Paradigm Shift: Holistic Darwinism VS the Selfish Gene

[joshua 1 9]

In Dawkins 1976 book: The Selfish Gene, it was never a question that Dawkins would be proven wrong. The only question was when and where would he be proven wrong.

Holistic Darwinism: the new evolutionary paradigm and some implications for political science. - PubMed - NCBI

Even this debate goes back to Harvard Professors: biologist Ernst Mayr and
Stephen Jay Gould who challenged the Modern Synthesis.

It all comes down to the battle between theistic and atheistic evolution. For example if you follow Gould's Paradigm you would be told that if evolution could start all over again from the beginning the results would be totally different. Under Evo Devo the results are always going to be the same because there are so many factors that would remain consistent and unchanged. All the natural laws for example.

When we have conflicting views and paradigms the usual reason is that one is a counterfeit and a hijacked forgery of the real and accurate paradigm. The Bible is a book of Paradigms and in the Bible we find the true and accurate patterns to follow.

As a footnote the fact that the Bible is literal could be secondary to the fact that the Bible is a type, pattern, blueprint or a Paradigm that is accurate and that we can follow in modern times. A literal Bible is just icing on the cake to show how powerful God really is. The real substance is the lessons we learn and how we apply them to our lives today.

 

[Willby]

As Dawkins himself said its useful to read beyond the title of the book. He has also stated time and again that he could have easily called it 'The Cooperative Gene'.
Sadly some people have twisted it to say he was talking about genes FOR selfishness, either to justify their political beliefs or to try and discredit Dawkins.
He was offering genecentric view of evolution where the gene is the 'unit' of evolution, the book makes it clear that genes exist in an environment of other genes.
I haven't read the paper you link to only the abstract but it does not seem incompatible with what Dawkins actully writes.

Evo Devo does not imply that rerunning evolution would come up with the same results. Just that some of the same 'solutions' may arise in response to those unchange constraints. This is not a particularly novel idea.

Oh and Gould's opposition to the 'modern synthesis' was not that profound. Punctuated Equilibium is in my experience very often misrepresented as some kind of 'saltation' model when it isn't.

EDIT: Im not saying Dawkins didn't get anything wrong, he wrote it decades ago you would expect the subject to have been expanded upon since.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The Cooperative Gene

The selfish gene could have been called the cooperative gene? This is what they call double talk. But if that is where you want to go then you need to answer the questions: Why are selfish genes so often co-operative? Why have selfish genes combined with one another over time to produce complex, interdependent systems?

The Co-Operative Gene: On The Role of Synergy in Evolution | Institute for the Study of Complex Systems

Dawkins admits to the dual view, he just claims they are different perspectives. If that is the case then you should be able to reconcile the differences.

(Dawkins builds upon the principal theory of George C. Williams's Adaptation and Natural Selection (1966). This is known as gene-centered view of evolution. The issue here is synergy in evolution know as coevolution. Darwin mentions this evolutionary interactions in his book.)

 

[Willby]

The selfish gene could have been called the cooperative gene? This is what they call double talk.

Remember its a popular science book, the title is essentially metaphor.
The point is to you try to understand genecentric evolution by thinking of genes as if they were selfish entities. In this case often the best way for a gene to get the best outcome for its own replication is to cooperate with other genes. If you read 'The Selfish Gene' are large part of it is explaining exactly how 'selfish' genes would end up 'cooperating' to produce complex, inderpendent systems.
Just don't forget that genes arn't really selfish or cooperating, these are metaphors to help us humans get our heads around it.

Below is a quote from your link.

'As Dawkins observed in one of the less frequently quoted but more important passages of The Selfish Gene, the genes are not really free and independent agents: “They collaborate and interact in inextricably complex ways, both with each other and with their external environment…Building a leg is a multi-gene co-operative enterprise” (1989[1976]:37). To underscore this point, Dawkins employed a metaphor from rowing: “One oarsman on his own cannot win the Oxford and Cambridge boat race. He needs eight colleagues…Rowing the boat is a co-operative venture” (p.38). Furthermore, Dawkins noted: “One of the qualities of a good oarsman is teamwork, the ability to fit in and co-operate with the rest of the crew” (p.39)'

I really don't see where the issue is. Honest question, have you read The Selfish Gene?

 

[joshua 1 9]

EDIT: Im not saying Dawkins didn't get anything wrong, he wrote it decades ago you would expect the subject to have been expanded upon since.

Yet Moses gave us the Bible over 3500 years ago and has remained unchanged in all that time. (1571 bce)

Goulds co author: Eldredge is a critic of the gene-centered view of evolution. His most recent venture is the development of an alternative account to the gene-based notions of evolutionary psychology to explain human behavior.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Remember its a popular science book, the title is essentially metaphor. .....................I really don't see where the issue is. Honest question, have you read The Selfish Gene?

It would appear that the issue is the difference between a metaphor (non literal) and paradigm (model, typical example). Right now I am reading the "popular" book Paradigm, so I am prepared to deal with that subject. This explains how we can apply ancient stories to modern events. This is an exact and literal way without the use of non literal metaphors that are subject to interpretation that could makes them less objective. I have looked into the madness behind Dawkins and he is interesting. Which explains why he is a popular author. He likes to try to play the role of nemesis or antithesis.

 

[Willby]

One of the big debates within evolutionary biology is about the levels at which selection works, I am in the camp that only gene level selection can really 'work'. However I welcome healthy and robust debate on the issue.
The levels at which selection works and various 'ways of viewing' how selection works are not quite the same thing.

What I object to is misrepresentation and I found 'In Dawkins 1976 book: The Selfish Gene, it was never a question that Dawkins would be proven wrong. The only question was when and where would he be proven wrong.' not to be an accurate description of the disagreemnts about view points of evolution.

I ask again if you have read 'The Selfish Gene' because I don't think it is about what you think it is about.

 

[joshua 1 9]

One of the big debates within evolutionary biology is about the levels at which selection works, I am in the camp that only gene level selection can really 'work'. However I welcome healthy and robust debate on the issue.
The levels at which selection works and various 'ways of viewing' how selection works are not quite the same thing.

What I object to is misrepresentation and I found 'In Dawkins 1976 book: The Selfish Gene, it was never a question that Dawkins would be proven wrong. The only question was when and where would he be proven wrong.' not to be an accurate description of the disagreemnts about view points of evolution.

I ask again if you have read 'The Selfish Gene' because I don't think it is about what you think it is about.

Ok, I will look into it some more. So what you object to is the peer reviewed article that I am referring to? Things can be reconciled. I was married in Hong Kong: "where the west meets the east". Sense my marriage represents two cultures, I know that things can be reconciled. Although my son is a lot smarter then I am and he understands things a lot better then I do.

 

[Willby]

Off topic I know but that photo brought a smile to my face, happiness appears to be contagous!

 

[Willby]

Back on topic it's not that I object to the article, I read the abstract as I could not access the whole thing.
I'm not sure what you think it says, it is from the journal 'Politics and Life Science' and the sub-title is
'The new evolutionary paradigm and some implications for political science'. (Emphasis mine).

From this abstract I see no Dawkins being proven wrong.

 

[joshua 1 9]

From this abstract I see no Dawkins being proven wrong.

That is what a paradigm shift is. It is a shift from one paradigm to another one. Out with the old and in with the new.

 

[Willby]

That is what a paradigm shift is. It is a shift from one paradigm to another one. Out with the old and in with the new.

You will need to help me out here.
What do you think was the original paradigm and what is the new one we have shifted to?

 

[joshua 1 9]

You will need to help me out here.
What do you think was the original paradigm and what is the new one we have shifted to?

Let me see if I understand what you are saying. We are talking about one man: "Peter Corning" who is having an issue with Dawkins book "The selfish Gene". So far Dawkins is back stroking and saying that the book should have been called the "Cooperative Gene". That would look like he Dawkins is trying to work with Corning's Synergism Hypothesis.

An example of Dawkins selfish gene would be a gay aunt. The only way she can reproduce her genes maybe though a nephew or niece. This explains gene survival, but it does not explain gene complexity. This does not explain how a simple system evolves into a complex system. That requires synergy or the cooperation between genes. Even altruism where a gene will sacrifice itself for the sake of the complex system. Take animals in winter for example. The animal that gets along well with others can go to them for heat. There is a 40% reduction in the energy needed for cats that huddle compared to being off on their own apart from the hurd. So synergy explains interaction in complex systems not the selfish gene theory.

Amazon review: "In recent years, evolutionary theorists have come to recognize that the reductionist, individualist, gene-centered approach to evolution cannot sufficiently account for the emergence of complex biological systems over time. Peter A. Corning has been at the forefront of a new generation of complexity theorists who have been working to reshape the foundations of evolutionary theory. Well known for his Synergism Hypothesis—a theory of complexity in evolution that assigns a key causal role to various forms of functional synergy—Corning puts this theory into a much broader framework in Holistic Darwinism, addressing many of the issues and concepts associated with the evolution of complex systems. Corning's paradigm embraces and integrates many related theoretical developments of recent years, from multilevel selection theory to niche construction theory, gene-culture coevolution theory, and theories of self-organization. Offering new approaches to thermodynamics, information theory, and economic analysis, Corning suggests how all of these domains can be brought firmly within what he characterizes as a post–neo-Darwinian evolutionary synthesis."

In a world of conservatives and liberals, if you got a plan for how they can work together then perhaps you should bring that to the table.

 

[Willby]

I did ask earlier if you have read the 'Selfish Gene' from what you write I dont think you have.
As someone who has read it I disagrre with your 'back stroking' comment. To clarify Dawkins didn't say he should have called it the Cooperative Gene he says he could have, I believe his preffered title was the Immortal Gene. If you read the book you will see why. He has also suggested other possible titles below is a quote from a 2006 interview about the 300th Anniversery edition of The Selfish Gene.

“...If I had to write it again, I wouldn’t write it very differently. It has been described as a revolutionary book, in one respect it is. But it’s only a revolutionary way in looking at orthodox Darwinian natural selection. It helps to look at it in this revolutionary way. It could equally well have been called “the Altruistic Animal,” because if you have selfish genes, which only means that natural selection works at the level of the gene; if you have selfish genes, then you may have altruistic individuals. And that’s what the book is about.”

As to Corning, I'm not really familiar with him and havn't read his books. I
did read the ISCS blog post you linked to by him.

The Co-Operative Gene: On The Role of Synergy in Evolution | Institute for the Study of Complex Systems

I found it well written and thought provoking, I would like more explination of mechanisms etc but even if he's right I wouldn't call it a pardigm shift, to me it seems to be more a change in emphasis.

Below is a quote from the conclusion, hardly a rejection of the 'Selfish Gene'.

'So, why are selfish genes so often co-operative? The answer, it has been suggested here, is that, because of the synergies that may result, co-operation represents an often advantageous survival strategy; it may be a way to compete more effectively. The paradox, however, is that by co-operating in the pursuit of their own interests, co-operative genes may also advance the interests of others. Moreover, invention has become the mother of necessity. Selfish genes have come to be dependent upon one another.'


As to that Amazon review, alot of snazzy words and fluff but little substance.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I found it well written and thought provoking, I would like more explanation of mechanisms etc but even if he's right I wouldn't call it a paradigm shift, to me it seems to be more a change in emphasis.

It looks to me like you are saying: "alot of snazzy words and fluff but little substance." If Corning is a lot of pomp and circumstance, then I can see where you would like to try to establish Hawkings because evolutionary theory would fall apart real quick. A house divided cannot stand. I ordered his book and it will be here monday. I will see for myself if Hawking's book fails to show how complex systems evolve.

We did show synergies in that animals that huddle together conserve energy. But to show survival mechanisms does not show the evolution of complexity.

 

[Willby]

Sorry if I was unclear.
The 'snazzy and fluff' was aimed at that Amazon review not Corning's article which as I said I found interesting.

When you say Hawkins do you mean Dawkins?
Dawkins is just one guy, the field of Evolutionary Biology is a lot larger than him. It doesn't rest or fall on his shoulders.
That said he has written what I consider some well written and thought out books.
The Extended Phenotype had a significant impact on my thinking when I read it as an undergraduate.

You do realise that Corning is also just one guy, who I don't think is saying what you think he is saying.
Corning is after all an 'Evolutionist'.

I'll be honest here you seem to be clutching at straws.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I don't think is saying what you think he is saying.

Try Jstor, I was able to access the article there. I think it is worth reading. With the increase in understanding in the area of evo devo (embryology), that is going to affect all of evolutionary theory. It is time to resurrect group selection and start to put to rest individual (selfish) gene theory.

We read in Deuteronomy 7:7 that God works with Israel as a group. Even they were the least or fewest of all people. "The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers,"

God began with Adam and Eve and then He worked through Abraham. He told Abraham: "I will make you into a great nation," Genesis 12:2. He told Hagar that God "will make a great nation" of Ishmael. Genesis 17:20

Holistic Darwinism: The New Evolutionary Paradigm and Some Implications for Political Science on JSTOR

 

[Willby]

OK I think I get your point but I disagree.
A few points.
1) Group selection is rejected by the majority of biologists, some do think it might be significant in certain circumstances eg social insects. Others think kin selection is sufficent here.
2) The consensus view is that selection happens at the level of the individual.
3) The gene centred view (aka selfish gene) of selection is still conscidered usefull by the majority of biologists.
4) Corining appears to be not so much rejecting the Selfish Gene as saying it is insufficient.
5) Corning is not widly accepted as right, I could find little evdience that his ideas have any traction within biology.
6) Evo Devo is not new and has affected evolutionary theory, it in no way undermines it but builds upon it.
7) Any disagreement that occurs about levels of selection etc is about the details of the mechanisms. Natural selection, common ancestry etc are still the best explinations based on the evidence and remain central to our understanding of life on Earth.

There is no fuel for the creationist here.

 

[joshua 1 9]

OK I think I get your point but I disagree.
A few points.
1) Group selection is rejected by the majority of biologists, some do think it might be significant in certain circumstances eg social insects. Others think kin selection is sufficent here.
2) The consensus view is that selection happens at the level of the individual.
3) The gene centred view (aka selfish gene) of selection is still conscidered usefull by the majority of biologists.
4) Corining appears to be not so much rejecting the Selfish Gene as saying it is insufficient.
5) Corning is not widly accepted as right, I could find little evdience that his ideas have any traction within biology.
6) Evo Devo is not new and has affected evolutionary theory, it in no way undermines it but builds upon it.
7) Any disagreement that occurs about levels of selection etc is about the details of the mechanisms. Natural selection, common ancestry etc are still the best explinations based on the evidence and remain central to our understanding of life on Earth.

There is no fuel for the creationist here.

Contraire - The whole point of God's selection of Israel is to show that He is God. This is why Israel was referred to as God's chosen people. We have people like Dawkins that will testify that this is not God's natural way of doing things. You testify that this is not God's natural way.

IF you want to prove there is a God then you have to avoid the strawman. We have a covenant relationship that God establishes with us. If we do our part then we can be sure He will do His part and this is how we can "test" for God. Malachi 3:10b " Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it." We are to try, test or prove God in ways that He establishes for us. Why did God do a work in a nation so small as Israel? "the LORD loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers" Deu 7:6

We also see this in the days of Noah when the people tested God when 'The wickedness of man was great in the earth' and the flood gates of the sky were opened and the earth was flooded. This is how we determine that mankind was created by God as a special being, made in God's image.

1. 'The wickedness of man was great in the earth' (v. 5).
2. 'Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually' (v. 5).
3. 'The earth was filled with violence' (v. 11).
4. 'The earth...was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth' (v. 12).

So evolutionary theory can be a thesis as in Collins version of theistic evolution. Or an antithesis as in Dawkins brand of evolutionary theory. According to Cahn - The nemesis then becomes a part of the Paradigm and this then becomes evidence for God.

Does this help to clarify the point I was trying to make? If we understand the paradigm then we will know every event before it takes place. We will know when and where the event well take place using the Paradigm we find in the Bible. (according to Cahn)

 

[joshua 1 9]

5) Corning is not widely accepted as right, I could find little evidence that his ideas have any traction within biology.

We are dealing with a peer reviewed article. So the argument is really with the person that Corning is quoting. Clearly he spends lots of time reading lots of books about Evolution. That is why he has lots and lots of footnotes.

Bishops Usshers book has over 12,000 footnotes for reference in addition to the over 2,000 quotes from the Bible. That is what makes his book a classic for over 500 years. Dawkins was able to build on Wilson's work. If someone is not correct then we end up with a lot of dead ends.