RE: Literal and Not Literal
September 7, 2019 at 1:39 pm
(This post was last modified: September 7, 2019 at 2:39 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)
(September 7, 2019 at 1:20 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: No, the style as meant here for the gene is extremely concrete, and doesn’t care about the observer or the mind.
The style refers to a collection of very similar genes amongst a population which strongly tends to manifest the same phenotypical trait. Think of it as a collection of shirts of same color, cut and ornamentation to the one on your back, but not THE shirt on your back.
That's not concrete still. The style is not directly observable, it is an inference made by us from multiple observations. Is there another word you can use besides style? Its a very awkward and unclear word to use.
(September 7, 2019 at 11:48 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Different strains is enough to get ecological competition started. Which strain will be the most reproductively successful? The one that is best at eliminating its competition. It's not more puzzling than coyotes vs. wolves, but it's a little more puzzling than coyotes vs. rabbits.
If one strain of e. coli emits something toxic to other strains of e. coli, and that results in greater reproductive success, the trait will be retained. The genes don't want anything, it's just that genes that confer a reproductive advantage are conserved.
Natural selection is a conservative phenomenon. It doesn't create anything, it acts on what is already present, either culling what is disadvantageous to reproduction or preserving what is advantageous. Mutations are random changes within the limits of what is possible for DNA/RNA and how they affect reproductive success, if at all, determines whether and how natural selection acts on them.
Well yes and no; the toxins do create competition, or a warfare, between strains. But to be clear, the bacteria has to burst for the toxins to be released. So I think its ok to talk about reproductive success, just not directly. Once an e. coli kills itself to kill the others it no longer has direct fitness, so this type of interaction is classified as "spiteful" as opposed to "selfish."
I brought up this example to argue how abstract the concept of sharing genes can be. Strains of e. coli are still e. coli; they are siblings and share a lot of their genetic makeup with each other. But a difference in the type of bacteriocin they produce is all it takes for them to stop being siblings and start being enemies. But I agree the overall concept of natural selection still applies, only that the competition is occurring within a species rather than between species.
