tbarron wrote:Can genes be said to "[work] together towards some effect"? My understanding is that while genes have effects, they are not conscious or intentional.
But they do work together, complicated mechanisms may require many sets of genes turning on & off in just the right sequence to work correctly.
LanDroid wrote:- Random mixing of genes in individual sperm or egg cells means there is no guarantee that a "successful" gene will be propagated.
tbarron wrote:True, but the fewer "successful" genes get propagated to a particular individual, the less capable that individual will be at surviving and passing the ("unsuccessful") genes forward to another generation. The lucky individuals that get more "successful" genes will theoretically be more capable of surviving and reproducing.
Well let's just say it's a surprise to me that an organism might have an astonishingly beneficial mutation that is not actually passed down to any offspring.
LanDroid wrote:- Dawkins admits the interaction with the environment is not a the level of the gene, it's at the level of the individual organism.
- Given this it seems Dawkins describes gene longevity through generations as an effect of evolution, not the driving force.
tbarron wrote:I think part of the point is that there is no driving force. Genes copy themselves because it's in their nature. There's no consciousness or desire or intentionality about it, they just do. The ones that manage to make lots of copies wind up dominating the environment. Or maybe the driving force is a combination of the sun and geothermal effects since those are the sources of energy on planet Earth.
What would you say is the premise of the book? Or is your difficulty nailing down what the premise of the book is?
tom
OK, maybe driving force is a bad choice, and as you say genes are not conscious and there's no "desire or intentionality about it". However organisms may have consciousness or intentionality. Dawkins describes a litter of puppies where it would be beneficial for the runt to voluntarily die for the good of the others.
1. How would a gene know it is part of a puppy?
2. How would a gene know the puppy it is part of is a member of a litter?
3. How would a gene know the puppy it is part of is the runt of the litter?
4. How would a gene know it would be best to die for the benefit of other puppies it is unaware of?
I'd be more willing to believe a puppy capable of learning these things than a gene.
As to the premise of the book, I'd say it's captured in the title. Genes have intentionality and awareness, they somehow conspire to attain immortality through generations... I'm probably way off, but like I said, having problems with that...