Our library has the new edition so I might be game. How long is the book?
Speaking of genes:
How do you tell male chromosomes from female chromosomes?
Pull down their genes.
1 Like
My copy is pretty bulky paperback (540+ pages!) but I think at least 1/5 is the notes at the back. I was thinking of an actual book group here in MA but now you have me thinking of doing it by blog? That could be fun.
[deleted joke about something running in the jeans]
1 Like
Sometimes we do book discussions here on BL.
From your excellent article
One byproduct of the NDMS and its strong emphasis on the effects of genes in controlling all of life is the philosophical view of genetic determinism. This is sometimes referred to as a gene-centric (or even “selfish gene”) approach to biology. This sort of determinism has been problematic for philosophers, social scientists, and theologians for quite some time.
The paragraph talks about gene determinism or The Selfish Gene which as you say is a byproduct of neoDarwinism. That is the problem that I have with NDMS and the solution is ecological input through Natural Selection so that genes alone do not determine evolution, but genes through alleles in relationship to the environment determine evolution.
If you or @sfmatheson or @glipsnort or @BradKramer, or anyone else has a problem with this, fine. Let’s discuss it.
It is a scientific issue that has strong philosophical implications as Dawkins clearly understands. As you seem to indicate NDMS is on the way out.
Lead me not into temptation…
1 Like
We shall see!
My edition of the Selfish Gene is the 2006 “thirtieth anniversary” edition, which seems to be very similar to yours.
I read your review of The Extended Phenotype. Critics of Niche Construction Theory say that this view is a rip off of the Extended Phenotype. It would seem that they address the same issue to some extent. If so Niche Construction Theory does the better job.
My problem with Dawkins and the Selfish Gene is with what Sy called his gene centric and what he has called the gene’s eye point of view. It seems that the Extended Phenotype tries to extend that concept some, but as long as Dawkins says that DNA is the Alpha and Omega of life, ecology does not play an important role in evolution.
A serious problem with the views of Dawkins is that nowhere does he begin to explain how intelligence came into being. This is inline with his view that the universe is not rational.
Fortunately ecological natural selection is in a position to explain this.
You are doing it again.
If a tetrapod evolves into a mammal… and one branch of the mammals evolves into a whale … does that mean it is no longer a mammal?
It can’t be Both, right ???
Of course it can both. And the common ancestor Grandmother Dinosaur for the T-Rex and for Birds … if you were to patiently tell her that her great great great-nth power descendants are not dinosaurs like her … they were just Birds … they couldn’t be both … she would eat you in a single bite. And rightly so…
What is wrong with being a bird?
But you said that they couldn’t be Both Birds and Dinosaurs.
That is like saying that Whales cannot be Both Whales and Mammals…
What is wrong with them being Both ?!?!?
You are both a human and a mammal. You are not a human, a bird, and a mammal.
Humans are not birds by definition, just are dinosaurs are not birds by definition. Birds are not dinosaurs also by the same fact. If all life forms have a common ancestor (this statement is not to put that fact in question, that does not make all life forms one-celled algae or whatever the original form was.
Thank you for this clarification.
Wait a minute … I’m confused. So what are you george?! Some other creature who has evolved communication skills? This will seriously mess with our discussions about what personhood means.
I thought only human beings were allowed to participate in this forum! Moderators!
3 Likes
Do you think George could be a Cylon?
1 Like
Well, a Cylon interested in science-faith issues among earthlings would be a real curiousity – in infiltrator perhaps? I don’t want to assume false motives unnecessarily here.
I know Universalist Unitarians probably welcome all creatures, even if they aren’t mammals, birds, or fish into their services — wanting to be inclusive and all that; but Cylons!!? I thought we Mennonites had the whole “loving your enemy” shtick down, but I’ve never seen a Cylon in any Mennonite church and quite frankly I think most of our Anabaptist services draw the line on letting in any inter-galactic battle bots. Not for full membership, anyway. And they certainly wouldn’t be allowed to teach Sunday School. If the UUs have gone this cross-cultural then I’m prepared to be impressed!
There are many copies. One model was even a priest.
The @moderators haven’t come up with a Cylon-specific policy yet, we’ll address it at our next meeting.
2 Likes
Many Cylons tend to make many copies of the same post. And the post usually starts with the word “Many.”
Having primarily resided in the alternate universe of Star Trek, I will have to defer to my learned colleagues regarding Cylons, but I do suspect some Ferengis in our midst.
1 Like
Human Units … this YouTube video is called The Hand of God.
It explains many things that Humans will not understand: