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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pavel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gene
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of "a gene for X" as articulated by Steven Pinker in a debate. Participants seek to clarify the meaning of this phrase, particularly in the context of evolutionary theory and genetics, exploring its implications for understanding behavior and phenotypes.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests a clearer understanding of Pinker's definition of "a gene for X," emphasizing their familiarity with individual terms but confusion over the overall concept.
  • Another participant explains that "X" serves as a variable representing any observable trait, and discusses how genes are typically referred to in terms of the dominant allele's phenotype.
  • A different participant elaborates that when multiple alleles exist at a locus, one may be identified as having a greater effect on an observable trait, leading to its designation as "a gene for X." They also note the influence of environmental factors on gene expression and behavior.
  • A later reply acknowledges the clarification and expresses gratitude for the explanation provided.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the variable nature of "X" and the concept of alleles at a locus, but the discussion reflects ongoing exploration of how environmental factors complicate the relationship between genes and behavior. No consensus is reached on the implications of these complexities.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding the relationship between genes and behavior, particularly regarding the influence of environmental factors and the challenges in making definitive statements about genetic determinism.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in genetics, evolutionary theory, and the complexities of gene-environment interactions, particularly in the context of behavioral traits.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
10K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
9K