Now the problem that has stuck in my head since a kid was that from a Darwinist perspective I should have kids to pass on my genes. If I don't have kids then my genes are lost and this seems to violate the basis of biological life.
Spot the error? Well, how are these "my" genes?
Famously we know we have like 95% of our DNA in common with chimpanzees (used to be 98%). Well these are not my genes obviously. And when you look at the remaining 5% the vast majority are not unique either. It is the combination of genes which is unique however. Is the combination "mine"? Well this is the same point as most of this blog is moving toward very slowly...
What if I decided to buy a gene combination... would that be mine too? What is the difference between my own sequence and the one that I have bought?
When we have kids these are not "our" gene combination. Of the tiny fraction of unique genes we have, 50% are replaced by those of our partner. How are they our kids? It is quite possible for someone elses' kids (by chance) to have DNA more similar to us than our own kids!
Evolution occurs over hundreds of thousands of years, with selection amassing its impact across whole populations. An individual by itself makes almost no impact on the movement of genes. And even if it does... what significance is there in occupying one niche rather than another?
If I bring up a chimpanzee as my child I can be happy that I am supporting 95% of my genes, and if I bring up a tree I can be happy that I am protecting maybe 70%.
Or I can just do away with the notion of "mine" and "not mine" and just treat all life with the respect I'd give my own children... we are all cousins afterall.
The new layout of life btw looks like this (see http://www.bork.embl.de/tree-of-life/). Here Eucharyotes belong together in terms of genetic similarity which makes us close cousins to trees compared with the differences between bacteria!
No comments:
Post a Comment