ekurtz99{at}whoknowswhere.com wrote or quoted:
> Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:

> > How good is our genome?
> > 
> >  Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences

[...]

> > Abstract:
> > Our genome has evolved to perpetuate itself through the maintenance of the
> > species via an uninterrupted chain of reproductive somas. 
> 
> The genome is an entity capable of looking to the future?

That does not seem like a very fair summary of that sentence.

Past events have increased the ability of the genome to perpetuate
itself.  That can happen because the current state often resembles
the one that ancestors experienced.

> > Accordingly, evolution is not concerned with diseases occurring after 
> > the soma's reproductive stage. 
> 
> There is no such person as "evolution". Attributing agency to a 
> completely natural process causes no end of confusion, especially
> among the scientifically uninformed, eg journalists.

It's commonplace.  When an entity acts in an apparently purposeful
manner (as biological entities and evolution do) it often helps humans 
understand the agency if they can identify with it.  I would argue that 
this causes more understanding than misunderstanding - since it takes
advantage of a slew of psychological equipment originally "designed" for 
understanding other people.  I.e. putting yourself in the position of the 
agent very often helps people to understand it better.

In this example there's no possibilty of misunderstanding - since if you 
*really* do take the notion that evolution is a person literally, it is 
obviously totally idiotic.

> > Following Richard Dawkins, we would like to reassert that we indeed 
> > live as disposable somas, slaves of our germline genome, but could 
> > soon start rebelling against such slavery. 
> 
> If the authors are infatuated with metaphors, they should become poets 
> in their spare time, and restrict themselves to technical language when 
> writing about biology.

IMO, such language helps more than it hinders.  If you confine your 
language to non-anthropomorphic terms, it takes twice as long to say
anything - and by the time you have finished, the result is not as 
clear.

If you can't stand hearing about selfish strategies, the wisdom of the 
genes, outlaw genes - and the like - it's probably time to get out of
biology - that's the only realistic way of escaping such terminology.
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim{at}tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 7/2/04 4:57:44 PM