Biological Holism

Response to Wonderist's objections to my characterization of selfish gene theory.

Neo-Darwinian approaches to evolution have taught us much about evolution by revealing one mechanism operating therein. However, asserting that the natural selection of genes is responsible for ALL the order we find in the living world is more a result of one's worldview than it is the result of science.

Some holistic/complexity biologists to look into for an approach to biology less reductionistic than Dawkins:

Stephen Gould:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/19/opinion/19GOUL.html?ex=...

Francisco Varela:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Varela

Stuart Kauffman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Kauffman

Richard Lewontin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin

Brian Goodwin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Goodwin

Lynn Margulis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• biology
• dawkins
• selfish
• gene
• complexity
• kauffman
• systems
• theory
• evolution
• natural
• selection

[wonderist]

Okay, you've presented selfish gene much more accurately here (I still have objections but I'll let them slide for now). Now, the second part of my objection was that these other ideas you're talking about do not *add* anything predictive and based on evidence. I grant you (never denied it) that selfish gene has limits. But these other ideas do not yet fill in these 'gaps' with predictions confirmed by evidence. They only poke holes. This is a crucial point that you keep missing.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Of course they provide predictions. Autocatalytic set theory offers an explanation for the molecular process that allowed life arise. Many scientists are doing lab research on this hypothesis as we speak. Kauffman has also devised an executable computer model showing how the process would work. He has also offered mathematical predictions about the relationship between genes and cell types, which has proven to be very accurate.

[0ThouArtThat0]

You can find video lectures by both Kauffman and Lewontin on google, check them out.

[tristenmc]

The reason why this can be confusing for some is because the root of this problem really comes from where does information come from? DNA is a code of information. In order to interpret information, there MUST be a conscious living being at the source. This idea of Kauffman's where matter can independently make life is. . .let's see. . .horsecrapola. If that were so, then life would be consist of every element of matter imaginable. You would have rock elementals, and water serpents. . .cont.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Information is a very misleading and oft misused term, I agree. I think the point is that DNA only contain what we call information because of their context. IOW, genes are part of a very complex cellular process which is constantly interacting with an environment, and all of these factors combine to give rise to a complete organism. Genes determine very little in the big picture.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Also, one of the implications of Kauffman's theory is that many different types of chemistry can lead to life, so the carbon-based lifeforms we know so well may be just one of many possibilities.

[Triumphit1]

One can definitely say Matter is a conscience being, or even a super natural being?

[ThePipersNicks]

Also, most of the speculations you did in the video seem consistent with the theory.

It's really a must-read. Even if you're interested only in disproving it, you should know exactly what you're up against.

Peace :)

[ThePipersNicks]

It doesn't seem like you've read the book "the selfish gene" because most of the content is talking about the animal kingdom. It's the best reference point for the theory!

[redwoodforesttwo]

You are talking about the very first amino acids on this planet, they did not have a DNA yet, because they were just simple amino acid molecules, which later became DNA for simple microorganisms.

[tristenmc]

Well the thing that fascinates me about information is that it is the footprint of awareness/consciousness. I mean, what is a bit of information? Well it's a recognition or two different states. Up or down, hot or cold, sweet or sour. But it takes an awareness/consciousness of that state to get information. Otherwise you have nothingness or randomness.

[DivisionbyZer0]

Another good holistic biologist is Robert Rosen.

[DivisionbyZer0]

This is Searles critique of the "brain is a computer hypothesis". To assert that a process is computational is to assert that there is an agent relative to whom it is computational for. If computations are to be regard as formal syntactic manipulations then computations are none other than ascriptions made by intentional observers. To say that the brain is doing computation is to say there is a homunculous somewhere regarding it as computation for "there is no syntax in nature"

[DivisionbyZer0]

"infotalk" in biology is exceedingly dubious. Amusingly both the reductive neodarwinists and the IDers use it ad nauseam. People tend to equivocate information with all kinds of related notions like meaning, knowledge, codes, etc. The most thorough analysis of this and why it is misguided to speak of biology primarily in terms of information processing systems is in the work of Tim Ingold, for example "Against Human Nature"

[PhilBurningSkies]

Hi 0ThouArtThat0,

I kind of fell accidently into your video. sorry about that, I'll clear up the mess.

On your comment to a chap below regarding the experiments in labs to 'create life'- Are these the experiments where forces akin to lightning and other natural phenomena are being introduced to a 'primordial soup'? If so where could I find more info? If not, which experiments do you refer to and where can I research them? This kind of thing makes my balls tingle! So exciting! Fuck I'm a nerd.