From: Owleye 

{snipped}


"Phil Roberts, Jr." wrote:

>
>     Like Chicago gangsters, our genes have survived, in
>     some cases for millions of years, in a highly competitive
>     world.

This may help tell me that genes have some functionality to them.  Though I believe that in
order to draw any conclusions about it, since "nature" did the selection, I would want to ask
what was it about nature that can regard it as being functional.  For example, the genes for
roots and stems have different functions such that one serves to find nutrients in the soil
whereas the other serves to gather energy from the sun.  Presumably the sun and the soil are
part of the natural world to which nonidentical genes that presumably respond to nature by
playing the same functional role can compete with each other and presumably "win the day,"
though I confess that ridding organisms of genes is not performed at the same rate as its
acquisition.  However, competition, implies this kind of similar functional relationship.
There are other ways in which this is played out and compeition is not the only game in
town.   Indeed cooperation is rather rampant in natural selection, making the concept of self
rather amorphous.  Indeed, what could more cooperative than a multicellular organism,
comprised of clone cells cooperating?  Indeed, even sexual reproduction involves a kind of
cooperation even if the cells cooperating are otherwise treated as being in competition.

> This entitles us to expect certain qualities in our
>     genes.  I shall argue that a predominent quality
>     to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness.

This is my problem.  Why pick on the gene to be the self that has an interest?  Why not the
organism, population, or some other?


{snipped - see 017b}