Always Cooperate

In class today we exemplified the Prisoner’s Dilemma game, as Dawkins explains in his book. More than just a game of trust, he uses it to explain genes selfishness and attitude to betray other for their success. The game shows us how betrayal if the competitor is loyal is great. But if both betray each other they will slowly fail. Below a diagram that explains the dilemma and how we played it in class will be explained further on. In Dawkins way of playing the game, if both persons cooperate they will win three points. If one cooperates and the other defects, the later will win five points, whilst the one that chose to cooperate will not win points. If both chose to defect they will only win one point each.

With genes the rules vary a little bit. Some genes develop to be cheats which means they are able to govern around the suckers. Without receiving anything in return the suckers will work for the cheats just to survive. If the both decide to neglect each other non will develop and succeed as the strongest species. Lastly if both genes chose to cooperate with each other success! They will both fight for survival but if helping each other ensure the success of both alleles.

In class rough feelings emerged due to the game. When humans play it they have the power to choose to betray someone. If they did so the other person might not like the decision. It was also a disadvantage for those that were not chosen to play the game, because even though if you played you might lose some points at one point in the game. No one ended up losing points from their grade; instead the two that played received a better score. It was played the following way in class: if you won you would win 0.5 points into your grade over a four, if tied defecting both would lose 0.01 points, if you lost you would lose 0.1 points and if you both tied cooperating both would win 0.3 points.

After reading Dawkins solutions for the game, and the classes feelings towards it, it was obvious that if you always cooperated it would be the best for your grade. Not only that but as well with genes and everything you can “prisoner dilemma”.

Humans

We tend to forget humans are also animals, our behaviors are the same as those of your dog or a wild lion. The book describes different gene attitudes: selfishness an survival being the two most important. When talking about them he posts the example of a flock of certain animals on the hunt. One will always be aware of the dangers, but insist on only saving themselves if the predator appears. Most interestingly it will try to reduce their chances of getting caught by trying to evade the edges of the flock. This reminded me of the trip to La Guajira. When time came to choose your chinchorros (traditional Colombian hammocks), everyone would run into the rancheria and get one of the center hammocks. Everybody hated the edges, they were scary for us. Yet this leads plus back to gene behavior of survival and selfishness. If anything were to happen the persons in the corners are more prone to danger than those in the middle. Pure animal instinct.

To prove even more how selfish genes are Dawkins talks about the "cave theory". Before the author even explained this I was wondering how animals like the birds would fit Ito his theory that your own life is more important than the flock, well the bird will sing to alert danger. The cave theory maps out why animals that live in communities tend to alert the rest when danger is near. Due to what the book is about we can predict genes are not generous and courteous and alert for others benefits. Instead they do so to protect themselves once again. If one creature spots the predator he could hide in the grass and act as if nothing was happening. But, " any one of them [the flock] could attract the hawk's attention and then the whole flock is peril." (PG. 169)

I wonder then with all the respect and passion I have for helping others and social service : why do humans do it? Is it cause we have a higher gene conscious that leads us to feeling pity, or did society only invent service to balance everybody. It is not in our genes we are designed for survival.

Understanding Biology

Finally have I gotten a hint of comprehension of my last eight months in biology. Dawkins narrates genes it's reproduction and basically my tenth grade curriculum in an interesting and bizarre way. Chapter three states Darwin's obvious idea of evolution: fighting for survival. Dawkins adds that at a fundamental view it is all the same, the same fundamental chemistry. The only difference is how every gene develops differently to suit the need of the creature.

Referring back to the title, grateful I am to have read this book ( even more when finals are coming up). What many scientists describe as a double helix, Dawkins calls it an "immortal coil" (PG.22). The word double helix works as a visual aid, well the shape of DNA is exactly that. But the reference to an immortal coil gives the reader a better understanding of the usage and functioning of DNA. It is ever lasting, there is no way one can destroy or embed this helixes through human power.  

Nucleotides are said to be te building blocks by Dawkins. A, T, C, and G are no longer sodium-phosphate letters which I had no comprehension about whatsoever. Now they turned into the building blocks that hold together the immortal coil (PG.23). I begin to doubt the science teaching method, if it was only more visual and less theoretical. I understand it is impossible tu visualize an atom, even less DNA but with simple relations like this everything becomes easier to understand.

Relating to the whale story and the spindle cell we saw in class, Dawkins talks about how animals are taught. They have learned not to eat colored butterflies because of their toxins. They do not know that eating that butterfly will cause them death, because they looked into their eyes and felt the warning from the butterflies.

Mimicry: The close external resemblance of an animal or plant (or part of one) to another.

I can only conclude that this book is helping me succeed in biology.

Stable Replicator

In the second chapter of TheSelfish Gene, Dawkins tries to explain how simple things develop into thecomplex life of now days.  The rise ofthe “replicator” gives us an idea from where it all began and how genes simplysurvive because it is supposed to happen in that way. Dawkins expresses a pointabout survival of the fittest not such as Darwin’s. He states that genes simplyevolve because they do, there is no race to become better, it simply happens. Not being a survival of the fittest, instead of the stable. The genes that succeed the most fighting against viruses and are able to limit their errors during replication are the ones that will grow the stablest. So saying so humans are not the fightest because they have a moral responsality over the world and are incharge of protecting it, they are simply the stablest because their genes replicated succesfully more than any other.

The following are a list of words vital to the comprehensionof the second chapter of The Selfish Gene:

-        

            Survival of the stable: the gene that manage to reproduce themselves the stablest. Limiting errors and disfunction.

-         Replicator: the main breed in charge of replicating correctly their genes.

-         Competition: the process all genes go through against each other to succeed.

-         Errors

-         Survival machines

-         Longevity

-         Accuracy

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene