| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Rwanda’s “evil twin” | Main | beck and the book of revelations »

April 13, 2012

the peacock problem

201214criticslead1
Popular commentators on evolution, such as Richard Dawkins, have become overly enamoured with the idea of the gene. Genetics is certainly the most powerful mechanism of evolution and was unknown in Charles Darwin's time but although we have learned much from sequencing DNA, the idea of the gene does not explain everything about the living world and certainly not about the human world. However, just as Herbert Spencer used the notion of the "survival of the fittest" to explain why some people are rich and others are poor, so Dawkins argues that culture has genes, too - self-replicating particles of information that he calls "memes" (think of the dumb jokes and "viral" videos that proliferate on the internet). If all evolution happens for the sake of proliferating selfish genes, then everything we see in living creatures has to be useful and practical. But that's not at all how Darwin saw it. He envisioned as at least two distinct processes: natural selection and sexual selection. The former concerns the survival of the fittest. The latter, however, is an aspect of evolution that is too often overlooked today.
more from David Rothenberg at The New Statesman here.

Posted by Morgan Meis at 06:55 AM | Permalink

Comments

In an article so fully stupid as this, it's hard to pick winner for stupidest passage, but I'll nominate some candidates:

"Today, many biology textbooks tell us that sexually selected beauty is ultimately practical, in that it is all for the good of propagating the species. "

"Any unified theory of evolution has to be able to appreciate beauty, without explaining it in such a way that its allure is lost. "

"Yet a handful of biologists are beginning to take sexual selection seriously on its own terms. Among them is Richard Prum of Yale University, who recently figured out for the first time the true colours of a feathered dinosaur, using a blend of genetic analysis, sexual selection and amathematical theory of feather aesthetics. Were these particular colours useful? Not necessarily, but they are indeed beautiful."

"It may be that nature evolves such amazements simply because it can. Traits such as this can be beautiful, though not always practical."

Posted by: prasad | Apr 13, 2012 9:26:49 AM

Stupid is as stupid does.

Here is an interesting quote:

"Polls show that disturbingly large numbers of people refuse to believe in evolution. Only 40 per cent of Americans trust the scientific consensus that today's organisms evolved from previous forms by natural selection. Britain fares slightly better, with 50 per cent signing on. Those figures might be bigger if biologists were better at explaining why nature is so beautiful, and at showing that science can enhance our sense of wonder rather than diminish it."

Major recent research in science raises enormous questions about many Darwinian diehards' failure to consider symbiosis as well.

For example, 99% of the genetic material in a human microbiome is microbial, not "human" as we tend to use that word.

Upwards of 100,000 "human" genes are from retro-virus insertions or acquisitions, and human females could not reproduce without a certain non-human viral gene.

Posted by: Dredd | Apr 13, 2012 10:45:09 AM

I agree with prasad, what a god-awful mess. I knew instantly it was going to be not just something I disagreed with, but something incredibly stupid, when the excerpt here suggested that a viral video on the internet would correspond to what Dawkinds describes as a meme. Always incredible that someone so shallow and ignorant can talk themselves into writing articles about stuff they haven't even begun to understand properly.

Posted by: uncleMonty | Apr 13, 2012 7:26:21 PM

I agree with Prasad. And I wonder why this sort of thing appeals to the "New Statesman"? That is a topic that needs attention. Since I am not qualified to carry out that analysis, I am hoping someone else will do so soon.
OK, one article doesnt mean "the Left" is about to vanish completely into fakery and bullshit, but a little bit of concern may not be misplaced...

Posted by: omar | Apr 16, 2012 12:13:05 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

j_93 on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Norman Costa on The Insanity Virus

Dave Ranning on Political Ideology and the Avoidance of Dissonance-Arousing Situations

Sundar on Quest for 'Genius Babies'?

Sundar on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

gaddeswarup on What is ‘smart’ and how does it fit our consciousness?

gaddeswarup on What is ‘smart’ and how does it fit our consciousness?

musafir on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Lusine on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Brad Wilson on Gezi Park

Raza Husain on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Brad Wilson on The Insanity Virus

billy on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

rafiq on The Insanity Virus

Ben Schwartz on Here He Goes Again: Sam Harris’s Falsehoods

JonJ on Moving books

musafir on My Father: A Veteran's Story – Part 2

omar on Quest for 'Genius Babies'?

Norman Costa on My Father: A Veteran's Story

j_93 on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

jo smith on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Dredd on Political Ideology and the Avoidance of Dissonance-Arousing Situations

Dredd on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

R. Michael on Moving books

Brad Wilson on Political Ideology and the Avoidance of Dissonance-Arousing Situations

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed