Survival

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

All living things have a survival instinct. It probably began with the tendency to replicate in RNA/DNA.

The question is, why should any organism survive? Why did DNA have the tendency to replicate?

Science usually treats all these as just emergent properties that cannot be explained.  It is just a property of that molecule/organism...that is all! Science does not encourage such questions as... 'Why?' either.

Every organism dies but it tries its best to pass on its DNA...which is what 'survives' after it, albeit in a mutated form.   In other words, even as organisms and species die, the DNA survives in some form.

The question is, why does the DNA need to survive? Something survives through the DNA.  That is the essence of Life itself. 

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Maeght]

Hi everyone,

All living things have a survival instinct. It probably began with the tendency to replicate in RNA/DNA.

The question is, why should any organism survive? Why did DNA have the tendency to replicate?

Science usually treats all these as just emergent properties that cannot be explained.  It is just a property of that molecule/organism...that is all! Science does not encourage such questions as... 'Why?' either.

Every organism dies but it tries its best to pass on its DNA...which is what 'survives' after it, albeit in a mutated form.   In other words, even as organisms and species die, the DNA survives in some form.

The question is, why does the DNA need to survive? Something survives through the DNA.  That is the essence of Life itself. 

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

Isn't nature wonderful.

[Stranger]

Science usually treats all these as just emergent properties that cannot be explained.  It is just a property of that molecule/organism...that is all! Science does not encourage such questions as... 'Why?' either.

Nonsense.

Every organism dies but it tries its best to pass on its DNA...which is what 'survives' after it, albeit in a mutated form.   In other words, even as organisms and species die, the DNA survives in some form.

The question is, why does the DNA need to survive? Something survives through the DNA.  That is the essence of Life itself. 

Is this even a real question? Those organisms that have traits that aid survival (in their environment), tend (somewhat unsurprisingly) to survive better than those without said traits. Therefore (again unsurprisingly) they tend to leave more descendants than those without said traits.

The DNA of any given generation is dominated by that which was passed on by those members of the previous generation that were good at surviving and passing on their DNA. Hence the DNA that survives encodes the traits that aid survival.

It is a truism that all organisms alive today come from a long, unbroken line of survivors.

Welcome to natural selection.

[torridon]

Hi everyone,

All living things have a survival instinct. It probably began with the tendency to replicate in RNA/DNA.

The question is, why should any organism survive? Why did DNA have the tendency to replicate?

Science usually treats all these as just emergent properties that cannot be explained.  It is just a property of that molecule/organism...that is all! Science does not encourage such questions as... 'Why?' either.

Every organism dies but it tries its best to pass on its DNA...which is what 'survives' after it, albeit in a mutated form.   In other words, even as organisms and species die, the DNA survives in some form.

The question is, why does the DNA need to survive? Something survives through the DNA.  That is the essence of Life itself. 

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

DNA doesn't have 'needs'.  It cannot help doing what it does.  I think to imagine DNA has needs merely demonstrates an anthropic bias in conceptualisation.

[Enki]

Looks like you've got things back to front, Sriram. 

[Sriram]

DNA doesn't have 'needs'.  It cannot help doing what it does.  I think to imagine DNA has needs merely demonstrates an anthropic bias in conceptualisation.

A chip is similar to a DNA molecule ie. it is a tiny piece of stuff that is coded with multiple complex functions.

When a computer chip performs some task....it is not exhibiting its own need. It is exhibiting the need of its maker.  Some computer guy wants to perform some task for which he uses that chip.

[Stranger]

A chip is similar to a DNA molecule ie. it is a tiny piece of stuff that is coded with multiple complex functions.

When a computer chip performs some task....it is not exhibiting its own need. It is exhibiting the need of its maker.  Some computer guy wants to perform some task for which he uses that chip.

Which is totally irrelevant because extant DNA is good a surviving because any traits that aid survival survive, and any that don't, don't. No maker, no intelligence, no purpose, and no magic required.

This really isn't complicated...

[Sriram]

Nice video....

https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p06y2c9k/why-water-is-one-of-the-weirdest-things-in-the-universe

[torridon]

A chip is similar to a DNA molecule ie. it is a tiny piece of stuff that is coded with multiple complex functions.

When a computer chip performs some task....it is not exhibiting its own need. It is exhibiting the need of its maker.  Some computer guy wants to perform some task for which he uses that chip.

Your bias is still showing.  There is no evidence that DNA was 'made' in the same way that a microchip was made. Indeed, DNA 'evolved' from precursor replicating molecules.  There is no need for an overlay of anthropic bias in the way we view the world; this bias may have evolved for reasons, our cognitive functioning did not evolve for the purposes of pure reasoning, rather it is honed by natural selection to best keep us alive.

[Sriram]

Your bias is still showing.  There is no evidence that DNA was 'made' in the same way that a microchip was made. Indeed, DNA 'evolved' from precursor replicating molecules.  There is no need for an overlay of anthropic bias in the way we view the world; this bias may have evolved for reasons, our cognitive functioning did not evolve for the purposes of pure reasoning, rather it is honed by natural selection to best keep us alive.

That is just your belief. There is no evidence that these are all just random chance driven happenings. You are assuming that.

Natural Selection is just a metaphor. It is a term that can be used anywhere. A 'all in one' solution for everything. Your idea assumes that survival is important to begin with, but you take it for granted as just a natural fact of life.

I am also assuming that survival is important to begin with but prefer to ask the question...why?  Why do organisms survive? What is it that drives this instinct? What survives in spite of so many organisms and species going extinct?

Human made products evolve too and they are also subject to 'artificial selection' by humans depending on what proves useful. There is a clear parallel.

[Stranger]

That is just your belief. There is no evidence that these are all just random chance driven happenings. You are assuming that.

There is absolutely no evidence for anything else and once we have replication with variation and inheritance, natural selection takes over and is perfectly capable of explaining all we see.

Natural Selection is just a metaphor. It is a term that can be used anywhere. A 'all in one' solution for everything.

Natural selection is not a metaphor. Your total ignorance of the subject, coupled with a studiously closed-minded and stubborn refusal to learn anything about it, is once again on prominent display.

Your idea assumes that survival is important to begin with, but you take it for granted as just a natural fact of life.

Nonsense. As has been explained - once we have replication with variation and inheritance, those replicators that are better at surviving (through random variation) will be the ones that survive and pass the traits one. The process continues from generation to generation until all that is left is replicators that are very good at surviving.

This is perhaps one of the most blindingly obvious and simple examples of natural selection there is. It's really, really simple and completely explains exactly why all organisms have a "survival instinct".

I am also assuming that survival is important to begin with but prefer to ask the question...why?  Why do organisms survive? What is it that drives this instinct? What survives in spite of so many organisms and species going extinct?

See above. The answer is simple and blindingly obvious.

[Free Willy]

DNA doesn't have 'needs'.  It cannot help doing what it does.  I think to imagine DNA has needs merely demonstrates an anthropic bias in conceptualisation.

That didn't seem to matter when Dawkins wrote "The Selfish Gene"

[Stranger]

That didn't seem to matter when Dawkins wrote "The Selfish Gene"

Have you actually read the book?

[Free Willy]

Have you actually read the book?

Yes.A long time ago.

[Stranger]

Yes.A long time ago.

Then you might have noticed that he points out that genes aren't really selfish. That actually is a metaphor.

[Free Willy]

Then you might have noticed that he points out that genes aren't really selfish. That actually is a metaphor.

A metaphor for what?

[Stranger]

A metaphor for what?

For the fact that genes that 'act' in their own 'self-interest', i.e. those that produce traits that result in more copies of themselves in the next generation, are the ones that survive.

[Free Willy]

For the fact that genes that 'act' in their own 'self-interest', i.e. those that produce traits that result in more copies of themselves in the next generation, are the ones that survive.

Ah, so, judging by your use of the inverted comma it is a metaphor for two more metaphors.

[Free Willy]

So altruism is an emergent entity not demonstrated at the level of the gene.

[Stranger]

Ah, so, judging by your use of the inverted comma it is a metaphor for two more metaphors.

Which I then explained literally: look after the "i.e."...

So altruism is an emergent entity not demonstrated at the level of the gene.

This was part of the point of the book. Dawkins is arguing that the "unit of selection" is the gene, not the organism (or group). It's genes that are 'selfish', not necessarily organisms. Altruism within a closely related group may well result in more copies of the gene(s) that produce it because there is a good chance they are present in other members of the group too.

[Enki]

That didn't seem to matter when Dawkins wrote "The Selfish Gene"

I think that Dawkins was possibly thinking of people like you when he wrote an introduction to the 30th Edition of 'The Selfish Gene'. He talks about the misgivings he has had about the title because many of his critics prefer to emphasise the word 'selfish' rather than the word 'gene' "and prefer to read a book by title only," "without the large footnote of the book itself."

[Free Willy]

Which I then explained literally: look after the "i.e."...

This was part of the point of the book. Dawkins is arguing that the "unit of selection" is the gene, not the organism (or group). It's genes that are 'selfish', not necessarily organisms. Altruism within a closely related group may well result in more copies of the gene(s) that produce it because there is a good chance they are present in other members of the group too.

All very well but then Dawkins redefines altruism, or uses an incorrect term for selfishness or is in fact being crypto eliminativist about this.

The reduction doesn't work because there is no altruism at the gene level.

The eliminativism doesn't work because Dawkins treats altruism as a really phenomenon, doesn't he?

[Stranger]

All very well but then Dawkins redefines altruism, or uses an incorrect term for selfishness...

What are you on (about)?

[Sebastian Toe]

What are you on (about)?

I suspect that he doesn't know.

[Free Willy]

I suspect that he doesn't know.

I suspect you aren't funny.