Good Actions Come with Good Deeds

Throughout our childhoods they have taught us that we should never do to others what you would not like them to do to you. Due to this kind of ideology is why the nice guy always win. The friendlier you are to someone, the more good actions you will receive. If instead you’re rude to the rest, the only thing that you would win is more enemies. You can be a very caring and nice person, but if somebody treats you bad, why would you be nice with him or her? It wouldn’t make sense. Still there will always be the bigger person that would be willing to forgive and move on. This kind of actions, according to Dawkins, is known as the “Tit for Tat,” where you base your actions on others actions.

Animals, and even humans, are at a constant competition. In the case of the humans, they are always trying to be at the top of the pyramid and some are so ego centric, that they wouldn’t bother bringing others down. Since they are at a constant fight it is sometimes hard to trust the others, and this is why many act in a defensive way. Still there are many good persons that decide to cooperate and this way be a role model for the rest. The genes everybody has can be selfish, but the humans indeed are not and are always able to find a solution for every conflict.

Dawkins then starts to explain a very interesting strategy that was seen during the First World War One: “live-and-let-live.” “It is quite well known that at the Christmas British and German troops briefly fraternized and drank together in no-man´s-land.”(Pg.225) This is an example of how humans decided to make a truce for a moment and help each other. By putting the war to a side, they were able to enjoy a happy night without having the feeling that they could be betrayed at any moment. By cooperating with each other they demonstrated that people could be friends even though they practice different cultures and have other ideologies.

One Has to See it, to Believe it

As Dawkins has been explaining through out the book, DNA are the replicators that create every living thing in earth. As they develop mutations, they start making mistakes leading to evolution. The same happens with the culture, that each time some aspects of it start changing. “Cultural transmission is analogous to genetic transmission in that, although basically conservative, it can give rise to a form of evolution.” (Pg.189) This time he calls the new mistakes memes, which is a replicator of human culture. Some examples of this is the fashion, art, technology, etc. Instead of genes jumping from body to body, memes leap from brain to brain. Dawkins example of imitation is when a scientist hears or discovers a new idea and decides to pass this new information to teachers and students and eventually it will start to spread out.

He expands this explanation with the topic of religion: “God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or ineffective power, in the environment provided by human culture.” (Pg.193) I do agree with this idea because there is no scientific prove that God existed and why should we believe on the Old Testament? Still we grew up in a space were they have taught us about faith and therefore believing in God. It has given us hope in life. As some people are radical and need to see it to believe it, others prefer to believe in what they want whether is true or not. It appears to me that Dawkins is attacking the religion and believing that it’s an idea that could be easily forgotten. But can it? Almost since the beginning of the first humans there has been a kind of God to believe in, how can someone make disappear this kind of faith? In tragic moments, where you have no one to lean on, it is always good to have faith on God.

Dawkins explains that us, humans, are the survival machines. Yet, we are supposed to die at some moment. Even though some persons might disappear from the world, that doesn’t mean that their memes will go with them. New ideas and cultures are meant to stay and this way start passing from generation to generation. After all, the new ideas and technologies are the ones that help us evolve and keep on developing new tools. What would the world by without the transmission of ideas?

“You Scratch My Back, I´ll Scratch Yours”

Dawkins explains how animals work together as a team in order to benefit from one another. “Each one gains by presenting a smaller surface area to the elements that he would on his own.”(Pg. 166) It is more convenient for a lion to hunt with others rather than trying to do it by herself. Even though the selfish gene would want to do it in her own so that she can eat all of the food, it is safer for her to work with others.

 A clear example of an animal that is always trying to protect the rest of its herd is the buffalo. When they see or hear a predator, the males quickly form a circle around the females while the females make a circle around their babies. This way the strongest of all would be on the domain of danger, making it more difficult for the predators to succeed on their hunt. Most of the times, the animals are looking for the weakest of all so that they don’t have to use so much of their potential energy. Another example of altruism are the penguins. While the females are out gathering food, the males stay with the eggs by huddling together.  These examples demonstrate how some animals aren’t meant to survive as individuals, but to work as a community. 

Symbiosis is the act of animals depending of each other, helping each other survive when conditions are hard. Even though we are not like animals, some of our behaviors are like them. When am walking on the streets with my friends I like walking in the middle since I feel more protected and I have the feeling that am at lower risk of getting mugged. The same happens when we go to the movies, none of my friends want to sit in the corners. In addition, humans tend to help each other in time of danger and we have realized that by working together one will achieve more.

The Buildings of DNA

As I started reading Chapter 4 I got the feeling that it was going to be complicated and that once again I wasn’t going to be able to understand the function of DNA. As I kept on with my reading I realized that I was being able to understand most of it thanks to the allegory that Dawkins uses. He compares the human body to a building, each cell to a room, the nucleus to bookcases, chromosomes to 46 volumes of books, and genes to pages. With such a simple explanation, I was able to understand the process of meiosis and mitosis.

At the same time he states “acquired characteristics aren’t inherited,” (Pg. 23) something I agree with him. Physical characteristics such as bone structures, eye and hair color can be passed from one generation to another, but the talent one can develop on a sport is learned through out the years. If your father wasn’t good on tennis that doesn’t mean you will be just like him. If you decide to dedicate your time to the sport, then you might become good at it. The first gene from millions millions years ago didn’t had the elements from becoming good at science, since the class didn’t even exist by then. This makes it clear that due to the environment we live, our bodies start changing in order to adapt to them.  Will it be better if we could inherit those kinds of characteristics? I believe that it would have positive and negative aspects. Imagine that your mother would be a great mathematician; you will have a great advantage among your other classmates. But, what if your father was addicted to meth? One will end up having drug problems, not because your choice, but because of your fathers history. At the same time one would be very similar to the parents and the idea of being in this world is that you are unique and different. I prefer to only inherit physical characteristics and compose my own personality and talents by myself.

Vocabulary:

Endow: give or bequeath an income or property to.

Mosaic: noun: a picture or pattern produced by arranging together small colored pieces of hard material, such as stone, tile, or glass.

Meiotic: noun: Biology a type of cell division that results in two daughter cells each with half the chromosome number of the parent cell, as in the production of gametes.

Mimicry: noun: action or art of imitating someone or something, typically in order to entertain or ridicule.

Fecundity: adjective: producing or capable of producing an abundance of offspring or new growth; fertile.

Science vs. Religion

For many years now we have been taught about science and how everything was created by a mixture of chemicals. At the same time, they have being telling us since we were little kids that God created the universe and everything that’s in it. What should we believe then? These kind of theories brings us to one big debate, which will probably never end: religion vs. science. It is up to us which side we want to take, but no one is ever going to prove us the right answer, since no one was able to live during that time period. One could talk for hours and hours about the right answer, but one will never agree on the same terms.

Richard Dawkins clearly supports the scientific theory in his book The Selfish Gene, since he believes that we were all created by accident. “But let copies be made form other copies, which in their turn were made form other copies, and errors can e described as improvements.” (Pg. 16) Whether he is right or not, it is a valid explanation which we shall all be bother to hear. It is hard to believe that we all came from the same molecule, and due to errors in the replication, we came to be what we are now a days as well as the creation of other hundreds of different replicas. Who would have believed that from one tiny molecule could come out all kind humans, animals, and plants? What I found also very interesting is how the survivals of these replicators came to be known as the survival machines. As errors continued to be made, more competition arose since each day there were more enemies with a larger protection coat. This also led to competition, where the different molecules were trying to increase their stability and decreasing the stability of the rival. As we know from now a days only the strongest are the ables to survive. This can lead to the theory of Darwin that only the fittest are the ones who should be able to survive. I ask myself, do we have enough evidence to confirm Dawkins theory? I don’t think so, it is just another way of seeing how everything came to be as it is.

I am finding really interesting this book because it’s a new point of view towards evolution that I haven’t been able to analyze so clearly.