The Selfish Gene | RedPillWives

DebatePony · 2016-05-19T17:34:27+00:00

By Richard Dawkins. Have any of you ladies read it? I just started my second read through and I have to say I really love this book. Even though I have read it...

[–]L1vewarePr0blem30 / LTR 4yrs 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]DebatePony29| Married 6 years| Together 15| Not that red[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]L1vewarePr0blem30 / LTR 4yrs 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DebatePony29| Married 6 years| Together 15| Not that red[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]IneverforgetmytowelMid 20s, LTR, 1 year 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DebatePony29| Married 6 years| Together 15| Not that red[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]IneverforgetmytowelMid 20s, LTR, 1 year 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DebatePony29| Married 6 years| Together 15| Not that red[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]plein_oldearly 40s male♂ 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

I'm curious what this has to do with being a wife or a husband?

Sam Harris was good friends with a good friend of mine who died last year - Sam was at his memorial - but I find the philosophy that some of these atheist people promote to be very inflammatory. Comments in this thread are using terms like "polemic" and "anger" - I absolutely agree. Bringing up these people and their writings is a good way to stir up anger and conflict, seems like?

I strongly believed in evolution for most of my life, but after looking into the matter more closely, I now believe there's not only zero evidence for it, but there's tremendous evidence against it. I could go into a lot of detail about this. But wow, the last thing I would want to do is start a religious or scientific debate, or stir up unnecessary controversy and conflict, in a sub that's supposed to be specfically focused on bringing women together and learning about what it means to be a wife or a husband??? What am I missing here?

[–]L1vewarePr0blem30 / LTR 4yrs 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I think the connection between evolutionary biology and RPW is clear at least on a surface level...explanations for certain selfish tendencies and self-preservation techniques as seen through the lens of millions of years of natural selection. :) It is actually pretty RP, at its core.

I agree that the prevailing public atheism is inflammatory, and honestly, tiring.

after looking into the matter more closely, I now believe there's not only zero evidence for it, but there's tremendous evidence against it

Argh!! I am so bummed that this isn't a debate subreddit, because obviously now I'm intrigued. May I ask one neutral question, to be answered by you with a "the first one" or "the second one," and then we'll agree to leave off? Was this change in worldview accompanied by a sudden change to a religion whose validity is threatened by the model of evolution? Or was this change the result of years of independent study and countless hours in libraries?

I'm all done here <.<

[–]plein_oldearly 40s male♂ 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]L1vewarePr0blem30 / LTR 4yrs 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thanks for sharing. :) And I'll check that other comment out. Not to verge into TMI on my own belief system (or lack thereof), once religion was out the door and the anger phase was over, I began obsessively reading anything and everything on any paranormal phenomenon/metaphysics and seeing what empirical evidence was out there for each. Results inconclusive but very intriguing. :)

I think it's because women take their value from connection and don't necessarily identify as closely even with ideas that they hold. Their selfhood isn't always as tied up in their ideas. For example, my mother was able to put aside her own staunch religious beliefs to continue to connect with me after I left the religion. I was amazed at the time that she wasn't disowning me, and how nonjudgmental she has been overall (at least to my face). Connection > being right. It is one thing I am grateful for, being female.

[–]plein_oldearly 40s male♂ 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PhantomDream09 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]L1vewarePr0blem30 / LTR 4yrs 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DebatePony29| Married 6 years| Together 15| Not that red[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]eliza_schuyler 3 points3 points3 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The wiki does state that RPW is for the discussion of

sexual strategy from an anti-feminist, traditionalist, and/or evolutionary psychology perspective.

I think that a greater understanding of evolutionary psychology (and biology too!) can help us to put concepts like hypergamy into a very real scientific context. I remember when I first learnt about Bateman's Principle it really gave me pause for thought about how human societal structure and norms have developed from very primitive, core biological principles.

EDIT: I think I should add that I am aware that many women here are religious, and may not subscribe to the theory of evolution. I am always open to learning about other's beliefs, and I by no means am attempting to discredit such beliefs. I do enjoy discussion evolution as it applies to the modern human psyche, with absolutely no malice or ill-will towards those who aren't interested in such discussion <3

[–]DebatePony29| Married 6 years| Together 15| Not that red[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]plein_oldearly 40s male♂ 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Wow, ok.

Well, if it's okay with the moderators, I'll try to respond. First, keep in mind that I don't have an alternative explanation for how we got here. haha. Except that I personally believe in some kind of higher power. So my non-evolution philosophy requires a kind of "trust" or "surrender" from me, which belief in evolution doesn't seem to demand in the same way. Which is interesting.

As far as evidence for or against evolution, there's a lot of angles that it could be looked at. Starting at the very beginning, Charles Darwin himself did not believe in the theory, apparently, which did not come from him, but came from his grandfather Erasmus Darwin. Charles said about his granddad's theory: "I was much disappointed; the proportion of speculation being so large to the facts given." However, his granddad was apparently rich and powerful, and Charles was broke, so Charles somehow agreed to promote the theory under his own name.

In the early 20th century, there still wasn't much evidence for the theory, but major newspapers announced with great excitement that missing links, special fossils, had been found showing an evolutionary link between man and apes. However, in every single case, these fossils were shown to be hoaxes - meaning, they were faked. Or, in one case, the fossil simply disappeared when people wanted to examine it more closely. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the prestigious British Museum, wrote a book to promote the idea of evolution. When asked why he did not include mention of any fossil evidence, his response was "If I knew of any fossil (showing an evolutionary link between human and ape) I would certainly have included them in my book. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil."

And finally, with the more recent knowledge of DNA, we know that going to Fukushima to bathe in the radiation there is not such a good idea, because genetic damage is always harmful - it never creates brand new functional capabilities, at least it has never done so that I know of - unlike in Hollywood movies with the Fantastic Four or whatever. Genetic damage also never creates a brand new gene out of thin air.

Francis Crick, who won a Nobel Prize in 1962 for taking credit for discovering DNA, estimated that the chance of a small protein – a specific sequence of 200 amino acids – happening by random chance was about one in 10 to the power of 260. By comparison he said there were approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in the known universe. I'm not sure what Mr. Crick's numbers here mean exactly, but I think he was trying to point out how unlikely it is for a brand new protein to appear out of thin air, by accident.

This is actually a somewhat complex subject, which I've barely touched on here, but I hope I've shown that there is at least some reason to question the theory of evolution.

[–]eliza_schuyler 4 points4 points4 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is very interesting. Again, I'm also reluctant to engage in a "debate" per se, and definitely do not want to push the limits in regard to subreddit rules. I do wonder, however, about your beliefs surrounding genetics.

It sounds like you do believe that genes are passed down from parents to children. I'm curious- do you subscribe to the theory of natural selection? In other words, do you think that genes that result in traits that give an organism a survival advantage are more likely to be passed down to a greater number of offspring, and those offspring to be more successful, than genes that do not give a survival advantage?

In my mind, I am considering the Peppered Moth example. During the Industrial Revolution in the UK, trees were covered in soot. Previously, dark coloured moths were at a disadvantage as they were easily seen by predators. Dark coloured moths made up a small percentage of all moths. During the Industrial Revolution, the trees were dark with soot, and white moths were more prone to predation, thus decreasing in relative abundance. Do you believe that this, and/or other, similar types of scenarios, do occur?

[–]plein_oldearly 40s male♂ 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]eliza_schuyler 4 points4 points4 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]plein_oldearly 40s male♂ 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I've never heard of a genetic mutation resulting in useful, novel genetic material. Have you? Has Mr. Dawkins?

I used to work in a genetics laboratory when I was in college, and back then I knew doctors who worked in a special hospital with children with birth defects.

To my mind, modern genetics disproves evolution. Which is funny because people like Dawkins seem to promote the exact opposite p.o.v.

There's actually a full professor of biology somewhere named Michael Behe, who has written books about this stuff. It's a very political matter though, I guess in the world of "men", and he's said if he wasn't tenured, he would have been fired long ago. I hope women can teach men not to be quite so aggressive over all this stuff - mere differences of ideas, and teach men that there are more important things in life than that stuff, or at least equally as important...

[–]eliza_schuyler3 points 10 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I have actually read quite a number of studies that have found novel variation in organisms with short generation cycles such as bacteria. I can give you some links to these if you are interested, but again, I don't want to "convince" you out of your beliefs, but merely to understand your perspective.

I do agree with you that the vast number of mutations have deleterious effects. Due to natural selection, these mutations would normally be lost quickly from the gene pool. I think it will be interesting to see how humans maintain a set of deleterious traits via medical interventions over the future. For example, I had appendicitis as a child, and by all rights should not be alive and able to pass my poor genes onto offspring. And yet that is exactly what I plan to do! Do you think we will see the de-evolution of the human race as a result of such interventions?

[–]plein_oldearly 40s male♂ 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, regarding bacteria, where did the first bacteria come from? How many proteins are required for the simplest bacterial cell to function? What did that cell look like the day before it became fully functional, when it was 0.0001% less than fully functional, but still not viable? And how did it get that way, the day before?

Course I have no idea how any of these things got here, but I'm just not sure evolution explains any of it very well. But I'm open to other viewpoints, and I certainly try to respect people whatever their viewpoint. That right there is often a giveaway - when people disrespect people who disagree with them, it's often a sign that what they believe in isn't true! haha. Or at least has some sort of problem with it.

Appendicitis... how do you know this was caused by your genetic makeup?

Just as I believe that women and men are basically good, or intrinsically good - even if both genders can be challenging to deal with at times - I also tend to believe that bacteria and so forth are also basically good, so long as it's all in balance. Maybe this is getting too philosophical though...

[–]eliza_schuyler3 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]putski88 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

With all due respect, please be careful when asserting that dog breeding is a type of natural selection: by its definition, it is artificial selection. One is actively crossing two animals that have certain desireable traits with the hope of creating offspring with those same or some combination of those traits. So dog breeding is a form of "intelligent design" if you will (with the dog breeders being the intelligent designers). Natural selection operates by a different mechanism entirely, and offspring which survive to produce offspring of their own have only by chance some quality that has made it successful in whatever environment it has survived within. This has nothing to do with mutation in that an organism is responding to its environment. It either has the genetic variability (which may in part be a result of certain mutations) which it can pass to its offspring that will better suit it to its changing environment, or it does not and will not have reproductive success. This long, slow process of change (having the appropriate traits that suit it to the environmental conditions at hand) is what drives speciation.

[–]plein_oldearly 40s male♂ 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hi, yes, I was being a bit sloppy in my terminology.

Anyway I believe one of the examples given in Darwin's famous book was about finch beaks. If something happens on a Galapagos island to affect the food supply for finches, some of them whose beaks are better shaped to handle the new food, will be more likely to survive and reproduce. Hence, nature will select the most suited finches. And the finch population will shift toward certain varieties of finch with the best-adapted beak shape. Hence, "natural selection" - which seems to be not all that different from the ancient practice of selective breeding.

However, none of this seems to have much to do with turning dogs into parakeets or turning monkeys into humans, or microbes into lizards. Nobody has ever had a genetic mutation or employed selective breeding to create brand new genes or brand new, fully formed and fully functional proteins out of thin air, that I am aware of. Natural selection & selective breeding both merely shift minor traits around, like the size of finch beaks, or the color and length of a dog's hair, and so on.

Thus, the theory of evolution seems to depend on "miraculous" occurences at every step of the way. Would you agree? First, the very first ever bacteria appear on the world stage through... a miracle? Then, every time genetic damage causes a novel protein to appear for the first time ever - a specific sequence of hundreds of amino acids that must be in a precise sequence to perfom any useful function at all - this is also a miracle, it seems, for every single protein that exists. Then, after each new protein appears, every other organism in the species that doesn't have this brand new protein somehow dies out, and only the offspring of the mutant organism survive.

This all seems really bizarre to me, and it doesn't seem very logical or scientific for that matter.

This is aside from the fact that it must take eons of time for all this evolution to occur, and no intermediary fossils have ever been found, to my knowledge, that weren't hoaxes. The odds of this being the case - no intermediary fossils - and the evolution theory still being true, would seem to be astronomically small.

Of course, I don't have an alternative explanation for where all these species come from, for where all this life comes from. So I can understand why people like the theory of evolution. It's comforting to have reasons for why things are the way they are. (And I definitely don't believe in this "ancient aliens" theory, which an acquaintence of mine once told me about.) If anything I just assume there's a lot of mysteries in the universe.

Anyway I appreciate you pointing out that I wasn't using the term "natural selection" properly. And I appreciate how respectful and polite everyone was in this discussion thread. I hope I have been respectful and polite as well. To me that's perhaps way more important than whether the theory of evolution is true or not. What good is a theory, or criticizing a theory, if it only leads people into conflict or bad feelings...

[–]DebatePony29| Married 6 years| Together 15| Not that red[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]plein_oldearly 40s male♂ 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DebatePony29| Married 6 years| Together 15| Not that red[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]plein_oldearly 40s male♂ 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eliza_schuyler3 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	The Selfish Gene
Author	DebatePony
Upvotes	10
Comments	33
Date	May 19, 2016 5:34 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/RedPillWives
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/RedPillWives/comments/4k3mze/the_selfish_gene/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/RedPillWives/the-selfish-gene.209976 https://theredarchive.com/post/209976