• Benj96
    2.3k
    I have a curious proposition. It is simply a hypothetical/ unusual angle of perspective but nothing to be taken literally.

    Suppose that we assume you are equal to the sum of your genes. And nothing else. That is it. Let’s leave consciousness and nurture and environment etc aside for now.
    Let’s focus solely on genetic “you”. If we are the sum of our genes alone, then actually our “conception” and “death” are not restricted to our biological “birth” and “death” as our genes are not restricted to these things. We receive them and often we pass them on before dying.

    Now let’s assume that our “point of negligibility/ unaccountability” or “true non existence” in the gene pool is when there is only less than 1% of us (our genes) in a direct ancestor or line of offspring.

    Now knowing that we inherit half of our genes from each parent and pass on only half to our offspring, This “point of negligibility” so happens to be 7 generations ago and also 7 generations in the future.

    7 generations ago: your ancestor had 0 .7% of you in their genes
    6 gen ago: 1.5%
    5th: 3%, then 6.25% then 12.5% in your great grandparents, 25% in your grandparents, 50% in your parents and finally 100% in you.
    Similarly you’re great, great, great, great great grandchildren will only hold 0.7% of you again.

    You could imagine it like a “wave” in the gene pool where you are the peak. So in this case you begin to manifest and decay all within the breathe of 14 human lifespans. Obviously human life expectancy changes continuously and is now almost 100 years but if we take a general conservative estimate of about 60 years old across the board, You began “becoming” out of the gene pool around 420 years ago (approx. Turn of the 17th century -1600 ad.) and your ultimate dissolution will be around year 2441.

    Weird thought.
  • James Riley
    2.9k
    I had a time putting that all together until the wave analogy. Then I got it. My first thought is about the ocean, out of which we arise, and into which we fall back. All the genes, ever, are in there. But I assume there is some evolution, creating new water molecules that did not exist before.

    Anyway, I didn't really see a question in there so I'm just thinking out loud in response. Why stop there:

    It does remind me of an argument I made some years ago, where the issue of wolves came up. Some scientist, a biologist (and who am I to argue with him?) offered up that canis familiaris and canis lupus is a false distinction, and that biologically, genetically, they are identical. I argued that if that were true, then it proves the old adage about being greater than the sum of parts; a wolf is greater than the sum of it's parts. You cannot wipe out wolves and think we're still all good because, well, we have dogs. That's BS.
  • Benj96
    2.3k
    I argued that if that were true, then it proves the old adage about being greater than the sum of partsJames Riley

    Interesting reference. Yes it would seem that if dogs and wolves truly are genetically identical then the sum is more than its parts for sure.

    This is really where “epi-genetics” comes into play.
    I say this as a genetic aspect to dogs rather than a nurture or environmental one because of two things; if nurture/ environment was the only difference between dogs and wolves then dogs would look like wolves then they were born and behave as dogs after being nurtured correctly. Secondly dogs obviously have stable traits that last over generations which shows the genetic rather than nurture basis for their difference to wolves.

    So the true difference in wolves and dogs may not be the type/ number of genes they have (this being identical - But rather the nature of their “activity”.
    Some genes that are “on” or “active” in wolves are “dormant” in dogs and vice versa leading to their variation in appearance and behaviour.

    A similar phenomenon is seen in human twins. Twins are most identical in childhood and by old age are easily distinguished because of the accumulation of changes to their genetic activity to the point where tho they are genetically identical, their metabolisms, predisposition to diseases and signs of ageing are actually quite different.

    It’s worthy to note that one determinant of “species” is whether two individuals can mate and produce fertile offspring.
    The interesting case of dogs is that they can indeed breed with wolves and produce fertile offspring (unlike horses and donkeys. Mules are sterile) but some dogs - a chihuahua for example are incapable of breeding with a wolf .... which suggests that depending on size - some dogs should technically be “a separate species” to wolves.

    In this way we see that nature doesn’t do discrete definitions but rather continuum’s for which science has great difficulty compartmentalising
  • James Riley
    2.9k
    In this way we see that nature doesn’t do discrete definitions but rather continuum’s for which science has great difficulty compartmentalisingBenj96

    True dat. And if you think science has trouble dealing with nature, you should see the law!
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.