Absolutely wonderful. I've always had a suspicion there was something more to the whole concept, but that's to be expected because of how extremely complex evolution is. They stated it well later in the article: Do you think this is because of how hard scientists already have to work in the field to even have the general public accept evolution already, or simply because it frames it for them, as scientists, as a way to finally make sense of a frustratingly difficult process?‘The gene does not lead,’ she says. ‘It follows.’
It’s easy to see why [many biologists stick to the gene-centric model]: even though life is a zillion bits of biology repeatedly rearranging themselves in a webwork of constantly modulated feedback loops, the selfish-gene model offers a step-by-step account as neat as a three-step flow chart. Gene, trait, phenotype, done.
I think this article is fantastic (that's why I shared) but we have to be careful now not to just throw out the idea of the "selfish gene". Remember, in the article itself Dobbs states as much: The gene is still the lowest, indivisible, organic unit of selection in biological evolution (as we understand it on Earth). No evidence from genetics (thus far) changes this. The gene is still selfish, even if there are biological phenomena like gene expression which allow selfish genes to behave according to larger sets of rules within the "social genome". From my understanding it sort of works in a similar way to how humans behave in society. Individual humans are selfish (as everything is in a primordial sense). However, we also have evolved as social animals and get intrinsic rewards for being altruistic. So we are selfish in a very complex social environment, and this means that being altruistic is itself technically being selfish. E.g., We don't like being lonely. We can get more accomplished in large networks. This is fundamentally why we we are nice to people/collaborate with people. Because we can get something out of it for ourselves. So even though genes can express themselves ("be read") in different ways causing phenotypic changes (i.e., you don't necessarily need the emergence of a new gene to drive evolution) the gene still causes itself to become passed on (even if it was "following" instead of "leading". I guess at the end of the day I have to say that a new synthesis should not exclude the "selfish gene" as a useful concept or metaphor. But we do need to recognize that evolution is not just driven by "gene, trait, phenotype". That is obviously wrong. At the end of the day though, I can't help but recall this classic Dawkins quote when people try to marginalize The Selfish Gene as a fundamental contribution to modern biology:Wray and West-Eberhard don’t say that Dawkins is dead wrong. They and other evolutionary theorists [...] have been calling for an ‘extended modern synthesis’ for more than two decades. They do so even though they agree with most of what Dawkins says a gene does.
I can see how the title 'The Selfish Gene' could be misunderstood, especially by those philosophers who prefer to read a book by title only, omitting the rather extensive footnote which is the book itself.
I love articles that argue convincingly for a new paradigm. There is likely much more to gene expression than is visible to the Mendelian eye. This makes a lot of sense. Most appealing about this article is the author's implication that there are many things we don't yet understand, rather than the one-theory-fits-all assumptions about genetics. btw, while reading the story of the grasshopper/locust gene expression, I couldn't help thinking about the violin/fiddle.But the new gene didn’t create the new trait. It just made it easier to keep a trait that a change in the environment made valuable. The gene didn’t drive the train; it merely hopped aboard. Had the gene showed up earlier (either through mutation or mating with an outsider), back when you lived in the forest and speed didn’t mean anything, it would have given no advantage. Instead of being selected for and spreading, the gene would have disappeared or remained in just a few animals. But because the gene was now of value, the population took it in, accommodated it, and spread it wide.
In other words, a mutation might occur after an organism has accommodated an environmental change. The mutation sticks because it is relevant.
I really enjoyed the grasshopper/locust story as well. btw, while reading the story of the grasshopper/locust gene expression, I couldn't help thinking about the violin/fiddle.
-What do you mean by this? Is it that a violin can be a fiddle as well? That depends on whose hands it's in, right?
That's what I thought you meant. But the analogy doesn't quite work because the violin itself is still, physically, the same object. I'm just cranky today. sorry.
I don't see how this is incompatible with the Selfish Gene. I thought selfish gene theory described why organisms seek to reproduce, and why altruism and selfishness both act together to further the organism and it's genes along. It described why life does what it does, and that genetics was the driving influence of all that, not individual genes.But the new gene didn’t create the new trait. It just made it easier to keep a trait that a change in the environment made valuable. The gene didn’t drive the train; it merely hopped aboard. Had the gene showed up earlier (either through mutation or mating with an outsider), back when you lived in the forest and speed didn’t mean anything, it would have given no advantage. Instead of being selected for and spreading, the gene would have disappeared or remained in just a few animals. But because the gene was now of value, the population took it in, accommodated it, and spread it wide.
A lot of fluff around the central point which doesn't seem incredibly impressive... How is he defining "gene"? The coding region of the sequence that directly leads to the final protein product? The sequences for transcription factors and RNAi pathways that define when to activate or inhibit that other sequence? The sequences for the various methyl and acetyltransferases that increase or decrease the accessibility of that sequence for transcription? Other bits and pieces that we just don't know that much about yet? How does you change its own gene expression? Do you rely on epigenetic modifications to DNA / histones? Do learn to change your behavior and train your kids on that? These flexible aspects of your genome are usually encoded in some source gene one way or another, down to those that support sexual over asexual reproduction. And on top that, the example with mate matching selects for the genes in the population that just produced the better hunters in the new context. And speed isn't exactly a one-gene phenotype, it's going to be affected by spots all over the genome, some of which work together in combination, of which don't. Some of which encode the muscle fibers, some of which control those other gene expression. As an aside, I think a much more better illustration of the concept of a "selfish gene," are transposons, which repeatedly replicate (usually-useless) sequences all over the genome and are carried on, like flies on a beast's back, from generation to generation as long as they don't cause trouble.First, an organism (or a bunch of organisms, a population) changes its functional form — its phenotype — by making broad changes in gene expression. Second, a gene emerges that happens to help lock in that change in phenotype. Third, the gene spreads through the population.
You start running down these critters. As you do, certain genes ramp up expression to build more muscle and fire the muscles more quickly. You get faster. You’re becoming a different animal. You mate with another fast hunter, and your kids, hunting with you from early on, soon run faster than you ever did.
I have serious doubts about this piece. The selfish gene theory works extremely well for most organisms. Some genes are switched on, some are switched off. It happens all the time. (Most famously in caterpllars that turn into butterflies) The genes don't change themselves. The code for what they call "gene expression" is located in the genes themselves and I believe that if a gene were to "rewrite" itself, a copy of the original will be available for procreation.
Me too, mostly because the author tries to set rapid gene expression up as a parallel alternative to current gene theory while giving only a couple of tetchy examples. I'm absolutely sure that listening to a Dawkins seminar would convince me wholeheartedly that he's right all over again, just like when I read the Selfish Gene five years ago.
Well the selfish gene hypothesis was a thought experiment to begin with, and a damn good one. It's not supposed to be an all encompassing theory of biology, as far as I know. It's a thought experiment insofar as Dawkins's idea was to take us back to the dawn of proto-life and to envision how those molecules might have competed with one another. And, if organisms grew from such beginnings, what should we expect to see today? It is a relevant exercise, and I fail to see how it's been put to rest.
I expressed the same concerns, as has PZ Myers. Although it was a thought provoking piece, we can't do away with the idea of the selfish gene or the idea that the gene is the key fundamental driver of evolutionary processes.