Re: "crime gene"-was it founs??

From: Tim Tyler (tim_at_tt1lock.org)
Date: 09/07/04

  • Next message: Michael Ragland: "Re: Review of The Extended Phenotype" 
    Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:31:51 +0000 (UTC)

    Wirt Atmar <wirtatmar@aol.com> wrote or quoted:
    > Tim writes:

    > >As he says, his interpretation is an "absurdity".
    > >But Gould is attacking a straw man of his own making.
    > >Nobody using the "gene for X" terminology was ever
    > >asserting that single genes determined behaviour -
    > >and Gould should have been aware of that.
    >
    > That's not quite true. Any number of authors have made similar statements.
    > Dawkins, for example, wrote quite explicitly the following in pages 64-66 of
    > his book, "The selfish gene":
    >
    > "Honey bees suffer from an infectious disease called foul brood. This attacks
    > the grubs in their cells. Of the domestic breeds used by beekeepers, some are
    > more at risk from foul brood than others, and it turns, out the difference
    > between strains is, at least in some cases, a behavioural one. There are
    > so-called hygenic strains which quickly stamp out epidemics by locating
    > infected grubs, pulling them from their cells and throwing them out of the
    > hive. The susceptible strains are susceptible because they do not practise this
    > hygenic infanticide... Rothenbuhler surmised that there might be two separate
    > genes, one gene for uncapping, and one gene for throwing out... This story
    > illustrates a number of important points... It shows that it can be perfectly
    > proper to speak of 'a gene for behaviour so-and-so.'"

    That does not appear to be an example of someone claiming that
    single genes solely determine traits or behaviours - without
    interactions with other genes or the environment.

    All genes interact with other genes and with the environment
    during the course of their expression - no single gene is
    solely responsible for anything.

    It's the difference between "influence" and "determine". Genes
    /influence/ traits - but they don't /determine/ them - since
    other factors are always involved in building an organism. 

    -- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim@tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
  • Next message: Michael Ragland: "Re: Review of The Extended Phenotype"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Lyme disease: ancient engine of an unrecognized borreliosis pandemic?
      ... First off we can separate the strains. ... intergenic spacers, fla and OspA genes. ... Borellia bacteria store their hereditary information on ...
      (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
    • Re: "crime gene"-was it founs??
      ... >> genes, nor do genes alone build particular items of anatomy ... > for X" terminology was ever asserting that single genes determined ... > behaviour - and Gould should have been aware of that. ... that their opponents are thinking of a single gene "for" a complex ...
      (sci.bio.evolution)
    • Re: "crime gene"-was it founs??
      ... >But Gould is attacking a straw man of his own making. ... between strains is, at least in some cases, a behavioural one. ... genes, one gene for uncapping, and one gene for throwing out... ...
      (sci.bio.evolution)