From ScienceDaily:
Since the discovery of how DNA encodes genetic information, most research on the evolution of life has focused on genes. According to the ‘selfish gene’ theory, cells and organisms exist simply as packages to protect and transmit genes. New research challenges this idea, proposing instead that if anything is ‘selfish’ it must be the ribosome. That upends everything we think we know about the evolution of life and, in fact, the function of ribosomes themselves.
…
The selfish ribosome model closes a big theoretical gap between, on the one hand, the simple biological molecules that can form on mud flats, oceanic thermal vents or via lightning, and on the other hand LUCA, or the Last Universal Common Ancestor, a single-celled organism.
Dr. Meredith Root-Bernstein adds: “Maybe the selfish ribosome puts a new spin on feeling kinship with other creatures. We are all just different kinds of homes to the ribosomes!”
Meanwhile, at the other end of the hall, David Dobbs tells us that it is time to lay the whole concept of the selfish gene to rest – in a manner that makes it unclear why the “selfish ribosome” is a worthy successor. Can things without minds want things, and if not, why is it helpful to speak of them as if they do?
Here’s Oxford physiologist Denis Noble:
From the beginning, however, this idea has been questioned by many other scientists, researchers and journalists who scoff at the idea that humans are motivated by their genes and not by their own free will. Now, after David Dobbs wrote about the need to challenge the Selfish Gene Theory, in aeon magazine, new life is being breathed into this decades-long argument.
In the provocatively titled “Die, Selfish Gene, Die,” Dobbs writes about the notion of rapid gene expression—the idea that the genes within any given organism can be re-read or re-expressed to make the organism better suited for survival. Evidence of this theory, Dobbs writes, demands that the scientific community revisit the idea of the selfish gene.
“The selfish gene is one of the most successful science metaphors ever invented. Unfortunately, it’s wrong,” he writes.
Maybe the actual aim of the selfish gene idea wasn’t so much to elevate the gene as to denigrate the mind, as an actor in human affairs?
See also: An evolutionary challenge: explaining away compassion, philanthropy, and self-sacrifice
Follow UD News at Twitter!