The idea of selfish genes, capable of using the living organisms as molecular machines to achieve its own replication, was the most important XX century contribution to get Darwinism back to life. This theory appeared just at the same time Gould began to discuss some aspects of Darwinism in his Punctuated Equilibrium Theory.
Although the idea is not Dawkins’s, it is worth to him turning it one of the biggest materialistic claims nowadays. When you read Dawkins´ books you're prompted to think about Mettrie's man-machine, the best-known invention of the materialist writer of the Century of Lights. You're also likely to associate Dawkin´s ideas with Descartes’ man conception. Descartes thought animals were machines. They might (or not) be created in a particular God's creation act in the beginning of geological times. He never solved that point. There is a sort of immaterial little man inside human being, who drives the human machine at his will.
Dawkins´ DNA is also like a little man, but a molecular one. That molecular little man sets machines up to protect him against damage, so as he could persist in the being and make copies of himself. Dawkins´ idea is plenty of controvertible points, but I'm just interested in meditating on one of them. That is Dawkins´ concept of "success", usually accepted with no complaints even by his strongest critics. How does a gene turn out successful for Dawkins? Making so many exact copies of itself as possible. Let us imagine a gene codifying a red eye colour. This selfish gene would be successful if all the molecular machine descendants -machine made by the selfish gene for replicating itself- have got the red eye gene, even though the eye colour of the machine (more specifically, the eye colour of the animal who carry the machine) was green. I mean, the selfish gene only minds to persist in the being, although that persistence implied not being expressed by generations. Let us take this idea farther on. Let us imagine the gene goes on copying itself having been never expressed. In fact, this is the cheapest way to persist in the being. This is the cheapest way excepting the stones way, not even compelled to replicate. If the gene were never been expressed it would no longer be a gene, it would turn into trash DNA.
Provided Dawkins is right, the core of life would then be within genes. Greatest success of genes would be to persist. The gene just stays doing nothing. Genes would achieve that in a twisted way, assembling a body, replicating themselves. If they did not, natural selection would soon eliminate them. However, a trash DNA fragment is more successful than genes that keep as genes. A stone is even more successful, because it persist just being quiet.
Dawkins is not the only one who measures the success in conservative terms, but he is the only one who reduces it to the conservation of the individual gene. Somebody else think that the best way to avoid species extinction is to conserve its genetic identity in a gene bank. Perhaps the genes have created men so that men conserve genes in gene banks. Later, gene banks would become independent of men, and men would add their own genes to gene banks. Isn't this way to understand what success for living beings is weird? Is not rather success associated to the molecular machines made up by the genes for its own persistence and propagation? Those molecular machines change, evolve and sometimes think too. They transform the environment and make of Earth an almost living organization.
I refuse to find the core of life in DNA, because DNA seems to be the less changing, the less "alive" part of that dynamic process so-called life.
Although the idea is not Dawkins’s, it is worth to him turning it one of the biggest materialistic claims nowadays. When you read Dawkins´ books you're prompted to think about Mettrie's man-machine, the best-known invention of the materialist writer of the Century of Lights. You're also likely to associate Dawkin´s ideas with Descartes’ man conception. Descartes thought animals were machines. They might (or not) be created in a particular God's creation act in the beginning of geological times. He never solved that point. There is a sort of immaterial little man inside human being, who drives the human machine at his will.
Dawkins´ DNA is also like a little man, but a molecular one. That molecular little man sets machines up to protect him against damage, so as he could persist in the being and make copies of himself. Dawkins´ idea is plenty of controvertible points, but I'm just interested in meditating on one of them. That is Dawkins´ concept of "success", usually accepted with no complaints even by his strongest critics. How does a gene turn out successful for Dawkins? Making so many exact copies of itself as possible. Let us imagine a gene codifying a red eye colour. This selfish gene would be successful if all the molecular machine descendants -machine made by the selfish gene for replicating itself- have got the red eye gene, even though the eye colour of the machine (more specifically, the eye colour of the animal who carry the machine) was green. I mean, the selfish gene only minds to persist in the being, although that persistence implied not being expressed by generations. Let us take this idea farther on. Let us imagine the gene goes on copying itself having been never expressed. In fact, this is the cheapest way to persist in the being. This is the cheapest way excepting the stones way, not even compelled to replicate. If the gene were never been expressed it would no longer be a gene, it would turn into trash DNA.
Provided Dawkins is right, the core of life would then be within genes. Greatest success of genes would be to persist. The gene just stays doing nothing. Genes would achieve that in a twisted way, assembling a body, replicating themselves. If they did not, natural selection would soon eliminate them. However, a trash DNA fragment is more successful than genes that keep as genes. A stone is even more successful, because it persist just being quiet.
Dawkins is not the only one who measures the success in conservative terms, but he is the only one who reduces it to the conservation of the individual gene. Somebody else think that the best way to avoid species extinction is to conserve its genetic identity in a gene bank. Perhaps the genes have created men so that men conserve genes in gene banks. Later, gene banks would become independent of men, and men would add their own genes to gene banks. Isn't this way to understand what success for living beings is weird? Is not rather success associated to the molecular machines made up by the genes for its own persistence and propagation? Those molecular machines change, evolve and sometimes think too. They transform the environment and make of Earth an almost living organization.
I refuse to find the core of life in DNA, because DNA seems to be the less changing, the less "alive" part of that dynamic process so-called life.
Copyright Daniel Omar Stchigel. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment