I just heard notions of Dawkins' gene theory (organisms as packages/vehicles for genes). I can't access The Selfish Gene from where I'm at right now, so this question may seem stupid, unbased.

 

If we take the car, we are doing so to go somewhere.

 

If genes are independent mechanisms, then what is their purpose, their goal?

 

Second: how do human properties like creativity, humor, musicality, etc fit in with genes' scheme of survival and replication? Why did genes allow us to develop things like that if it doesn't directly optimize survival chances, or even has a bad effect on survival(altruism)?

 

Thanks

I believe genes don't have a goal. They are just the information about an animal that is kept inside it so when it needs to reproduce it uses its genes to pass it on to its offspring.

 

Our genes didn't have a goal for developing creativity and humor and emotion, etc. They are just traits you get with a big brain. Humans kept becoming more and more social so we developed many things to have a better social life. And being more social also means we have a better chance of survival.

Creativity, humour or musicality help you get laid.

I have the book, but I havn't got that far into it yet. I'll let you know as I read more into it.

 

If genes are independent mechanisms, then what is their purpose, their goal?

 

As far as I've read, he argues that they have no "goal". Their only "purpose" is to replicate.

the basic driving force behind nature and its things is to reproduce, and thus insure the survival of your species.

Dawkins argues that the survival of the species is a consequence of "survival of the fittest" among genes.

yep...that's Dawkin's in a nutshell...the replication of the gene...or should I say "meme"? I read an essay assignment a while back, tacked on an undergrad noticeboard, which read (I think!!!) "Is Dawkins' theory of the meme a facetious analogy blah blah blah blah".....I'm paraphrasing wildly because I can't remember the exact title ....but then again I'm a physiologist/molecular biologist who rather "sniffs" upon the investigations of evolutionary people.......they are not necessary...they are a fact.

Sorry...eveolution is a fact...therefore investigation is not necessary.

Oh lord...evolution....sorry....brain is dead....it's Friday.

Wouldn't evolution being true give more reason to study it?