The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
New Discovery Proves that the Selfish Gene Exists.
Dublo7
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
http://www.physorg.com/news133185776.html
New discovery proves 'selfish gene' exists
A new discovery by a scientist from The University of Western Ontario provides conclusive evidence which supports decades-old evolutionary doctrines long accepted as fact.
Since renowned British biologist Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion") introduced the concept of the 'selfish gene' in 1976, scientists the world over have hailed the theory as a natural extension to the work of Charles Darwin.
In studying genomes, the word 'selfish' does not refer to the human-describing adjective of self-centered behavior but rather to the blind tendency of genes wanting to continue their existence into the next generation. Ironically, this 'selfish' tendency can appear anything but selfish when the gene does move ahead for selfless and even self-sacrificing reasons.
For instance, in the honey bee colony, a complex social breeding system described as a 'super-organism,' the female worker bees are sterile. The adult queen bee, selected and developed by the worker bees, is left to mate with the male drones.
Because the 'selfish' gene controlling worker sterility has never been isolated by scientists, the understanding of how reproductive altruism can evolve has been entirely theoretical – until now.
Working with Peter Oxley of the University of Sydney in Australia, Western biology professor Graham Thompson has, for the first time-ever, isolated a region on the honey bee genome that houses this 'selfish' gene in female workers bees.
This means that the 'selfish' gene does exist, not just in theory but in reality. "We don't know exactly which gene it is, but we're getting close."
Source: University of Western Ontario
As someone who just recently read The Selfish Gene, this is some pretty exciting news.
I wonder what else will come out of this?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Dublo7 on
0
Posts
They're just keeping that information for themselves.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I hate myself for laughing.
no, RTFA for Christ sakes. The gene they found effectively causes altruism in bees.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
First we have to prove that bee-sex is enjoyable.
You've clearly never know any apiarists.
Gattaca.
Michael Crichton's book, Next (http://www.amazon.com/Next-Michael-Crichton/dp/0060872985), is about genetic engineering. It discusses gene patents and companies/universities announcing "gene discoveries" to get grants and funding. There are discoveries just like the one mentioned in the OP where scientists "discover" a gene and how it may or may not contribute to certain behaviours and then they sit around having brainstorming sessions about what to name it so as to garner the most attention and get them the most funding. Part of the discussion in the book, and the part that gave me pause when reading the OP, is that genes are not a simple binary switch. If a "Selfish Gene" does exist, it's not a simple case of "having the gene makes you selfish" and "lacking the gene makes you selfless". There are all sorts of complexities whereby certain genes effect change in other genes...it's all rather too involved to explain in a single post and much better explained in the book.
But, needless to say, most of Crichton's work is fiction but based heavily in fact. I have not yet had a chance to read up further on the subject of genetic engineering to determine how much of it was in fact...fact. The book has, however, made me take genetic announcements like the one in the OP with a grain of salt.
So whenever I hear that someone has discovered "the _____ gene", I always dismiss it. It's not scientifically accurate, and its merely a sensationalist way of stirring up excitement over your finding.
In conclusion: Genes are very complicated, and simplifying any effect to a single short segment of DNA is ludicrous.
edit: After reading up on "The Selfish Gene" on Wikipedia, I see that what I've just said doesn't really apply to this situation. The Selfish Gene is more of a concept than an actual gene. Everything I said is true, just not necessarily an attack on Richard Dawkins' concept.
Do you know what the "selfish gene" means?
I...
What.
No, it's really not.
A more accurate way of saying what you're trying to say would be: very few phenotypes are easily linked back to a single contiguous sequence of DNA. Most phenotypes are expressed by the interactions of multiple genes as well as promoter and/or hox sequences.
You're right in arguing against the 10th grade science notion that there is a 1:1 correlation between a gene and a trait. Saying that genes are "illusory" makes you sound silly.
Also: I haven't read Next, but I've read some of Crichton's other stuff and some of his speeches and essays and... well... just color me skeptical that he's not batshit crazy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Micheal Crichton's books are not only based very loosely on actual science, but as his career has progressed, the anti-scientific slant in his works has become more and more evident.
I enjoy the Jurassic Park novels but his later works are unreadable for me.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I was going to come in to make a libertarian joke, but then the OP said they were discussing something else.
Me too.
Now let's end selfishness by reconfiguring the deflector array to fire an inverted tachyon pulse at that gene!
http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/17/6/669
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=new-rna-muddies-gene-definition
Maybe illusory was a poor word, but there sure as hell is controversy over what the proper definition of a gene is, to the point that scientists can't come up with a common definition.
I just don't see what all the fuss is about. Maybe because I haven't read "The Selfish Gene"... What's so special about this particular gene?
Illusory was a terrible word choice, sorry.
Also, I'm not saying that Crichton is high literature or even scientifically accurate but I needed a book to read and had this one handy. Plus I feel bad stopping a book after starting it. His work from Jurassic Park back was great...now it's pretty sensationalist, it feels like watching the evening news. But all that aside, it did pique my interest in genetic engineering.