Genes and SRH

Occurred to me a few weeks ago that maybe genes contradict the SRH. The point about genes, and the reason for Dawkin's selfish label, is that one can be certain that a gene will be affected by its own phenotypic expression. This is the only certainty. A gene that helps an organism find a mate, for example, does benefit all the genes in that organism, but with random mixing of genes during sex there is no assurance that any of these genes will necessarily benefit from this gene in the next generation except of course that gene itself. It is the only gene that generation after generation benefits from its contribution to the organisms shape and behaviour. Thus the selection pressure on itself over many generations gradually comes to represents the actual fitness of the gene and gradually successful genes will be whittled from the unsuccessful genes. This random mixing during Prophase I is essential to ensure that no cheat genes take a free ride on the back of good genes - the pack being shuffled every deal so to speak. Good genes get freed from parasitic genes and optimised by this fundamental tweak of the cell division process. If ever randomness needed to be illustrated in cell division this is a place where by definition it is essential.

Any gene that could hijack the Prophase I process and ensure its transmission to the next generation would have a very high fitness, and suddenly things aren't so neat. If genes and evolution really do control "everything" in the cell then genes would always evolve to hijack the previous structural level. These genes, like well adapted parasites, would necessarily have no noticeable phenotype so as to not upset the organisms fitness, they would simply pass from generation to generation inside the very machinery of cell division. And any other genes that evolved, that could weed them out, would simply become prey to their own hijackers. The battle for power would reign beneath the scenes of the phenotype with hijacking genes try to avoid being isolated by Prophase I or similar innovations. I believe this messy political world of cell division and cell instruction is actually what researchers are finding. Last time I did any of this was at college in 1992 so I'm completely out of date; should read up some time.

I digress though from my point. It was to say that Dawkins is focusing on selection from the genes point of view. Genes constitute the environment also. In a karmic way a gene that succeeded by being selfish, would run into problems when it met itself. Such genes that "cheat" (i.e. seek to maximise their outcomes at the cost of others) spread fast through populations but come to a sticking point when they start to encounter their progeny and end up fighting endlessly in lose-lose contests. Axelrod's tournaments revealed that Tit-For-Tat is a much better strategy where cheats are punished but friends are trusted (sound familiar ;-). So for optimality a gene's fitness is not governed only by its contribution to the organism that it is in, but also by its frequency in the organisms in the rest of the "local population". A high degree of mixing will favour the cheat (the opposite of Prophase I), but organisms that keep to a limited "friend group" cannot afford to cheat. This is without doubt the cause of modern crime rates and what older people call social disintegration; the fact that today's level of social mixing and the vast market place means that cheats are only encountered once and so are harder to track. Under these conditions genes are selfish. But where mixing is less, where mobility is less, genes are made accountable for what they do more and small populations of cheats will fail while small populations of friends will prosper. Family units make an idea group not just because of selfish genetic relatedness (as Dawkins would argue) but because cheating is harder to sustain in small groups. The suspicion of strangers and the clique instinct in humans are all strategies to limit mixing and show up cheats. This would be another reason for the hierarchical nature of human society previous un-analysed! A company will promote on the basis of loyalty more than ability to provide a profit because capital interests are more concerned with not losing through being cheated than with making more money!

A lot of musing here and not entirely thought through so need to check.

On the SRH: a gene thus has a predicate (fitness) which is determined by its impact on the set of genes in the organism. So here there is direct feedback on the gene. However most importantly the expression of the gene is not affected by the fitness! That is to say that the gene creates an expression independent of its fitness, and its fitness is a clear result of that expression. Therefore the self is not actually referring to itself. It is rather the situation of the self throwing a rock in the air and then after the rock has been thrown the self then being hit by the rock - the thrower and the victim being essentially separate entities. To illustrate suppose a gene created a phenotype which had a very high fitness by being able to digest fish. It might lead to selection of other genes to make the organism aquatic. Then were that same gene to mutate again to enable digestion of mountain growing lichen sadly it will be housed in an organism that was aquatic and ate fish! Hardly self-reference!