- #1
- 2,739
- 11,966
The Gene's-Eye View of Evolution.
New book by Arvid Ågren (2021), reviews the field of population genetics that is involved with selfish gene kind of thinking (The Selfish Gene, Dawkins, 1976).
It breaks down the big arguments into smaller parts and analyses them.
Lots of references, but not very mathematical.
It also provides an interesting history of how the field as well as the people in it developed over time.
I consider this to be a really well written book. I recommend it.
It probably helps if you already understand some molecular biology/genetics and selfish gene terminology. I feel fairly adept with these concepts and read the book, in a fairly detailed way, in 3-4 days.
Some of the main subjects are:
New book by Arvid Ågren (2021), reviews the field of population genetics that is involved with selfish gene kind of thinking (The Selfish Gene, Dawkins, 1976).
It breaks down the big arguments into smaller parts and analyses them.
Lots of references, but not very mathematical.
It also provides an interesting history of how the field as well as the people in it developed over time.
I consider this to be a really well written book. I recommend it.
It probably helps if you already understand some molecular biology/genetics and selfish gene terminology. I feel fairly adept with these concepts and read the book, in a fairly detailed way, in 3-4 days.
Some of the main subjects are:
- What is the philosophical basis of the gene-eye view (Ågren's toned down name for selfish genes)? Is it an observation of what is happening or is a description the process that directs evolution?
- How does a gene-eye view (selection determined based on considering what benefits a particular gene) compare to inclusive fitness (besides fitness based on a single organism's direct fitness, also count fitness derived from benefiting copies of your genes in other individuals (the altruistic aspect)).
These approaches have been shown to give the same results. Either way can be used on a particular problem. However, in different situations one or the other is easier to use.
These approaches provide explanations for situations like social insects. How do sterile worker bees (either individuals or their genes) benefit from their efforts in helping the hive to be successful?
This can be explained either by selfish self-interest of a bee's many genes, or by the benefits a worker gets (passing its genes on to the next generation, through the closely related breeding queen). - A contentious issue in this field is that they use the term selfish, implying an decision making ability with respect to future evolution. This obviously stupid, but it is used as a shorhand explanation for particular genetic elements increasing in the population because of their survival (or persistence) characteristics (which have the appearance of selfish acts). Some would say selfish in this way is, because it Incorrectly implies teleology choices where there are none.
- Replicators and Vehicles (or Interactors) in the evolutionary process; genes are considered the replicator ((the replicating elements being passed on) vs. the thing that carries them through the generations, the vehicle. Dawkins likes vehicle, Hull (a theoretical/philosophical biologist who likes the gene-eye view) prefers interactor. Dawkins related the vehicle to the whole organism and wanted to reduce the influence whole organism fitness in evolution. Hull wanted to more emphasize the importance of organisms (in evolutionary studies, something I like).
- The gene-eye view also produced a different way to think about the environment with respect to evolution. When considering a single potentially selfish gene, its environment is everything else (outside the organism (non-animated as well as other organisms), as well as other things inside the organisms (usually other genes and alleles in this discussion).
- Many selfish gene situations have been identified, but only in sexually breeding populations, where genetic conflicts between the interest of the whole organism and particular internal replicators can arise.