Re: [Sci.nanotech] Re: Nano Morality



rhooker123@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
I was only able to find one grammer error so I must imagine that I
failed to say what I meant.

You might also want to look into using a spell checker -- I imagine
spelling grammar incorrectly was not your intent.

Firstly I assume the idea of the selfish gene, we are just gene
carriers. Genes used to survive by crafting beings, animals mostly,
but this was slow. Bacteria is both the most successfull creature on
earth and the only ones who can move genetic information laterally.

Actually, there is substantial evidence of genes hopping between
eukaryotes, sometimes mediated by viruses.

Human culture is an innovation by genes to produce greater information
innovation, and with the advance in culture individuals are of less and
less importance as cultures become the means by which genes insure
their survival.

I think that position is indefensible from an evolutionary biology
standpoint. Evolution is always a single organism affair. Merely
because another individual is a member of the same culture does not
mean they are close to me genetically, so genes that would support
such a behavior pattern would not preferentially survive. This is in
contrast to genes that support altruism towards blood relatives. I'd
suggest reading "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins.

Members of a culture share most of the same genes

Not really, no. A random selection of a dozen inhabitants of, say, New
York is likely to show a considerable fraction of the genetic
variation on the planet. Strangers thus do not generally share the
same polymorphisms -- which is, of course, why it is safer to mate
with them. Were your theory correct, incest would be no worse than
other sorts of mating.

Selection pressure among the polymorphisms in the human genome clearly
continues to this day -- we see substantial evidence of that in
various computational biology studies.

so if a culture survives and developes the genes survive.

That really doesn't make much sense ab initio if you think about
it. If I develop a gene that makes me further the survival of
unrelated strangers versus my own, that gene is likely to die out
rather fast. Bear in mind that this is a contrast to promoting the
survival of siblings and such, since they have good odds of bearing
the same gene.

Perry

.

Relevant Pages

  • DNA and culture
    ... 19th-century historians were based on little more than prejudice. ... In a study of East Asians, Europeans and Africans, Pritchard and his ... Many of the reshaped genes are involved in taste, smell or digestion, ... Funnel Beaker Culture that thrived 5,000 to 6,000 years ago. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Do racial or cultural groups differ in character?
    ... contribution to differences in personality between individuals will likely ... for any random Englishman to share more genes in common with a random ... Albanian than with another random Englishman. ... much from Devonians as Glaswegians do in terms of culture? ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Conservatism and Liberalism influenced by social environment before
    ... differing adaptations to human culture. ... We don't have genes for immigration ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: New York Times on natural selection
    ... the expression "change in allele frequency over time" is either ... colonises new territory further north than usual, the grey salami ... require genes, and it doesn't mean that anythng that has differential ... Culture is "epigenetic" transmission. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: IQ and race: maybe its environment
    ... you can view culture as being in large degree genetic, ... Monkeys have monkey culture because they have monkey genes. ... down's, autism, etc. Christ, heart disease, liver disease, maladies ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
Loading