[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This debate still goes on in scientific circles, but I remind you that
> Darwin himself looked on genes (although not in those terms) as
> being selfish.
Of course he did. That's the kind of thinking that I believe needs to
change. I'm regard Darwin as making great progress, but great progress
remains to be made.
Well of course Darwin knew nothing of genes. He thought that organisms
compete (they do). He did stress competition over cooperation (all that
Malthus stuff) since it was the key intellectual breakthrough for him..
As I have said before I think the problem is to a certain extent a linguistic
one. It is useful to think of genes as competing or cooperating, that is as
being conscious agents who can choose to behave one way or another. But this
is not true. Genes do not choose to compete or cooperate. They do nothing
conscious so there is no difference from the gene's point of view between
cooperating and competing. If the biochemical consequences of a gene's
structure favor its replication then this structure will increase in the
population.
