.

The whole chapter (149 pages) is Gould's arguments to support the idea of species as individuals. His discussion of the "Fallacy of the Selfish Gene" is only a part of that chapter. Pages 613-644.

 

[untermensche]

Some of these genes that have a deleterious effect on the organism serve a purpose for the species. The individual organism that grows old and dies after reproducing allows the living more resources.

Yes? And what do you think that is an argument for? It shows that the genes is good, because they survive.

The gene survives because the expression in combination with other genes reproduces.

Expression determines survival of genes and since an individual is the random combination of two genomes it is the expression of that random combination that determines reproductive success.

 

[Juma]

What does the scorekeeper record? The score of the game. Is it a win or a loss.

After millions and millions of loses and wins the scoreboard does look complicated.

But all it is is a scoreboard.

Weird scoreboard that defines the rules for the next game...

 

[Juma]

Yes? And what do you think that is an argument for? It shows that the genes is good, because they survive.

The gene survives because the expression in combination with other genes reproduces.

Expression determines survival of genes and since an individual is the random combination of two genomes it is the expression of that random combination that determines reproductive success.

Exactly. And what causes that specific expression? The genes!

 

[untermensche]

What does the scorekeeper record? The score of the game. Is it a win or a loss.

After millions and millions of loses and wins the scoreboard does look complicated.

But all it is is a scoreboard.

Weird scoreboard that defines the rules for the next game...

It does not determine the rules.

The rules for reproductive success are determined by expression of all genes and the environment.

Can the organism survive and reproduce?

The expression of a random combination of genes and all that exists in the environment determines that.

 

[untermensche]

The gene survives because the expression in combination with other genes reproduces.

Expression determines survival of genes and since an individual is the random combination of two genomes it is the expression of that random combination that determines reproductive success.

Exactly. And what causes that specific expression? The genes!

They do not cause their own expression. They are acted upon, not actors.

Their expression is determined by factors removed from the gene.

The specific gene that is translated into a certain protein has no control over the mechanism that creates that protein. It is completely blind to that.

 

[Juma]

Exactly. And what causes that specific expression? The genes!

They do not cause their own expression. They are acted upon, not actors.

Their expression is determined by factors removed from the gene.

The specific gene that is translated into a certain protein has no control over the mechanism that creates that protein. It is completely blind to that.

The "expression engine" are the same, it is the difference in genes that is important.

It isnt the "expression engine" that decides wether the organism is a whale or an owl. It the genes.

 

[fromderinside]

Weird scoreboard that defines the rules for the next game...

It does not determine the rules.

The rules for reproductive success are determined by expression of all genes and the environment.

Can the organism survive and reproduce?

The expression of a random combination of genes and all that exists in the environment determines that.

Really? The most critical component for success is the gene which if it is not viable the 'selected' organism fails. No need to poll any other alleles.

 

[untermensche]

It does not determine the rules.

The rules for reproductive success are determined by expression of all genes and the environment.

Can the organism survive and reproduce?

The expression of a random combination of genes and all that exists in the environment determines that.

Really? The most critical component for success is the gene which if it is not viable the 'selected' organism fails. No need to poll any other alleles.

If the organism fails then the gene is gone.

If the organism succeeds it succeeds because of it's phenome acting in the world, not it's genome, which acts on nothing.

A genome cannot force an organism to survive. It can force nothing. It is not an agent of any kind.

 

[untermensche]

They do not cause their own expression. They are acted upon, not actors.

Their expression is determined by factors removed from the gene.

The specific gene that is translated into a certain protein has no control over the mechanism that creates that protein. It is completely blind to that.

The "expression engine" are the same, it is the difference in genes that is important.

It isnt the "expression engine" that decides wether the organism is a whale or an owl. It the genes.

Which gene tells the whale what to do to reproduce?