Subject: Re: Partial Response to Rogers July 31 From: wpc-AT-clyder.gn.apc.org (Paul Cockshott) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 95 14:15:24 PDT I find Carol Coxes contributions on the concept of the individual persuasive. But even on the terrain of modern Darwinism I remain unconvinced by Lisa's arguments. Lisa wrote: ----------- There are good reasons for many different genes to work together very well when they find themselves stuck in a body together. .... Any one gene that can't work with the others can ruin the whole project, killing itself along with all the rest (one individual dies.) All the genes [in the nuclear DNA] within an individual are in the same boat, they sink or swim together. This means that each one's reproductive interests are identical to the others'! No wonder they all pull together, because no one gene can reproduce alone. Paul ---- Is it really true to say that the genes are within an individual? An individual may contain copies of the genes, but excepting new mutations, there will be many copies of each gene around in the population. Any one given gene thus simultaneously co-exists with multiple other combinations of genes. Your argument is that in a given individual they must all pull together if they are to survive and thus that the individual is a valid unit of selection. If we were to generalise this however we would be back to arguing that the species is a unit of selection, since, the same argument must apply to all individuals and thus all gene combinations. You almost go on to say this: Lisa: ----- Therefore, each gene must be able to work within each new combination or else the new individual will not make it. From this we get a view of the "gene pool" as a group of co-evolved genes. Paul ---- You say here co-evolved, but the implication is that all of the genes in the gene pool work together. Which would imply that the argument for individual self interest could be extended to population self interest. I think there must thus be some fault with your original argument for biological 'self interest'. It lies, I think, in the idea that the genes in an individual must always work together. Consider the following situation. There exist two genetic locations each with two alleles A, A' and B, B'. Assume that population frequencies are: A 50% A' 50% B 90% B' 10% Assume that combinations AB and AB' are reproductively neutral, which we will characterise as a reproduction probability of 100%. But let us assume that A'B has a positive reproductive advantage of 11% but the combination A'B' has a negative reproductive advantage of 50% - i.e. has a 50% chance of preventing the production of offspring. The result is an equilibrium mixture ( within the accuracy of my back of the envelope calculations ). Thus it is quite possible for the combination of genes in an individual to fail to work together if this is compensated for by other advantageous combinations. Thus your original argument for the individual as a selective focus is thrown into question. --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005