From: [email protected]


I'm a bit wary of poking my nose in here since you're both clearly better
informed than me and swimming in waters a little too deep for my oxygen
supply. However, something stuck in my mental craw so I'd like to ask for
clarification, in the spirit that I prefer to open my mouth and reveal my
foolishness than keep it shut and leave my foolishness uncorrected. It's
not very relevant to the central issues you're discussing (or at least, I
don't think so but I'm not sure I'm following particularly well so who
knows) but I just don't 'get it'.

In article <[email protected]>,
  [email protected] wrote:
>
>
> Owleye wrote:

[...]

> > 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?
> >
>
> Because organisms are insufficiently stable associations for natural selection to
> do its work on.  The co-operations between the cells in your body isn't
> co-operation, its "gene" "selfishness".  All the cells in your body carry the
> same DNA, so in helping another cell a cell is helping itself.  In other words,
> its not the physical copy of DNA which is selfish, but rather the formal DNA.

I've quoted these paras to establish this idea of the 'formal DNA' as
justification for cell co-operation being seen as selfish, or to put it
another way to account for what might be characterised as apparently
selfless cell co-operation.

[...]

> This is interesting.  But there is a major difference between organisms which
> exhibit diversity in terms of going for blue light instead of green light and
> diversity in degrees of selfishness/selflessness.  Green light attraction may
> not always be detrimental to perpetuating fromal DNA, but selflessness is,
> or at least that seems to be the conclusion of the folks I have quoted for you.

Here is what seemed inconsistent. If 'formal DNA' shared by every cell is
capable of regulating the cells such that its survival-chance is enhanced
by co-operation within the organism, what is the problem with the 'formal
DNA' shared by individual organisms throughout a species being capable of
regulating the organisms such that its survival-chance is enhanced by co-
operation within the species? It does not make sense to me that DNA
encoded 'selflessness' (of some degree) must be to the detriment of the
'formal DNA' since under some circumstance a selfless or co-operative act
on the part of one (organism) carrier of the 'formal DNA' would ensure or
enhance the survival prospects of other carriers and thus of the 'formal
DNA'.

I acknowledge the earlier point about sufficient stability but I do not
follow it. If organisms were so ineffecient with DNA it wouldn't make
much sense to me that there is such clear sexual attraction and that
sexual reproduction has remained as a useful method of DNA propogation -
surely this is representative of the DNA doing an efficient job of
communicating to the whole organism that reproduction with the relevant
other organism is appropriate rather than with an inappropriate organism
or inanimate object? This system is not perfect (don't I know it) but nor
are cells.

> --
>
>                   Phil Roberts, Jr.
>
>        The Psychodynamics of Genetic Indeterminism:
> Why We Turned Out Like Captain Kirk Instead of Mr. Spock
>      http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/dada/90/
>

Mick.
--
"Many a mickle makes a muckle".
[email protected]
[email protected]


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.