countSpanky Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokta Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Creativity, humour or musicality help you get laid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juan Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 the basic driving force behind nature and its things is to reproduce, and thus insure the survival of your species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 Dawkins argues that the survival of the species is a consequence of "survival of the fittest" among genes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daisy Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daisy Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Sorry...eveolution is a fact...therefore investigation is not necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daisy Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Oh lord...evolution....sorry....brain is dead....it's Friday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Wouldn't evolution being true give more reason to study it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now