cavarka9 wrote:

halucigenia wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:the gene centric view should also consider that genes are responsible for that misfiring as cooperation is good for the genes themselves.

If it's good for the genes, then it's not a misfiring is it?

Sorry ,I did not really understand much of the rest of your post.

exactly ,I remember watching a video of dawkins saying it as misfiring,

I do remember RD saying that we could go against what our genes were doing in a video and disagreeing with him on this point as he seemed to be contradicting himself that selfish genes do produce altruistic behaviour, I wonder if that is the same video?

cavarka9 wrote:also, one can never claim the use of the word misfiring at all,

Yes you could; An example of misfiring is given by Mr.Samsa in the possibility of the pleasure of orgasm giving rise to the behaviour of masturbation which does not benefit the genes.

cavarka9 wrote: because if as a behavior x or mutation x leads to death of an individual, then it could be because

1 the genes would prefer that by dieing the other sibling or the other counterpart in another individual(same species or otherwise) gets more resources and better chance of survival.

Yes, and as I understand it that is part of the theory. That is how altruism arises, because to be altruistic towards other members of the same species can still ensure that copies of the same genes are passed on, especially in kin. Hence, that would not be considered misfiring.

cavarka9 wrote:2 some genes within the individual have taken over, i.e. outcompeted other genes within the body and hence it leads to death of host, but its fine because genes are there in it for maximising themselves, they dont have brains.

That makes no sense, if competition between genes within a body lead to the death of the body then they are not maximising themselves are they? So the selfish gene theory would not propose that this would happen, would it? I don't see what not having brains has to do with it.

cavarka9 wrote:3 The issue of brains becomes meaningless, it sort of becomes genetic reductionism, that means, the idea of species competition, inter species competition, the emergence of complexity becomes redundant. there is no need of complex creatures.

But competition is the key, intra and inter species competition ensures that selection of the fittest individuals which contain the combination of genes that survive best in any given environment are the ones that get passed on. If the advantage is for the genes to build better brains then better brains will be built to ensure the survival of the genes. They obviously do not do it consciously, but the result is often increasing complexity.

I just love the quote "isn't a rhinoceros wonderfully roundabout way for genes to replicate themselves" (or something to that effect) a it sums it up nicely.

cavarka9 wrote:But dawkins I remember is for life leading to complexity.

But complexity can arise simply due to the fact that competition ensures that the genes are always "devising" new ways of keeping ahead of the game and ensuring that the vehicles that they find themselves in do survive so that they (the genes) can replicate themselves.

cavarka9 wrote:must get evidence, or does anyone else better at this?.

Evidence would be good but so far I think that you misunderstand the concept of selfish genes.

halucigenia wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

halucigenia wrote: If it's good for the genes, then it's not a misfiring is it?

Sorry ,I did not really understand much of the rest of your post.

exactly ,I remember watching a video of dawkins saying it as misfiring,

I do remember RD saying that we could go against what our genes were doing in a video and disagreeing with him on this point as he seemed to be contradicting himself that selfish genes do produce altruistic behaviour, I wonder if that is the same video?

Perhaps, perhaps I misunderstood the selfish gene too, in which case would like it to be clarified. But in any case one has to consider whether similar genes across species could be indulging in such cooperation or cooperation of different kinds, that could be possible, afterall, genes spreading across different species is maximizing their replication.

cavarka9 wrote:also, one can never claim the use of the word misfiring at all,

Yes you could; An example of misfiring is given by Mr.Samsa in the possibility of the pleasure of orgasm giving rise to the behaviour of masturbation which does not benefit the genes.

[/quote]

hmm, yes masturbation is a case except, considering that pleasure was an intrinsic way, a more probable way to ensure replication, the fact that the architecture for pleasure exists at all is due to genes and what the organism does with the pleasure box is for maximizing that pleasure. In which case we have something which goes against the gene reductionism.

There is also the issue of what factors in the brain are responsible for such a behaviour. couldnt it be that the genes meant for the development of that part of brain involving in pleasure sensing have taken over.
It is not necessary that genes only out compete each other, it could also be about specific genes being responsible for taking a greater amount of the organisms attention span/behaviour.

finally, the genes are by no chance misfiring even now, it is just that the macro architecture of the organism made it possible.

cavarka9 wrote: because if as a behavior x or mutation x leads to death of an individual, then it could be because

1 the genes would prefer that by dieing the other sibling or the other counterpart in another individual(same species or otherwise) gets more resources and better chance of survival.

Yes, and as I understand it that is part of the theory. That is how altruism arises, because to be altruistic towards other members of the same species can still ensure that copies of the same genes are passed on, especially in kin. Hence, that would not be considered misfiring.[/quote]
How exactly does this mechanism work?. How does the genes in the the ill individual know when to die?.

cavarka9 wrote:2 some genes within the individual have taken over, i.e. outcompeted other genes within the body and hence it leads to death of host, but its fine because genes are there in it for maximising themselves, they dont have brains.

That makes no sense, if competition between genes within a body lead to the death of the body then they are not maximising themselves are they? So the selfish gene theory would not propose that this would happen, would it? I don't see what not having brains has to do with it.[/quote]
why should it make sense,survival is not important, replication is!. consider cancer for example.

cavarka9 wrote:3 The issue of brains becomes meaningless, it sort of becomes genetic reductionism, that means, the idea of species competition, inter species competition, the emergence of complexity becomes redundant. there is no need of complex creatures.

But competition is the key, intra and inter species competition ensures that selection of the fittest individuals which contain the combination of genes that survive best in any given environment are the ones that get passed on. If the advantage is for the genes to build better brains then better brains will be built to ensure the survival of the genes. They obviously do not do it consciously, but the result is often increasing complexity.

I just love the quote "isn't a rhinoceros wonderfully roundabout way for genes to replicate themselves" (or something to that effect) a it sums it up nicely.
[/quote]
This is wrong, there is no need for complexity. Genes could just keep replicating themselves for all time to come not leading to complexity. I think other environmental pressures need to be taken into account, amount of available energy in the environment and other factors. We do not expect complex life say in asteroids or say mars.

cavarka9 wrote:But dawkins I remember is for life leading to complexity.

But complexity can arise simply due to the fact that competition ensures that the genes are always "devising" new ways of keeping ahead of the game and ensuring that the vehicles that they find themselves in do survive so that they (the genes) can replicate themselves.[/quote]

it is probable but not necessarily possible.

cavarka9 wrote:must get evidence, or does anyone else better at this?.

Evidence would be good but so far I think that you misunderstand the concept of selfish genes.[/quote]
perhaps. but I would add that the terminology "selfish gene" can be confusing. Does it imply gene reductionism in biology?. Not taking into account the physique of the organisms and other such factors, behaviours etc.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

halucigenia wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:the gene centric view should also consider that genes are responsible for that misfiring as cooperation is good for the genes themselves.

If it's good for the genes, then it's not a misfiring is it?

Sorry ,I did not really understand much of the rest of your post.

A trait/behavior can be a misfiring and good for the genes. Exaptations and spandrels can have positive effects on an organism and species even if they were not selected for (or cannot be selected upon). For example, being able to understand physics is not an evolved/innate trait, it's a by-product of a more general ability to learn, but obviously understanding physics can have positive effects on our lives.

With the altruism example, Dawkins suggests that the general rule "Be nice to everyone" came about because traditionally we used to travel in small tribal groups that mostly consisted of our own family (and thus genes) - so "Be nice to everyone" was a rule that ensured some replication of our genes. However, as our "tribes" and populations increased, our general altruism towards other people is a "misfiring" because the rule "Be nice to everyone" no longer serves the purpose it was intended for; to spread our genes (by helping our family survive).

I'm skeptical of Dawkins' claims though and I see no reason to think that altruism (within or outside families) is an evolved trait at all. It seems to me to be better explained as a derivation of our self-control processes, which in turn are a by-product of the "pleasure/pain" thing we discussed earlier. Some good papers on this idea:

Self-control and Social Cooperation - Brown & Rachlin.

Prisoner's Dilemma and the Pigeon: Control by Immediate Consequences - Green, Price & Hamburger.

In a nutshell, the basic idea is that if we assume that an organism is self-interested, and will generally attempt to "maximise"* its rewards, then in situations where there are repeated interactions between individuals, altruism is the best approach overall. No innate mechanism required at all, and the behavior is parsimoniously explained by more general laws.

*"Maximise" is used loosely here, not in the strict economics sense that it is usually applied.

but considering that genes themselves are responsible for the changes, that is, they are taking chances which lead to these architectures and these architectures lead to those possibilities. By reductionism one might say that it was possible due to genes, but the explanation isnt given to the appropriate level of complexity in organism behavior/life where the behavior evolved. In the long run of human biology, are we not trying to search for answers in our genes and not in the architectural advantages those genes might inadvertently produce.

Second is the lack of clarity, self-interested individuals interacting, this does not necessarily leads to altruism, it could lead to hierarchical structures.

well I agree except how can one ever demarcate which questions can be done with genes and which by other means, take the question of say culture, like artists or scientists. one could say that genes are not responsible for art and science but only for tools. Except now there is a cultural competition between human beings, competition in doing science or producing better pieces of art. And there is a corresponding opposite sex interest in those who are successful and that would mean those who are a success in cultures like painting,music, acting and scientists. So the genes responsible should still be indulging in sculpting the brain to give advantage in areas which deal with new markers of genetic success.

Slavery, nothing altruistic about it. Infact it is the other way around here, the more resources there are to share around with each having the ability to live in comfort, the better it is for everyone, no need for slavery.
also hierarchical structures among groups of animals living together. This perhaps causes more death than the other way around, i.e. animals dieing for their siblings?. Perhaps wrong but i would like to consider the statistics for deaths of this kind.

Lastly, if the species become intelligent then we could end the biological genes now, we could get rid of the organic body all together, then clearly genes do not have the final say in this.

I am not altogether sure whether there is a consistent model to keep every kind of explanation at their own level. My understanding of selfish gene could be wrong but I presume that it implies reductionism and I think that is wrong.

If one keeps the individual at the center of our frame then, could genes be called parasites?

cavarka9 wrote:Perhaps, perhaps I misunderstood the selfish gene too, in which case would like it to be clarified.

I’ll try and help, even though that was not really the point of the thread. If I can, I will try and use the Skinner box metaphor to see if it does help explain things, so your posts might be helpful after all.

cavarka9 wrote:But in any case one has to consider whether similar genes across species could be indulging in such cooperation or cooperation of different kinds, that could be possible, afterall, genes spreading across different species is maximizing their replication.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this but, I suppose, in a way this “genes spreading across different species” is exactly what is happening with evolution. Due to the process of evolution effected by those selfish genes, genes are, over the long term spreading across the different species but only along lineages (is that what you meant?). However, since different species extant at any one time are by definition genetically isolated and have different sets of genes, any cooperation between species does not help the same set of selfish genes replicate themselves. There is no possibility of gene flow between the extant species apart from the rare occurrence of horizontal gene transfer. If one postulates the origins of altruistic behaviour to a gene that is selfishly trying to replicate itself this will only occur if that same gene is able to increase its chance of being replicated and increase within a gene pool at the expense of other forms (alleles) of that same gene via the channel of reproduction (this is basic evolutionary theory). This can only be effected by enhancing the chances of the body that the gene finds itself in, or the body of close kin that is more likely to have that version of the gene in it than distant kin, so can only be achieved within and not between species.

That is not to say that the outcome of an altruistic gene cannot benefit more than one species, Cuckoos come to mind but this is a misfiring of the original genes in the host species which the parasitic species genes takes advantage of. No doubt the ancestors of Cuckoos once, and may still do, have the very same altruistic genes that make birds want to stuff food down the gaping mouths of chicks but any changes in those genes are propagated down the line of the host species not the parasite species therefore any evolution of those genes is one sided. It makes me wonder if there are any mutually altruistic nest sharing species.

I will follow this response with the response below because it flows on from it.

cavarka9 wrote: How exactly does this mechanism work?. How does the genes in the the ill individual know when to die?.

I am not quite sure why you reference an ill individual but I will try and explain.
The gene does not know when to die; it’s simply that the consequence of the individual dying does not affect the survival of the genes if copies of those genes are present in other bodies. The fact that a copy of that specific gene is more likely to be in the body of kin makes it more likely that altruistic behaviours can evolve that usually are between kin. However, this does not prevent that behaviour from happening between non kin as there is no way for the genes to tell this may also happen under circumstances different from those that the behaviour arose in originally, hence the possibility for misfirings.

To use my metaphor; to produce this altruistic behaviour the gene operates the Skinner box in such a way that behaving in an altruistic way is rewarded as a “pleasurable” experience e.g. every time a warning call is given that has the possibility that the caller will get predated but many of the callers kin (which are most likely to have the same gene in them) may survive the caller gets a small treat, (you can think of it as an electronic stimulation of the pleasure centres of the brain or injection of endorphins or whatever). The genes that operate the Skinner box in this manner are more likely to get passed on from one generation to the next than their counterparts (alleles) that do not operate the Sinner box in this manner, therefore they increase in frequency within the population.
Does this help to explain how kin altruism can evolve from a selfish gene perspective?

cavarka9 wrote:hmm, yes masturbation is a case except, considering that pleasure was an intrinsic way, a more probable way to ensure replication, the fact that the architecture for pleasure exists at all is due to genes and what the organism does with the pleasure box is for maximizing that pleasure. In which case we have something which goes against the gene reductionism.

I’m not sure that I am understanding you again here. Reductionism is such a loaded word - if the best way to explain something like the evolution of a particular behaviour is to reduce it to its simplest components i.e. the genes then it makes sense to do so. It may not be the whole story and the reduced scenario cannot by definition take into account all the possible influences but it still could help as an explanation. The fact that behavioural effects, that can be postulated to have come about by explaining them in terms of selfish genes, can misfire does not negate the usefulness of explaining them that way.

The origin of the desire for sex by the mechanism of orgasm being pleasurable could be explained by selfish genes operating a Skinner box in which the act of mating gives a reward. If in more cases than not the pleasure was gained by masturbation rather than mating then you would be correct in saying that this would negate that as being the correct explanation. However, how many animals do you know of that prefer to masturbate rather than to mate if they have the opportunity to mate instead?

cavarka9 wrote:There is also the issue of what factors in the brain are responsible for such a behaviour. couldnt it be that the genes meant for the development of that part of brain involving in pleasure sensing have taken over.
It is not necessary that genes only out compete each other, it could also be about specific genes being responsible for taking a greater amount of the organisms attention span/behaviour.

Again, it’s difficult to parse you words but you appear to be asserting that genes have to out compete each other, why, do you think that this is part of the theory. In the theory genes are the replicators, they use bodies as vehicles to enable them to replicate themselves. The “selfish” metaphor is meant to illustrate that they do whatever they can to ensure that they are replicated. This often means that they have to co-operate with other genes in the same vehicle to achieve this. They also ensure that the behaviours of the vehicle that they find themselves in assist in achieving this even if that means that the complex brains that result are capable of being responsible for other complex behaviours that are not necessarily under the direct “control” of the genes themselves. My Skinner box metaphor is meant to make it clear that this can be achieved by means of a simple reward/punishment system that is the same as that which behavioural biologists use to investigate animal behaviour.

cavarka9 wrote:finally, the genes are by no chance misfiring even now, it is just that the macro architecture of the organism made it possible.

You will have to explain why this assertion is so. What is the macro architecture of the organism and how does this make what, behaviour, possible?

cavarka9 wrote: why should it make sense,survival is not important, replication is!. consider cancer for example.

What you are saying should make sense if you want to explain what you are thinking. I agree with you that replication is important, however, an organism needs to survive long enough for replication to occur so survival is important too. Your example of cancer makes more sense of your previous comment. So you are saying that genes within a body are competing with each other to be able to replicate themselves within body – in somatic cells via mitotic replication? If you consider cancer cells as successful because they out replicate other cells you are wrong because this ends up killing the organism that they are in, so this leads the genes nowhere. To be successful replicators in a sexually reproducing organism the replicators need to reach the next generation somehow which means that somatic cells should not even be considered in terms of replication it’s only the sex cells - the gametes that matter, for this is where the genes get transmitted to the next generation. Anything that enables the genes to build better bodies that outcompete other bodies and ultimately reproduce thereby replicating the genes into the next generation is the “aim” of the genes, not whether they get replicated and multiplied within the somatic cells of the body.
Looking back at your original post and your next comment, if you were originally raising the problem of how did sex evolve or how did multi-cellular organisms evolve then you did not make that clear in the first place. However, if that's actually what you were getting at I would agree that these are interesting problems but not really what this thread is about.

cavarka9 wrote: This is wrong, there is no need for complexity. Genes could just keep replicating themselves for all time to come not leading to complexity. I think other environmental pressures need to be taken into account, amount of available energy in the environment and other factors. We do not expect complex life say in asteroids or say mars.

How is it wrong? Can you explain how complexity cannot build up by the method I explained? Sure, simple replicators of the kind that must have occurred during abiogenesis could just keep replicating themselves for all time to come without leading to complexity, without taking into account things like environmental conditions, mutational differences and selection pressures if that is what you mean. But as you say, other things like environmental pressures have to be taken into account. Indeed, if you understand the theory of evolution in general these things are taken into account and they are taken into account when explaining things in terms of selfish genes. What you appear to be arguing against is a straw man version of an extreme reductionist position that no one actually holds.

cavarka9 wrote:it is probable but not necessarily possible.

OhKaaaay.

cavarka9 wrote:perhaps. but I would add that the terminology "selfish gene" can be confusing.

And I hope that I am managing to dispel that confusion for you. Am I?

cavarka9 wrote:Does it imply gene reductionism in biology?.

It is a reductionist position to take yes certainly, why, is that necessarily a bad thing? I know that some people seem to think so but we have to be reductionist to some degree to be able to explain anything IMHO.

cavarka9 wrote:Not taking into account the physique of the organisms and other such factors, behaviours etc.

No, most certainly not. In fact I think that it helps to explain such things quite well myself. Which is what I am trying to point out. Specifically how it can explain behaviour if you use the "genes as Skinner box operators" metaphor. I am certainly not wedded to the idea but as an explanatory method it seems quite good to me.

Now, you can disagree that the concept of the selfish gene is a good explanatory metaphor if you want, but you have to actually understand it first. Do you think that I am helping in this respect?

well you are helping but things are not clear. My position is this, if one goes by the term "selfish gene", then replication must be the aim, complexity and survival of complex creatures is not necessary. One should consider genes taking over within bodies too, example: bacteria does that. Cancer could be considered as an example to show that it is replication which is important,
we have many misfits who do not survive long and might indeed be still born. So survival is a bi-product of replication.

Reductionism to some degree is good, but as the example of masturbation or higher culture show that genes might make bodies but bodies have a life of their own and also by darwins theory of evolution,which came earlier than this gene centric view, it is bodies experience which influence how genes are changing to sculpt a better body for the species.
It comes down to the vehicle one chooses , and they do not all give the same answers. If one considers individual as a vehicle, then genes could be considered as parasites in spite of them making up that individual.
Finally as I have given example of cultural competition for example, if one claims that science and art have not evolved from genes, then as I showed, because there is competition between individuals in doing better at science or art, and success in those fields do contribute to success in mating we shall find it difficult to consider where the explanation truly lies for any particular behavior.

maybe we need another thread for this, so much to learn

cavarka9 wrote:well you are helping but things are not clear. My position is this, if one goes by the term "selfish gene", then replication must be the aim, complexity and survival of complex creatures is not necessary.

Comlexity is not necessary in standard evolutionary theory, it is often a consequence but examples such as in the evolution of parasitic species from previously non parasitic species often involves loss of complexity.

cavarka9 wrote:One should consider genes taking over within bodies too, example: bacteria does that. Cancer could be considered as an example to show that it is replication which is important,

Sorry, I thought that I had explained that cancer was not a good analogy. Your analogy of bacteria is not a good one either, as while bacteria are useful when they are symbiotic, they are not actually part of the body and pathological strains that kill the body that the live off can infect other bodies. Genes are an integral part of the bodies that they inhabit and need the bodies reproductive systems to be passed on.

cavarka9 wrote:we have many misfits who do not survive long and might indeed be still born. So survival is a bi-product of replication.

I'm not sure how you thing that that follows from what you have just said?

cavarka9 wrote:Reductionism to some degree is good, but as the example of masturbation or higher culture show that genes might make bodies but bodies have a life of their own and also by darwins theory of evolution,which came earlier than this gene centric view, it is bodies experience which influence how genes are changing to sculpt a better body for the species.

Yes. I think what you are saying here is that individual bodies are the objects of selection, with which I would agree. But bodies need the variations that genes provide in order to be selected - don't you agree? The bodies do not influence the genes, the genes are "influenced" by mutations, these mutated genes then get indirectly selected by being in the bodies that they influence to to be different by environmental pressures etc. Don't you see?

cavarka9 wrote:It comes down to the vehicle one chooses ,

Genes don't chose their vehicle, but if you mean that the explanation depends on which species you chose as an example, then yes.

cavarka9 wrote:and they do not all give the same answers.

they do not, but many different species can be used as examples which I would say can be explained in terms of the selfish gene and their behaviours can be seen to be outcomes of the genes as Skinner box operators metaphor. I am sure that many examples could be given that are also hard to explain in these ways though, if that's what you mean.

cavarka9 wrote: If one considers individual as a vehicle, then genes could be considered as parasites in spite of them making up that individual.

You could, but I think that selfish replicators is a better metaphor.

cavarka9 wrote: Finally as I have given example of cultural competition for example, if one claims that science and art have not evolved from genes, then as I showed, because there is competition between individuals in doing better at science or art, and success in those fields do contribute to success in mating we shall find it difficult to consider where the explanation truly lies for any particular behavior.

Of course these things are difficult to explain. No one is saying that the selfish gene metaphor is a theory of everything in biology and behaviour, just that it can be an aid in explaining how some of these things might have evolved. It's not mutually exclusive to other methods of explanation.

cavarka9 wrote: maybe we need another thread for this, so much to learn

Maybe a basic tutorial on evolutionary theory would be appropriate. Sorry, I am not dissing you but It appears that my explanations are not being understood in the way that I explain them. I guess the fault is partly mine.

halucigenia wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:well you are helping but things are not clear. My position is this, if one goes by the term "selfish gene", then replication must be the aim, complexity and survival of complex creatures is not necessary.

Comlexity is not necessary in standard evolutionary theory, it is often a consequence but examples such as in the evolution of parasitic species from previously non parasitic species often involves loss of complexity.

cavarka9 wrote:One should consider genes taking over within bodies too, example: bacteria does that. Cancer could be considered as an example to show that it is replication which is important,

Sorry, I thought that I had explained that cancer was not a good analogy. Your analogy of bacteria is not a good one either, as while bacteria are useful when they are symbiotic, they are not actually part of the body and pathological strains that kill the body that the live off can infect other bodies. Genes are an integral part of the bodies that they inhabit and need the bodies reproductive systems to be passed on.

cavarka9 wrote:we have many misfits who do not survive long and might indeed be still born. So survival is a bi-product of replication.

I'm not sure how you thing that that follows from what you have just said?

cavarka9 wrote:Reductionism to some degree is good, but as the example of masturbation or higher culture show that genes might make bodies but bodies have a life of their own and also by darwins theory of evolution,which came earlier than this gene centric view, it is bodies experience which influence how genes are changing to sculpt a better body for the species.

Yes. I think what you are saying here is that individual bodies are the objects of selection, with which I would agree. But bodies need the variations that genes provide in order to be selected - don't you agree? The bodies do not influence the genes, the genes are "influenced" by mutations, these mutated genes then get indirectly selected by being in the bodies that they influence to to be different by environmental pressures etc. Don't you see?

cavarka9 wrote:It comes down to the vehicle one chooses ,

Genes don't chose their vehicle, but if you mean that the explanation depends on which species you chose as an example, then yes.

cavarka9 wrote:and they do not all give the same answers.

they do not, but many different species can be used as examples which I would say can be explained in terms of the selfish gene and their behaviours can be seen to be outcomes of the genes as Skinner box operators metaphor. I am sure that many examples could be given that are also hard to explain in these ways though, if that's what you mean.

cavarka9 wrote: If one considers individual as a vehicle, then genes could be considered as parasites in spite of them making up that individual.

You could, but I think that selfish replicators is a better metaphor.

cavarka9 wrote: Finally as I have given example of cultural competition for example, if one claims that science and art have not evolved from genes, then as I showed, because there is competition between individuals in doing better at science or art, and success in those fields do contribute to success in mating we shall find it difficult to consider where the explanation truly lies for any particular behavior.

Of course these things are difficult to explain. No one is saying that the selfish gene metaphor is a theory of everything in biology and behaviour, just that it can be an aid in explaining how some of these things might have evolved. It's not mutually exclusive to other methods of explanation.

cavarka9 wrote: maybe we need another thread for this, so much to learn

Maybe a basic tutorial on evolutionary theory would be appropriate. Sorry, I am not dissing you but It appears that my explanations are not being understood in the way that I explain them. I guess the fault is partly mine.

its fine, I believe its me who did not state the question with clarity and also I agree that there is confusion on my part in what the "selfish gene" is about.

the example of bacteria or cancer i gave is not inherently about genes but about replicators. Bacteria and cancer are examples of replicators which are more fundamental than genes. hence replication being more fundamental/important than host survival.
therefore as replication is more fundamental, we see misfits around and die and that leaves us with the survivors.

Yes. I think what you are saying here is that individual bodies are the objects of selection, with which I would agree. But bodies need the variations that genes provide in order to be selected - don't you agree? The bodies do not influence the genes, the genes are "influenced" by mutations, these mutated genes then get indirectly selected by being in the bodies that they influence to to be different by environmental pressures etc. Don't you see?

well, one needs a host cell to begin with, that host cell must be capable of sensing the environment and then be able to send this info down the generation to adapt better in the next generation with a better replicate. One could test this, keep the same environment and the animals should not evolve at all.

Also, there are other issue which is not clear to me, especially the lack of explicit causal relations in observations.

ok ok I understood it better now, it is an aid, got it.