tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859094080858570248.post2621664931914233120..comments2024-03-28T13:00:43.523+05:30Comments on Rapid Uplift: Old People and a Silly Press ReleaseSuvrat Kherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18281172632784780810noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859094080858570248.post-33323042650136794592007-09-23T11:22:00.000+05:302007-09-23T11:22:00.000+05:30sure. my objection is not that behaviors or traits...sure. my objection is not that behaviors or traits do not benefit the group, but that they evolved <I>because</I> they are of benefit to the group. I agree with your "selfish gene" statement. In many cases the "interests" of the genes coincide with the interests of the group.Suvrat Kherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281172632784780810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859094080858570248.post-74327823366721673052007-09-23T10:34:00.000+05:302007-09-23T10:34:00.000+05:30Ha ha, well spotted! The group selection statement...Ha ha, well spotted! The group selection statement is something which caught my attention as well.<BR/><BR/>While I agree that the stamenent is very misleading, one can indirectly justify the statement, using the selfish gene theory that Dawkins discussed in his book.<BR/><BR/>IMO, ultimately genes are a set of chemical molecules which have the property of acting as replicators, and the survival of a gene depends on whether it is able to replicate. Now, if there is a mutation in a gene such that phenotype in the "machine" which carries the gene is able to act altruistically to other machines which carry the same gene, then it is beneficial to the survival of the individual gene. So, altruism, and survival of the species of a whole (where the members of the species carry similar genes), can be explained in terms of the survival (ie, replication) of individual genes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com