Sunday, February 04, 2007

How many F's in Evolution?

Richard Dawkins famously promotes the "selfish gene" as the replicator on which all others rely. That individual genes are critical to survival is undoubtedly true. But a gene on its own is just a bunch of chemicals: it would quickly be eaten by a more organised entity. A genome on its own, no matter how large and complex, is just a larger bunch of chemicals, so would quickly be etc..

For everything, there is a context. A gene is just food, except in the context of its genome, which in turn is not a genome except in the context of its cell. And the cell...

... is a much more complex thing entirely. Let's instead use the broader concept of "organism".

And the organism is never alone. Most of them cannot replicate alone either. A gene in a genome in an organism that cannot mate is a gene without a future.

The apparent paradox is that our "selfish" genes must comply with our social needs in order to replicate.

The problem here is the word "selfish", defined in the dictionary as "a lack of consideration for others". A gene, being just a bunch of chemicals, has no consideration whatsoever, of it's "self" or of anything else. Likewise for the genome. The organism tho', even at the level of the single cell, is capable of discrimination; if only between its insides and the outside. Organisms can be selfish: genes are merely dumb.

But we are at their mercy, nonetheless.

And that, I think, is Richard Dawkin's point. Evolution is a game of chance, where a throw of the genes places limits on the capabilities of, and exposes new areas of opportunity for, the next generation. Those dumb genes that happen to work for this generation get another throw: those that don't, die.

"Feed, fight, fuck, and flee:
Do what it takes to make more 'we'!"

Distant tho' the relationship is, involving many subtle phase shifts etc. along the way, 'we' rely on those dumb genes.

Until one day, long long ago, those dumb genes happened upon the fifth 'F', changing the nature (pun intended) of the game ...

{to be continued...}

No comments: