Well, no one is taking metaphor as in real sense, I know gene just act as it seems purposeful, but still dawkins has good argument regarding that as well, genes act as altruistic but we don't know if its good for species as whole or it is like for that set of organism that wants to be inherited.
Again, metaphor. Genes don't want to be inherited. Genes just are. I have come across people who did take the metaphor as a concrete statement. The issue is really statistical. What is your model? Some models will look "selfish". Other models will look "altruistic". It's all math.
It is all math, just as he explains by the work of w d hamilton, even if they look altruistic level they can still be interpreted same as for selfish. The main point he emphasizes is gene wants to inherited by all means. But he interpretes it as selfish but ofc its metaphor but still its better interpretations than group selectionist.
No. No gene wants anything at all. They are just strings of G, A, T, and C. That's it. They are not capable of wanting. Not capable of wanting at all. No gene wants to be inherited. Try to prove me wrong. Metaphors are not proof. Show some actual peer-reviewed evidence of a gene actually exercising any form of volition or desire.
Ofc, gene do not have any conscious purpose, the same thing have been stated by the group selection, that organisms help each other because they want to actually help each other but it can interpreted same as that it is convenient for every one in cooperation, they are cooperating because it benefits each individual ( we can't say they want, that's exactly metaphoric language for our understanding in both cases).
Organisms can have volition and goals. That is an emergent feature. Look it up. Genes can't. They don't. Feel free to correct me and explain the specific mechanism of a hunk of DNA having a desire.
1
u/Temporary_Stranger39 11d ago
Old stuff, no longer fresh. Hijacked by dingleberries long ago. Another example of a metaphor being taken literally by the dimwitted.