Understanding 'A Gene for X' from Steven Pinker's Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pavel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gene
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on clarifying the concept of "a gene for X" as explained by Steven Pinker. It emphasizes that this phrase refers to a gene that, when compared to its alternative alleles and considering various genetic and environmental contexts, statistically leads to a specific behavior or trait, denoted as X. The term is used to describe genes in relation to observable phenotypes, particularly when one allele has a more significant effect than others at the same locus. The conversation also highlights the complexity of gene-environment interactions, noting that human adaptability can complicate the establishment of direct relationships between genes and behaviors. Overall, the explanation aims to demystify genetic terminology and its implications in evolutionary theory.
Pavel
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
Hi, the following is from Steven Pinker's debate (against Rose). Can somebody please translate this into more understandable language. I know what allele and average and all the individual terms mean, but I just don't get the concept and I want to know what evolutionists mean when they say "a gene for X":

"...What I mean by "a gene for X," and what ALL evolutionary theorists mean by "a gene for X," is simply a gene that, in comparison with its alternative allele, averaged over the other genes that it appears with in bodies, and averaged over the environments in appears in, probablistically leads to more behavior X-say, being solicitous to one's children. That's all that "a gene for X" means, and that definition is completely consistent with all of the arguments about genetics in Lifelines..."

Thank you in advance.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
X is being used like a variable here. It can be anything. It's just a way of describing any gene rather than referring to a specific one. Usually, you refer to a gene in terms of the phenotype observed for the dominant allele (for example, if you have a particular gene with an allele for black hair and an allele for blonde hair, and black is the dominant allele, you would say it's the gene for black hair, even when referring to someone with two recessive alleles who has blonde hair...particularly useful when there are multiple genes for hair color).

Does that help?
 
In simple terms: If you have several alleles at one locus on a chromosome, and after looking at many people (or whatever species) with all the possible allele combinations, one allele stands out as having more of an effect on some observable than its cousins.
It is then called a 'gene for X' -> X being the observable.

Since humans can adapt an awful lot to the envrionment, the envrionment effects may override an allele because of the human response to other conditions. This makes it hard to come out with absolute statements about perfect relationships between genes behavior, for example. And why twin studies have been done.
 
jim mcnamara said:
If you have several alleles at one locus on a chromosome, and after looking at many people (or whatever species) with all the possible allele combinations, one allele stands out as having more of an effect on some observable than its cousins.

Ah, that's it. Makes sense now. Thanks!

Moonbear, I appreciate your help too.

Pavel.
 
Deadly cattle screwworm parasite found in US patient. What to know. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2025/08/25/new-world-screwworm-human-case/85813010007/ Exclusive: U.S. confirms nation's first travel-associated human screwworm case connected to Central American outbreak https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-confirms-nations-first-travel-associated-human-screwworm-case-connected-2025-08-25/...
Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S. According to articles in the Los Angeles Times, "Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S.", and "Kissing bugs bring deadly disease to California". LA Times requires a subscription. Related article -...
I am reading Nicholas Wade's book A Troublesome Inheritance. Please let's not make this thread a critique about the merits or demerits of the book. This thread is my attempt to understanding the evidence that Natural Selection in the human genome was recent and regional. On Page 103 of A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade writes the following: "The regional nature of selection was first made evident in a genomewide scan undertaken by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the...
Back
Top