Richard Dawkins, author of "The Selfish Gene" (The selfish gene), but also of other best sellers, including "The God Delusion", translated into Romanian as "The Illusion of Faith in God" is not only a scientist and a very successful author, but also one of the most prominent figures of contemporary humanism. He used to say something like that (not necessarily with these words) that it's as easy to round up atheists as it is to train a herd of cats. Cats are solitary animals, now admit suffering, so it is very difficult to train them, that's what the circus trainers say too. The idea, which other scientists point out is that in fact nonconformist people are solitary, they don't form "herds" like the conformists. Worse, they attack each other. For them, the idea of guild solidarity does not really exist. After I finish this article, Dawkins will be able to complete his saying with "a herd of cats scratching each other". So I sharpen my claws…
Taliban darwinist
His ideas are somewhat familiar to me from college. Then I also made contact with sociobiology, not through Wilson directly, her father, but through an American author of an ethology book. Some things seemed scandalous at first sight (especially those applied to the human species), but the Darwinian approach to behavior was downright seductive. Sociobiology had become one of my passions. But… other things happened in the following years. Critical thinking must always accompany scientific thinking…
But back to Dawkins, el este un darwinist orthodox, as they call themselves. He really goes with Darwinism to the hilt. E un fel de taliban darwinist, who seems to go into a kind of atheistic trance when it comes to Darwin. The touchstone of Darwinism is the explanation of altruism. If natural selection, the engine of evolution, it works by increasing the frequency of some genes in the population, then altruism, which goes as far as sacrificing the reproduction or even the life of an individual, it goes against the tendency of any organism to do its best to pass its genes on to as many children as possible in future generations. Because if it wasn't, it wouldn't be told. That is, if this had not happened in the history of the respective species, the result of evolution would not have been the present one. The genes that are currently found in a population have gone through generations of selection and succeeded, i.e. they come from some individuals who managed to pass them on in the population in more children than other generation peers. Then how was altruism transmitted, which affects fitness, the ability to produce viable offspring?
The survival machines
And what does Dawkins do in this sense? Put it all down to the genes, Replicator, as he tells them. These replicators, which have their origin in the primitive soup, they "want" nothing more than to reproduce in as many children as possible. This is what I know how to do since the beginning of my life. But for a while, when there was no more room for everyone in the soup, the selection intervened, that is, some "cuties" started to be more successful than others, they reproduced better. With time, these original replicators have built what Dawkins calls "survival machines", i.e. organisms that they manipulate, unconscious of course, in such a way as to produce as many copies of those replicators as possible. Living organisms are just slaves to genes, which parasitizes them (at one point he even calls for a comparison with the way parasites influence the phenotype and behavior of the hosts) in their own interest. We are all just survival machines for our selfish genes, who want nothing more than to replicate in as large a number as possible, that is, to make us multiply as much as we can. My eyelashes are very unhappy, they have taken a bit of a beating so far, while that of a refugee from Darfur, which survives from the donations of some Westerners parasitized by two money genes, I am successful, if she has already produced 5 and grisori. Genes do not care about the well-being of the individual who hosts them, they just want him to take them on in good conditions.
In these conditions, it's simple why genes for altruism have survived in different species, including ours. Because genes for altruism, actually involved in one way or another in this behavior, they did everything they could to survive. The genes for altruism, like all the genes in the genome, they are very selfish, they only think of themselves and their children.
We leave aside the criticisms of this theory, coming from other specialists, including Steven Gould, another famous evolutionist, disappeared a few years ago. Gould wonders if informational DNA survived because it has phenotypic effects, that is, it influences the way the body looks and behaves, then the noninformational DNA, which makes up most of the DNA of our species, for example, it replicated so well and survived until now? For the same reasons? What is interesting, however, are the historical aspects of the emergence of this vision. Dawkins wrote "The Selfish Gene" in the 1970s, in full cold war, when the emphasis was on technology, people believed in her more than now. Robots were in fashion back then. I bet, in fact, it can be seen from what he says, that he was inspired by the robots handled by humans when he thought of the selfish genes that handle the organisms. In fact, he even suggests this comparison at one point. One of his few innovations is the fact that the object of his selection is the gene, not the individual, like other neodarwinists. Computers and the programs that run on them were other sources of inspiration.
The perverse enzyme
It's hard to be anything other than a man of your time, of your education. To be way ahead of your time, except for more or less selfish genes, you probably need a non-conformist life, of an education outside the system, as Leonardo da Vinci had for example, a man truly ahead of his time. But as a scientist, you have to assume this aspect, although it is good to do your best to be more than your education and the fashion of your time. As a biochemist, I see many of the aspects presented by Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene" quite differently. Who knows more about the behavior of enzymes and cellular receptors, can interpret many "miracles" of life in a completely different way. A like-minded biochemist could write a book called "The Perverse Enzyme". The fact that parasites, even viruses cause interesting effects, strangers on the host phenotype, it comes from the very nature of life. Life means proteins, which actually means enzymes. Genes actually lead to protein synthesis, so of enzymes or similar things. The enzymes of a parasite can have effects on the host because they are enzymes. Some enzymes are very specific, others don't, have several substrates, that is to say, catalyzes several biochemical reactions. From a biochemical point of view, it's easy to hurt, but sometimes you can be lucky to do well. That is, if you remove an enzyme from the normal environment (cell compartment, the tissue where it ages) and you put it somewhere else, in another environment, the chances of doing harm are high. This is what happens in some diseases, many (which now brings to mind silicosis), when the enzymes lost their normal place. But sometimes it can have beneficial effects, absolutely incredible. They can change the phenotype or behavior of the host individual, when it comes to parasites, let's say, if I arrive at the right place and time. Dawkins speaks of the "extended phenotype" in which the effects of genes are seen at a great distance, beyond the body of the individual to whom they belong, of the host if it is about the genes of the parasite. They influence the non-living environment. Agree with that, but the same can be said about enzymes.
We can say that they are the object of selection? This would also remove the dilemma related to non-informational DNA, which survived and replicated without leading to protein synthesis (ENZYMES). ADN-ul informational (which leads to protein synthesis), as the non-informational one would be out of the question, his survival would no longer interest us, instead, we would be interested in the survival of enzymes. Enzymes actually manipulate organisms much better than genes. They make things work. From the gene to its phenotypic effect, the settings eat you. That is, the genes do not work all the time, their function is subject to numerous controls (HORMONE, etc.). Some genes can be blocked in the long term. Genes are less stable than enzymes. They can undergo mutations, although in nature the mutation rate is very low. Instead, if a gene undergoes a mutation, this can influence the activity of the enzyme it encodes only if it somehow affects the catalytic site (not necessarily the amino acids that enter its structure). Most mutations are silent, they have no phenotypic effects. But the most important, life appeared when enzyme activity appeared.
Sure, I'm not going to write a book called "Perverse Enzyme", although I would like to write something that could sell millions of copies. Selection is the engine of evolution, sure, there are numerous studies that attest to this since the beginning of the 20th century. In the "Civilization of Famine" characters subject to selection are mentioned. But be careful, no need to appeal to selfish genes (or perverse enzymes) to justify its existence. Altruism comes from selection, but some of us do not consider that holy selection comes and solves any character in a very simple way. The selection doesn't really explain everything, for the simple reason that some characters do not modify fitness, while some genes or metabolic pathways have multiple effects, some extraordinarily from ... at a distance. Did some characters survive because they were side effects of some genes or metabolic pathways important for survival, which were subjected to selection? Altruism could be one of them? "Civilization..." answers this question.
Dawkins' problem is not only that he does not know biochemistry and cell biology, or if he knows, it is not seen, but he is also a supporter of small effects, very discreet and very slow lashes, according to Darwin's original vision. It seems, however, that things in nature are not exactly like that, I'm not the first to say this. Genes are not equal, as well as the characters. Nail shape and insulin resistance are not equal characters in terms of individual or offspring survival. The selection does not treat them the same.
Free will or discriminated genes
Another criticism leveled at Dawkins is that he claims that individuals of any species, although they are slaves to their genes, I can respect them sometimes, giving the common example of the use of contraceptives. Considering that any organism is just a vehicle of its genes, when he refuses to reproduce, revolted against them. His critics told him that on the one hand he appeals to the sovereignty of the genes, on the other hand, to a kind of free will. Pai gold one, other times. And as a biologist it is difficult to admit free will. My answer would be very simple. There is no free will, it's a fiction, an axiom that simplifies our thinking. Everything we do is the effect of genes, of our metabolism more precisely,that is, of enzymes. But in an organism, not all genes are equally active, not all enzymes work the same way at the same time. Some tissues make one, others do another. Metabolic activity is subject to fine adjustments, where the external environment speaks for itself. In the same way, individuals raised in different environments, subjected to different environments, behave differently. They activate certain metabolic reactions to the detriment of others. No doubt, i have fish 99% from common genes with any Somali pirate, any Taliban or Italian mafia, because this is valid for anyone 2 members of the species. But what I do, what i feel, what is valuable to me is so different from these "relatives" of mine. Beyond subtle genetic differences, maybe (but not mandatory!) some at the level of regulatory genes , with dramatic effects especially in development, it is mainly about the influence of the environment, the way the enzymes in my brain work compared to those in the brains of these fellow species. It is a difference of the type between the enzymes in the liver of an alcoholic and those of a performance athlete, let's say, whatever it may be, for more simplicity, genetically identical twins.
It can be said that enzymes compete with each other like Dawkins' genes? Probable, but I wouldn't go too far with this idea. The idea I am expressing is that we do not oppose our genes, but we just let some of them work more at the expense of others. An active gene means an active enzyme. I behave this way because my brain consumes a certain environment. I'm not against my genes, but I only discriminate some with the help of others. Of course, here also comes into play what the brains of the ancestors consumed, your family, the population you belong to, to all those who made the culture to which you belong. They made a certain environment, their extended phenotypes have transformed into my living environment. My brain makes other investments, it favors some genes and enzymes to the detriment of others. I think it's my choice, but it isn't. I have no merit, and the "relatives" listed above have no real fault, biological. It's all a matter of genes and enzymes...
This is the point of view of a biochemist, which comes from a world where a small molecule like an ion, a metabolite or a vitamin reverses an important reaction. Of course, it is only a facet of the whole picture. Beyond the normal attack at the level of science, I have to admit that Dawkins writes very well. He likes to tell stories, and he does it damn well! His books, one over the other, worth reading.
