I’m glad you found the Wiki valuable! We are all works in progress.
I found this quote regarding The Selfish Gene: “In the foreword to the book’s 30th-anniversary edition, Dawkins said he “can readily see that [the book’s title] might give an inadequate impression of its contents” and in retrospect thinks he should have taken Tom Maschler’s advice and called the book The Immortal Gene.”
My opinion on it, such as it is, is that it’s an interesting idea, there’s probably something to it, and it suffers the same problem as when I used the word ‘strategy’ earlier, in that it implies motive and thought that do not exist in the simple processes being described. This is ridiculously common in biology; for some reason we all talk about biochemistry as though molecules ‘want’ to do things. I put it down to a quirk of human language and not a fundamental flaw of science.
Really not sure either of the point you are trying to make here or of how you arrived at it.
Of course not: the lion competes with the zebra for zebra to eat, vs. zebra with which to eat grass and make more zebras. Both species are improved by this competition.
I think if you stop thinking of ‘competition’ and ‘symbiosis’ as competitors and instead look at how they can be related symbiotically, with each concept expanding upon and improving our understanding of the other, it may prove illuminating!
@Lynn_MunterI do not think of symbiosis and competition as competitors. I think of them as two alternative ways of being. like cooperation and conflict, love and hate.
Dawkins sees evolution similarly. He sees life as composed of selfish individuals .(Selfish Gene p.167) Ecology sees the organic world differently, as made up of interdependent organisms Evolutionary thought based on Darwin and Dawkins sees .life developing based on constant struggle or war between selfish individuals. Ecological thought based on Lovelock and Margulis sees life developing based on mutual desire for survival between individuals which instinctively know that cooperation is essential to survival and flourishing.
@Relates
Ah, I see now! You are making a philosophical case, rather than a scientific one.
For what it’s worth, philosophically, I agree with you and encourage you to argue with Dawkins all you like.
Scientifically, however, both cooperation and competition exist in nature and are selected upon. They are both integral to evolution. An animal in one group may compete with others in the group for mates, and cooperate with them to compete with other groups of animals for food or territory, or to defend themselves from predators.
Science looks at the world as it is, and attempts to refrain from drawing broader conclusions than are warranted, or at least to not present such opinions as science. For the record I think Darwin did a much better job of this than Dawkins, but all of us fall somewhat short of this goal sometimes.
As a side note, I would be very cautious in saying any creature “instinctively knows” anything, since that phrase has been very prone to being overused erroneously. Animals may instinctively seek warmth, and they may know that a den will be warm, but instincts are not based on thought or experience, while knowledge is, so what exactly is defined as “instinctive knowledge?”
Yes and No. I am seeking to make a scientific case, based on the science of ecology, however philosophy does inform my world view just as it informs the world views of Darwin and Dawkins. Darwin grew up in the world view of Adam Smith and this world view persists in the form of libertarianism. It is the world view of individualism and conflict. Dawkins revealed his basic stance when he proclaimed that Darwin made atheism intellectually respectable.
Human beings do not live in three separate worlds, the worlds of science, philosophy, and theology. We live in one world which is informed and shaped for better or for worse, by these three disciplines. Sadly it seems to me that Christians have left the field of philosophy to non-believers who have failed to develop a cogent philosophy for our day.
Scientifically, however, both cooperation and competition exist in nature and are selected upon. They are both integral to evolution. An animal in one group may compete with others in the group for mates, and cooperate with them to compete with other groups of animals for food or territory, or to defend themselves from predators.
My comment on this statement is that you have relegated conflict and struggle to a secondary role of sexual selection. Dawkins, following Hamilton, makes sexual selection the key as the selfish gene uses sex to keep its alleles in the family so to speak. This appeals to people based on the proverb, “blood is thicker than water,” which I think means that family ties (blood) are more important than religious ties (the water of baptism.)
E. O. Wilson has attacked the selfish gene individualist, conflict view by pointing to reality of The Social Conquest of the Earth. Sexual selection has more to do with Variation than Natural Selection. It opens the doors for the gre4aster mixing of genes as creatures move beyond family to find mates.
The conflict between lions for leadership of the pride is just that. It is for leadership of the social group which is the basis of its survival. The hunting is done by the females and is done cooperatively. The Lion provides cohesion and protection for the pride. Sexual privilege is part of the office and cohesion. Research has shown that the females often have sex with non alpha males in the bush.
There are sources of conflict in any system. God has set up ways to limit and handle this conflict do it does not destroy to community and can even enhance it. However it is NOT true that “all is fair in love or war.”
As I have said, there is only one way that nature selects in terms of evolution and that is adaption. If a organism is well adapted to its environment, it will survive and flourish. If it is not, it will stagnate and die out. Symbiosis is the standard for this process. Yes, bullies might seem to flourish for a while, but without strong social roots they will not last.
I maintain that science is not what scientists say it is, but what is scientifically verified. The strongest proponent of that view Karl Popper strongly maintained that Natural Selection as survival of the fittest or selection based on conflict was a tautology which was not verified. Even when he has forced to retreat from this position, Popper said that Survival of the Fittest was a HYPOTHESIS that had not been verified, rather than a theory which had been. I agree and observe that even with this time, it has net been verified. .
Dawkins tries to replace instincts with the concept of memes. Memes are extensions of genes, so they are not rational, able to think. Instincts are knowledge that takes place without thinking as people think.
However all organisms have some kind of nervous system. Plants instinctively seek light, water, and nutrients. Animals learn from others how to hunt and perform other important tasks through instinct and experience. Exactly how this works, we cannot say, except our ability to experience, learn, and think is not based on our genes, but on how ancestors, human and nonhuman. developed over the millennia.
Both Darwin and Dawkins chose to construct an evolutionary process that doers not depend on a rational plan or design. To some extent they fell for the false dichotomy that life is either totally determined or totally by chance. They were correct in saying that life is not totally determined. They are wrong in saying it is totally by chance.
Speaking of sexual selection I just came across an article in the Boston Globe, June 26, 2016 by a Washington Post writer, Sarah Kaplan entitled Gross. Beautiful. And essential to promoting biodiversity. The article tells how scientific studies tell how male crustaceans use bioluminescent vomit to attract females and promote diversity.
