Not The "selfish Gene"(DNA), But RNA Be The Driver Of Evolution

[haidut]

For those that do not agree with people like Richard Dawkins:

https://theconversation.com/never-mind- ... link-35409

 

[Such_Saturation]

That is cool. I thought of the DNA as the center of a whirlpool, where information flows in from outside, going through RNA and all the things until it reaches the center if it hangs around for enough time. The center is the most complex and the first to evolve into new functions such as a more stable form of keeping. I bet if you could see a cell line sped up through eons you would see this kind of tornado with things starting to condense in one point and effectively establishing an intelligent informational hierarchy through the most basic rules of fluids and electromagnetism.

 

[arien]

Neodarwinism is not coherent. It cannot account for basic categories such as 'truth', 'falsity' or 'reason' which are necessary for the theory to obtain. If it were the case that we are the product of a blind algorithm, we would have no guarantee that our own capacity to reason was actually reliable or that 'truth' was a meaningful term; we could never be certain that such intellectual capacities needed to be reliable for our survival in the past. Thus, to say that 'neodarwiniism is true' is incoherent, for the truth of such a statement calls into question the speaker's and the audience's own capacity for reasoning and the meaning of the term 'truth'. As such, neodarwinism attempts to destroy truth. I quite suspect that this is why the Huxleys promoted it to begin with.

This analysis can be extended by considering other metaphysical issues such as causality or identity-through-time which are required for the theory to be true, but which cannot be accounted for by the theory.

 

[jaa]

Thanks again for the link!

Could you explain how this contradicts Dawkins? I have a suspicion this article may be playing splashing selfish gene language around to generate more hits.

 

[jaa]

arien,

I don't think you sound coherent. That may be due my ignorance or you trying to sound like a smarty pants. If you don't mind, please explain what you mean by each sentence in language that doesn't assume everyone is on the same page as you.

 

[haidut]

Thanks again for the link!

Could you explain how this contradicts Dawkins? I have a suspicion this article may be playing splashing selfish gene language around to generate more hits.

From the article:

"...We challenge the “selfish gene” concept, proposing instead that if a cellular component is “selfish” it must be ribosomes. Cells – and DNA itself – evolved, we argue, to optimise the functioning of ribosomes. That upends everything we think we know about the evolution of cellular life and ribosomes themselves."

"...The resting position of DNA is very tightly curled up with its genes inaccessible. Resting DNA is so stable that it can protect its genes for 10,000 years or more, allowing scientists to recover DNA from frozen mammoths. This is not a molecule yearning to disperse its genes, but one that wants to conserve them by remaining curled up in a knot."

So, I guess what they are saying is that IF there is a cell component that is selfish, it is not DNA but the ribosomes which translate information from RNA into proteins.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Neodarwinism is not coherent. It cannot account for basic categories such as 'truth', 'falsity' or 'reason' which are necessary for the theory to obtain. If it were the case that we are the product of a blind algorithm, we would have no guarantee that our own capacity to reason was actually reliable or that 'truth' was a meaningful term; we could never be certain that such intellectual capacities needed to be reliable for our survival in the past. Thus, to say that 'neodarwiniism is true' is incoherent, for the truth of such a statement calls into question the speaker's and the audience's own capacity for reasoning and the meaning of the term 'truth'. As such, neodarwinism attempts to destroy truth. I quite suspect that this is why the Huxleys promoted it to begin with.

This analysis can be extended by considering other metaphysical issues such as causality or identity-through-time which are required for the theory to be true, but which cannot be accounted for by the theory.

Very excellent!

 

[jaa]

Thanks again for the link!

Could you explain how this contradicts Dawkins? I have a suspicion this article may be playing splashing selfish gene language around to generate more hits.

From the article:

"...We challenge the “selfish gene” concept, proposing instead that if a cellular component is “selfish” it must be ribosomes. Cells – and DNA itself – evolved, we argue, to optimise the functioning of ribosomes. That upends everything we think we know about the evolution of cellular life and ribosomes themselves."

"...The resting position of DNA is very tightly curled up with its genes inaccessible. Resting DNA is so stable that it can protect its genes for 10,000 years or more, allowing scientists to recover DNA from frozen mammoths. This is not a molecule yearning to disperse its genes, but one that wants to conserve them by remaining curled up in a knot."

So, I guess what they are saying is that IF there is a cell component that is selfish, it is not DNA but the ribosomes which translate information from RNA into proteins.

Does that contradict Dawkins theory or just pass the replicating buck from DNA to RNA?

I just realized the article is written by the authors of the paper. They include a direct link to their paper which I've pasted below.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9314006778

 

[arien]

arien,

I don't think you sound coherent. That may be due my ignorance or you trying to sound like a smarty pants. If you don't mind, please explain what you mean by each sentence in language that doesn't assume everyone is on the same page as you.

There is nothing in the Darwinian algorithm that guarantees it would endow us with truly accurate reasoning in general, or accurate reasoning about biology in particular. Maybe we have inherited a faulty reasoning faculty, that leads to incorrect conclusions, but which do not have sufficiently grave consequences as to prevent its inheritance. We can never know that this is not the case with respect to some particular branch of human reasoning. All we can say is that until the present this kind of reasoning has not yet prevented those who possess it from producing fertile children. Of course, such a statement begs the question, as it is itself a truth claim which depends upon the legitimacy of 'truth' and the practise of reasoning from sensory data, both of which the claim was originally attempting to justify. As such, it is not coherent to assert 'neodarwinism is true'.

 

[jaa]

Thanks for explaining that in simpler terms arien. Humans are not 100% rational. That's why we have the scientific method to test and retest our assumptions and remove biases. Is it perfect? No, but it's the best we have and it has lead (and will likely continue to lead) to humans having a much better understanding of how the universe works. The legitimacy of truth is fiction. We can never be 100% sure about anything. But we can rely on data and observations to make predictions that are near certain. This doesn't mean we should throw our hands up in the air and declare the whole process futile. As a simple example, I am fairly certain that 2+2 = 4. Everything I understand about the world leads me to this belief. If I add 2 oranges to 2 oranges I get 4 oranges. But I am not certain this is correct. I am 99.999...% certain it's true, but it is possible that this is a trick being played on my mind from a tumor, or supernatural being, or whatever. Or perhaps in a different part of the universe 2 oranges plus 2 oranges gives you 5 oranges. I can not conceive of this, because it is not something I have existed with (or think I have existed with), but I know it's possible. That doesn't mean we should through out mathematics because it's based on assumptions that may not be true.