Does the selfish gene in the DNA destroys life ?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by timojin, Feb 2, 2017.

  1. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    Unregulated selfish gene in the DNA ends life ?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,390
    Is the gene just a saying, or, do you have something more to add?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    I ended with a questionmark . But the word selfish , the gene wants to initiate reproduction by the DNA . Example a virus DNA reproduce itself continually until kills the host cell, The same can be looked into cancerous cells, The cells ( cancerous ) tend to reproduce themself until kill the organism.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,390
    So, we're animals.

    Wonderful Blue Dot in a hostile solar system.
     
  8. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    What does solar system have to do with selfish gene ?
     
  9. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,390
    Address my first point so I'd know an answer matters:

     
  10. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,688
    The gene and a virus and cancerous cells do not have a brain, consciousness, awareness hence cannot have conscious needs, wants or motives

    A ball rolling down a hill also lacks all of the above and ' acts ' under the influence of physics

    The cells likewise ' act ' under the influence of biological processes
     
  11. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    I I know they don't have brain , brain is an organism and hopefully you know the organism is made of cells.
    The point here is the selfish gene on the DNA which will initiate reproduction were if there is no control will kill the host cell.
    Your second and third paragraph is a hand waving.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,805
    Yep. But if the cancer happens early and often then that species dies out. So the DNA is not propagated - so genes that code for cancer (or more accurately, lack resistance to cancer) are selected against.

    Likewise viruses. Viruses that infect and kill people rapidly can wipe out small populations, but are self-contained; once everyone in that population is dead, the virus dies. The most successful viruses are viruses like rhinoviruses that just sicken people a bit. Since it doesn't slow them down much or kill them, the people spread the virus through a much larger population.
     
  13. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,688
    Good

    The point here is the gene really isn't selfish and only follows biological processes

    Carl gave it that attribute understanding (in my opinion) that most of the readers would know the gene really wasn't selfish

    The characterisation was not to be taken literally

    My next book will be called The Happy Gene about the gene being happy it reproduced
     
  14. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,936
    Try reading Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene".
     
    Schmelzer likes this.
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,237
    Sure. The replicaton and machinery is not perfect.

    That too is evolutionarily advantageous. A perfectly replicating machine would be quickly wiped out by a changing environment/ecology.
    So, the patterns that are successful are those that have enough error that subsequent generations have the ability to adapt.
    Death is a critical component of evolution.

    If you look at it from the selfish gene point of view, the gene needs to be able to create a host that can adapt, and thus continue.

    IIRC, the book talks about a gene as a group, not as individual entities. So, this gene isn't trying to propagate itself, it is trying to propagate its brethren.
     
  16. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    You tel me because I would not touch it, Go on , bring his argument .
     
  17. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    Evolutionary advantage . advantage of what ? to do what ? If you take 1000 brick and pile them up . You are telling me they will build a wall eventually because they are rectangular.

    You are create enough , how much is enough , before he kills the host. What is an infection , is it not enough bacteria or virus the overcome our immune system that kills us , we die from the infection and the infection is an overpopulation of your selfish gene.
     
  18. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,936
    Because you are willfully ignorant.
     
  19. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    Lady . I don't thin
    Thanks for the complement.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2017
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,805
    That genes want to reproduce themselves. They do so by using the "machinery of life" to propagate copies of themselves.
     
  21. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    Nice " machinery of life "
    So what happened when the gene reproduce itself in case of Ebola , TB, ete. ete. or some plage as during middle ages that wiped out millions in relative short time.
    To me that is your selfish gene . Thank God, He did not allow that selfish gene , but programmed a non selfish one .
     
  22. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,936
    You are the one throwing around his terms like you know something.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,805
    If it wiped out everyone, it would be gone itself. Which is why disease doesn't generally wipe out entire populations.

    Diseases that wipe out large segments of populations are also pretty rare, because they tend to wipe themselves out to0. That's why, although you hear about Ebola all the time, it's very rare.

    Rhinoviruses are a lot more successful because they do NOT wipe out an entire population. They are just as selfish - they want to multiply as much as possible, and their strategy is to not kill you so you keep walking around to infect other people. It just happens to be a better strategy than Ebola's.

    No need for God - basic evolution provided the "selfishness" that both of them express.
     

Share This Page