Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!enews.sgi.com!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!omega.metrics.com!news.maplesoft.on.ca!news
From: Terry Van Belle <vanbelle@maplesoft.com>
Subject: Re: Selfish Genes
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: <3241B6F3.30BF@maplesoft.com>
Sender: news@maplesoft.on.ca (News File Owner)
Nntp-Posting-Host: agate
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: Waterloo Maple Inc.
References: <51cg4e$87c@raven.cc.ukans.edu> <01bba372$dc217500$6b92eecd@btschumy.bga.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 21:11:15 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01Gold (WinNT; U)
Lines: 21

Bill Tschumy wrote:
> I think GA research already incorporates the concept of selfish
> genes.  All the "selfish gene" idea amounts to is a realization that
> the unit of evolution is the gene, not the organism.  Each gene is
> trying to perpetuate itself, not necessarily trying to help the
> organism survive (although the two might be correlated).  Richard
> Dawkins' insight was just to point this out and point out some of the
> ramifications of it.  It is not a new mechanism that he discovered.

I've always felt that the Schema Theorem had a distinctly "selfish
gene" feel to it.  The theorem calculates the expected frequency of
schemata, not bitstrings; to a rough approximation, schemata and genes
are analogous.  The Schema Theorem even accounts for and quantifies the
susceptibility of long schemata to being destroyed by crossover and
mutation, something that Dawkins talks about in a genetic context in
TSG.  Of course, Dawkins is concerned with restricting the definition
of "gene" to portions of the genetic code which are likely to remain
intact over a reasonable number of generations.  There is no such
restriction on the definition of "schema."

Terry
