Comments by "Taxtro" (@MrCmon113) on "Why Dawkins is wrong | Denis Noble interview" video.

  1. "Holistic" is just code for hokus pokus that doesn't mean anything at all. Dennis seems to think that a gene centric view of evolution entails that sequencing genomes must cure a certain amount of diseases sufficiently quickly. That's not at all what the "gene's eye view" is. Evolution simply doesn't make sense other than from the perspective of the replicator.
    2
  2. This guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. A "gene centric" view of evolution doesn't mean that knowing genes will automatically cure disease. No it means that evolution itself only makes sense from the perspective of gene survival.
    2
  3. Yeah, but not the generation afterwards. If you kick a mother in the stomach, that changes the baby. So what? That doesn't explain the emergence of species and the adaptations in nature.
    1
  4. Well that's completely untrue. Genes get translated to RNA and then to proteins. Not the other way around. You're blabbering about "myriad feedback loops" and that gets you exactly nowhere. Genes are what actually lasts from generation to generation and that's why their perspective explains evolution and not the perspective of proteins.
    1
  5.  @alexappleby8677  All of your talk about "deterministic" is total hogwash. The language in the Selfish Gene is always about certain genes being MORE LIKELY to lead to certain phenotypes which then make it MORE LIKELY for the organism to reproduce more often which then over time makes it more likely for the gene to become more prevalent in a population.
    1
  6.  @marmotian4287  >many organismal or cellular or intelligent processes could guide it, somewhat in a top-down way Guide what where? I think you're missing the point. The question is what leads to adaptation. Of course cellular processes are necessary for gametes to be formed and to come together. But they don't explain adaptation to the environment. >does an intelligent entity (as in cell, NOT god) write its own blueprint A cell doesn't plan for the future of cell-kind. What accounts for adaptation is the differential survival of different similar cells.
    1
  7. Maybe you should actually read some books from Dawkins to understand evolution.
    1
  8. There is no "top down" at all. There is no amino acids that accumulate and then get written into RNA and then DNA. That's just not how evolution works. >to predict with such fanfare that they would "solve" all problems and diseases within decades I have no clue what you're talking about, but The Selfish Gene doesn't include any such predictions. >is so much more complex than anyone expected No. Everything that remains of an organism is the gamete. That's why taking the replicator's perspective is the only thing that makes sense of evolution.
    1
  9. You don't seem to have the tiniest idea of what you're talking about. The gene's eye view of evolution is not "we should focus on genes alone in medical research". It's that evolution itself only makes sense from the perspective of genes. Also all research is "reductionist". If you don't reduce stuff down to fewer facts, you're not actually doing research. You're just amassing observations. Reducing is the very essence of science. "Holistic" is easy. We already have human organisms. Here they are. In their whole. Nothing more to find out "holistically".
    1
  10. I have no idea what genetic determinism is supposed to be. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the gene's eye view of evolution as explained by Dawkins.
    1