Jump to content
admiral_ju00

The Selfish Gene Theory

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, SamCogar said:

IMHO, being "wrong" is only unacceptable ….. when it is "personal prejudices" and/or "consensus science" that is dictating what is acceptable opinions, truths, facts or evidence.

Luckily, science doesn't do that.

(Personal prejudices, maybe. But the whole point of the scientific method is to eliminate those, as far as is practically possible.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SamCogar said:

IMHO, being "wrong" is only unacceptable ….. when it is "personal prejudices" and/or "consensus science" that is dictating what is acceptable opinions, truths, facts or evidence.

Mainstream science is the benchmark though. It's a collection of the best supported explanations about the natural world, theories that actually work and have the preponderance of evidence in their favor. Evolution is a fact, and the theory behind it is one of the most tested in history. How do YOU test your ideas to remove your own prejudice, which is quite high, as others have noted? How do you know you aren't just making a wild guess?

4 minutes ago, SamCogar said:

Because it is obvious that you want to engage in a "peeing contest".

I feel this way about you, so maybe we should all agree to be more civil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Because it was just discussing the published work of a well-known (and generally respected) scientist. 

It was not someone posting their own "personal theory".

"DUH", iffen it was not the "personal theory" of the aforesaid ……. "well-known (and generally respected) scientist", ……. the please tell me whose "personal theory" it is and why it wasn't consider "junk science" and moved to the Trash bin.

Selfish genes, gay genes, lgbt genes, etc., ……. iffen ya got a problem, an affliction, a nurtured habit, etc. …… then blame either your inherited or mutated genes, and everything you do will be acceptable and forgiven.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SamCogar said:

"DUH", iffen it was not the "personal theory" of the aforesaid ……. "well-known (and generally respected) scientist", ……. the please tell me whose "personal theory" it is and why it wasn't consider "junk science" and moved to the Trash bin.

Evolution and genetics, as noted, are well established science.

But, even if it were not mainstream science (it is), it could still be discussed in the science sections of this forum.  (As I understand the rules.)

If someone wants to argue for some non-mainstream theory (even if it is not originally theirs) then that would have to be done in the Speculations forum.

But if you think that modern genetics is wrong, then why not present your evidence for that in the Speculations forum. (Instead of hijacking another thread.)

Actually, I wouldn't call "the selfish gene" a theory at all; as far as I can see, it is just an interpretation of the way genes work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

How do YOU test your ideas

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

But if you think that modern genetics is wrong, then why not present your evidence for that in the Speculations forum. (Instead of hijacking another thread.)

, which is quite high, as others have noted? How do you know you aren't just making a wild guess?

Phi for All, ….. I made no mention whatsoever about "modern genetics being wrong" ….. so tell me, what the ell ever possessed Strange to post such a disingenuous insinuation of what I think or don't think?

Quote

How do you know you aren't just making a wild guess?

Phi for All, ….. of course one can call my "reasoned explanations" as being "wild guess", ….. but my per se "wild guesses" are based in/on common sense thinking, logical reasoning and/or intelligent deductions of the factual biological evidence and the factual observational evidence that is presented in my "brain/mind" commentary. 

Therefore, unless you or another party can discredit the aforesaid "factual biological evidence and the factual observational evidence" presented in said commentary, …. then it is not possible for you or your like minded peers to discredit my per se "wild guessing". 

But you can appease your ego by claiming that your "consensus science" is always CORRECT.

Phi for All, you really need to ask yourself, ……. "Why am I what I am", ….. to see iffen your "subconscious mind" can/will inform your "conscious mind" how your past environmental experiences dictated your present personality and "beliefs". 

48 minutes ago, Strange said:

Actually, I wouldn't call "the selfish gene" a theory at all; as far as I can see, it is just an interpretation of the way genes work.

"HA", so you are now agreeing, HUH?

The "Selfish Gene Theory" is not a theory, …… it is simply "speculation".  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SamCogar said:

The "Selfish Gene Theory" is not a theory, …… it is simply "speculation".  

Not as such. The Selfish Gene in itself is not much of detailed theoretical framework. Rather it is intended to reframe the perspective of known mechanisms of evolution. I.e. it is essentially highlighting the role of genes rather than on the organismal level. In  a way, you can think of it as the study of molecular physiology vs e.g. animal physiology. Modern molecular techniques clearly assisted in shaping this view and it has been influential to those work more on the genomic side of things.

Neither supplants the other, but adds a different perspective. Discussions on this topic are clearly mainstream. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SamCogar said:

The "Selfish Gene Theory" is not a theory, …… it is simply "speculation".  

No. It is simply one way of describing the way genes work in the evolutionary process. I'm not sure what your problem is with it. Perhaps you could explain?

 

1 hour ago, SamCogar said:

But you can appease your ego by claiming that your "consensus science" is always CORRECT.

The whole point of the scientific process is that it assumes it is always wrong (or, at least, incomplete).

1 hour ago, SamCogar said:

Therefore, unless you or another party can discredit the aforesaid "factual biological evidence and the factual observational evidence" presented in said commentary, …. then it is not possible for you or your like minded peers to discredit my per se "wild guessing". 

Have you discredited the "factual biological evidence and the factual observational evidence" behind genetics, which underpins the selfish gene concept?

No?

I didn't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SamCogar said:

Phi for All, ….. I made no mention whatsoever about "modern genetics being wrong" ….. so tell me, what the ell ever possessed Strange to post such a disingenuous insinuation of what I think or don't think?

That's not an argument I can address for what I'd assumed were obvious reasons, but it sounds like a deflection, or red herring, anyway. It doesn't tell me what you do to make your reasoning more trustworthy, and doesn't present me with any evidence that I might analyze to support your arguments.

 

2 hours ago, SamCogar said:

Phi for All, ….. of course one can call my "reasoned explanations" as being "wild guess", ….. but my per se "wild guesses" are based in/on common sense thinking, logical reasoning and/or intelligent deductions of the factual biological evidence and the factual observational evidence that is presented in my "brain/mind" commentary. 

Therefore, unless you or another party can discredit the aforesaid "factual biological evidence and the factual observational evidence" presented in said commentary, …. then it is not possible for you or your like minded peers to discredit my per se "wild guessing". 

All the things you mention are far too subjective and open to interpretation, especially when you use limited analogies and redefined terms to explain a phenomenon. They make sense to you, because you made them up. Part of science is being able to show evidential support for your ideas, so they become more than just guesswork. You need a more rigorous methodology in order to make assertions the way you do.

2 hours ago, SamCogar said:

But you can appease your ego by claiming that your "consensus science" is always CORRECT.

Those are your words, your strawman. I would say, mainstream science is the best available explanation we have, pending better information. "Always" and "correct" are NEVER, let me repeat that, NEVER part of the consideration when you're doing real science. Ditto "proof".

It all about the explanation that has a preponderance of evidence you can trust.

2 hours ago, SamCogar said:

Phi for All, you really need to ask yourself, ……. "Why am I what I am", ….. to see iffen your "subconscious mind" can/will inform your "conscious mind" how your past environmental experiences dictated your present personality and "beliefs".

I hold no delusions about how my mind works. It's subject to SO many emotional biases and corruptions. I have to work rigorously to avoid the kind of faith/hope/wishful thinking you seem to embrace as being better than science. I have to avoid letting my subjective self cloud what can be learned from observing the natural world with what I wish it could be. I have to do a better job of maintaining objectivity because I'm looking for the best available explanation instead of fooling myself that there are "answers" I can trust out there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SamCogar said:

iffen

Could you please translate this into English?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Never seen it anywhere else before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, nevim said:

Thanks. Never seen it anywhere else before.

Sounds like something I might have heard some gnarly old dude in an old-timey Western say.

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Strange said:

Sounds like something I might have heard some gnarly old dude in an old-timey Western say.

It's an affectation implying old-timey common sense. Like claiming to be skeptical ALL the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

affectation

I think it does the opposite of impress!

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Sounds like something I might have heard some gnarly old dude in an old-timey Western say.

Or maybe a farmer from Yorkshire (or any farmer from anywhere). ‘Wonder iffen the hay be ready yonder...’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Mainstream science is the benchmark though. It's a collection of the best supported explanations about the natural world, theories that actually work and have the preponderance of evidence in their favor

Really now, Phi for All, you actually believe that, do you?

Then why don't you tell me about the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change and the preponderance of all the actual, factual evidence that supports it.

I've  been anxiously waiting for the past 20+ years for said evidence, ….. so surprise me. 

3 hours ago, nevim said:

iffen

Could you please translate this into English?

 

Google is your "translating" friend.

 

Quote


iffen: A contraction of "if and when", used particularly when you are very certain of an outcome but still wish to provide an oppurtunity for being incorrect in your assumption.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=iffen

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I hold no delusions about how my mind works. It's subject to SO many emotional biases and corruptions.

Whoa there, Phi for All, stop the presses.

 

You have been criticizing me for claiming that the functioning of the human mind consists of two (2) distinct and separate entities, …… the subservient (choice-making) “conscious mind” and the (inherited/environmentally-nurtured) controlling “subconscious mind” ……. but that is pretty much exactly what you are inferring, implying and/or claiming via your above quoted comment.   

 

Phi for All, in your above comment pertaining to your personal thoughts and/or emotions, ….. you specifically denoted two (2) distinct and separate entities, ….. (1) the conscious “I”, as in “I hold no delusionsand the conscious my”, as in “my mind works”, ….. and (2) the subconscious “It’s”, as in “It's subject to”,

 

Phi, …. If you say “I”, ”my”, ”me”, ‘1st person’ is the intended subject, whereas if you say “it”, ”it’s”, ”he”, ”she”, etc., 2nd person’ is the intended subject.

 

Phi for All, answer me this question, …. can you (1st person) consciously “trigger” a per se “outburst” of your emotional bias(es) and/or your corruption(s), …… or do you (1st person) require an environmental stimulus via one of your sense organs to per se “trigger” the aforesaid “outburst”?

 

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I have to work rigorously to avoid the kind of faith/hope/wishful thinking you seem to embrace as being better than science.

Don’t be talking silly, Phi, …… since I am talking actual, factual science, it can’t be better than science. “DUH”, the only fault that you guys have accused me of is my failure to cite/list a pre-approved published reference and/or published peer-approvals for my “original thinking” hypothesis.  

 

 It’s a great thing that you guys are not in charge of the US Patient Office, because iffen you were there would never be another Patent issued to anyone ….. because no one could provide ya’ll with cited references and peer approvals for their “original thinking”.

23 hours ago, CharonY said:

Neither supplants the other, but adds a different perspective. Discussions on this topic (Selfish Gene Theory) are clearly mainstream. 

Shur nuff, …….. clearly mainstream , ……….. but absolutely, positively also pure "speculation".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SamCogar said:

Shur nuff, …….. clearly mainstream , ……….. but absolutely, positively also pure "speculation".

You have yet to provide any evidence to support this opinion. Are you claiming that there is no evidence for the way genes operate? Or what exactly? Please explain why you think the Selfish Gene concept is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SamCogar said:

It’s a great thing that you guys are not in charge of the US Patient Office, because iffen you were there would never be another Patent issued to anyone ….. because no one could provide ya’ll with cited references and peer approvals for their “original thinking”.

Funny bit is that submitting a patent actually required quite a lot of paperwork to demonstrate why a certain approach is unique, in part by referencing, comparing and contrasting it with similar approaches (which were mostly published lit). 

 

29 minutes ago, SamCogar said:

pure "speculation".

I posit that you are not quite clear about what a "theory" is in a scientific context (or that yo are confused about what a speculation is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Strange said:

Please explain why you think the Selfish Gene concept is incorrect.

To wit:

Quote

 

Definition of selfish

 

: being an actively replicating repetitive sequence of nucleic acid that serves no known function ·selfish DNA

 

; also : being genetic material solely concerned with its own replication ·selfish genes

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfish

 

First of all, it is asinine to claim  that the per se "selfish gene" …. serves no known function …… while at the same time claiming that said is ….. solely concerned with its own replication.

And just when did you "experts" determine that inanimate entities have a "conscious"? 

Anyway, cite me a "gene" that replicates a completely different "gene".  

And "mutation" is not "replication".

20 hours ago, CharonY said:

Funny bit is that submitting a patent actually required quite a lot of paperwork to demonstrate why a certain approach is unique, in part by referencing, comparing and contrasting it with similar approaches (which were mostly published lit)

You are talking "trash", …..CharonY

Been there, ….. dun that, …… to wit:

United States Patent US3449735

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3449735.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2018 at 7:54 PM, SamCogar said:

Then why don't you tell me about the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change and the preponderance of all the actual, factual evidence that supports it.

!

Moderator Note

That's not the topic of this thread.

 
On 7/30/2018 at 11:33 AM, SamCogar said:

"DUH", iffen it was not the "personal theory" of the aforesaid ……. "well-known (and generally respected) scientist", ……. the please tell me whose "personal theory" it is and why it wasn't consider "junk science" and moved to the Trash bin. 

!

Moderator Note

If it's part of mainstream science, or (as Strange noted) you are not championing some discredited or otherwise non-mainstream theory, it can be discussed in a mainstream section of the forums. For example, you could discuss phlogiston and why it was discarded, or problems with the Bohr model, in mainstream physics areas. But try and argue that they (or pet theories) are correct? That gets you moved to speculations, along with requirements for rigor that entails.

Trying to litigate the rules instead of discussing the topic is getting tiresome.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, SamCogar said:

First of all, it is asinine to claim  that the per se "selfish gene" …. serves no known function …… while at the same time claiming that said is ….. solely concerned with its own replication.

You are mixing up two different (although related) concepts. The so-called "selfish DNA" (or "selfish genetic element") replicates itself within the genome. It may have no (or unknown) functions but that doesn't stop it trying to copy itself. Because that is one of the things that genetic material is designed to do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfish_genetic_element

The "selfish gene" concept is about a gene-centred view of evolution (of populations). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene 

45 minutes ago, SamCogar said:

And just when did you "experts" determine that inanimate entities have a "conscious"? 

No one claimed that there was any consciousness involved.

45 minutes ago, SamCogar said:

Anyway, cite me a "gene" that replicates a completely different "gene".  

No one said it did. But most genes (you may be surprised to know) have functions other than just replicating themselves. 

Quote

And "mutation" is not "replication".

Why says it is?

 

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, swansont said:

If it's part of mainstream science, or (as Strange noted) you are not championing some discredited or otherwise non-mainstream theory, it can be discussed in a mainstream section of the forums.

To wit:

Quote

Mainstream science is scientific inquiry in an established field of study that does not depart significantly from orthodox theories.

Source:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream  

Quote

 

 

 

Oh my, now I understand what my problem is, …. and that is that “mainstream science” is not to be “questioned”, …….. but only to be “queried” by those such as undergraduates who are “prepping” themselves for “testing” in/of their enrolled subject matter.

 

Iffen one “departs” from the orthodox theories that define the “subject” being studied, then they will surely be given a “failing” grade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SamCogar said:

Oh my, now I understand what my problem is, …. and that is that “mainstream science” is not to be “questioned”, …….. but only to be “queried” by those such as undergraduates who are “prepping” themselves for “testing” in/of their enrolled subject matter.

The chip on your shoulder is causing you to react emotionally to every reply. Mainstream science is simply the best we've got, waiting for something better to come along. IT'S QUESTIONED ALL THE TIME. That's how science progresses. But the new ideas have to be better than the old ones, Sam, and you haven't shown that. Not even a little bit. And you've shown some misunderstandings as well, so that's why the mainstream is still the mainstream. It's got the evidence behind it. That's what your problem is, lack of evidence. 

So please, stop with the scientists-are-hidebound garbage. There's no evidence for that, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SamCogar said:

Oh my, now I understand what my problem is, …. and that is that “mainstream science” is not to be “questioned”, …….. but only to be “queried” by those such as undergraduates who are “prepping” themselves for “testing” in/of their enrolled subject matter.

That is not what swansont said. 

1 hour ago, SamCogar said:

Iffen one “departs” from the orthodox theories that define the “subject” being studied, then they will surely be given a “failing” grade.

You (or Einstein or anyone else) can present a new theory in the appropriate part of the forum. That would need to be supported with a mathematical model and evidence. If you can do that, then great. I have seen two or three examples (on another forum) where people have successfully defended and modified their idea, and then on to get it published. So it is not impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.