This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation - Comments

JFHalsey's Avatar Comment 1 by JFHalsey

Question--is there a way for them to cause all the bacteria to express the TTSS-1 gene, and therefor all kill themselves off? Or can genes only be switched on/off at "birth"?

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:16:00 UTC | #222349

Ex~'s Avatar Comment 2 by Ex~

A prime example of the most important discovery in evolution since Darwin:

It's not survival of the fittest ANIMALS, it's survival of the fittest GENES.

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:23:00 UTC | #222353

jhm's Avatar Comment 3 by jhm

Instead of "if the gene is present but not always expressed, it can persist," I would say, "the gene will only persist if it is not always expressed.."

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:34:00 UTC | #222358

kkelly's Avatar Comment 4 by kkelly

1, gene expression is continually regulated, so yes it's possible to get all to express that gene. In this case, the environment of the gut tissue coinhabited with other species of competing bacteria turns the expression on.

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:42:00 UTC | #222361

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 5 by Steve Zara

Comment #234947 by kkelly

I would like to apologise to you. Your first posts were a bit shocking, but you have moderated your style to suit this site, and I may have overreacted to some of your posts.

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:48:00 UTC | #222362

kkelly's Avatar Comment 6 by kkelly

5, get bent :)

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:51:00 UTC | #222365

Ishruul's Avatar Comment 7 by Ishruul

After reading this article I can only understand more what Islam is: Kamikaze bacteria.

It's all there, wow, it was so obvious! :)

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:16:00 UTC | #222388

DamnDirtyApe's Avatar Comment 8 by DamnDirtyApe

'First wave, operation buggy shield! go go go!'

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:19:00 UTC | #222488

Dr. Strangegod's Avatar Comment 9 by Dr. Strangegod

Ishruul - My thought exactly.

Okay, so bear with me on a bit of stretch: if genes can propagate themselves by having the organisms sacrifice some of themselves in order for the rest of the organisms to succeed, could memes work the same way? If so, might this mean that the phenomenon of religious extremism is a way for the larger meme (or, memeplex, whatever) to survive? I'm thinking of the "healers" in recent articles here. If Michael Guglielmucci "takes one for the team," does that strengthen the chances of survival for less offensive versions of his religion? And maybe the same with suicide bombers and "moderate" Islam?

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:30:00 UTC | #222544

ridelo's Avatar Comment 10 by ridelo

Lucas: I've heard (on YouTube?) some extremist imam saying that if believers started to kill off infidels (as most as possible) in suicide attacks then in the long run Islam would prevail. Same logic.

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:13:00 UTC | #222577

mandydax's Avatar Comment 11 by mandydax

@2 Ex~

That's exactly what I was thinking. It's brilliant.

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:35:00 UTC | #222597

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 12 by Richard Dawkins

Wait a minute. Isn't there something odd about the entire logic of this paper? It uses a game-theoretic type of reasoning, which would be appropriate if the bactera were not genetically identical. Since they are genetically identical, the case is analogous to the liver cells, muscle cells, skin cells etc (call them somatic cells) of an animal such as a human 'sacrificing' themselves for the good of the germ line cells (those destined to make sperms or eggs). These somatic cells are genetically identical, yet they have different phenotypes (liver cells are different from muscle cells, etc). You can call that phenotypic noise if you want, although it would sound odd. But the point is that nobody would think of using game theory to compute the optimum ratio of somatic to germ line cells.

What we have here is good old gene selection. In a clone of genetically identical cells, genes that cause an an optimum proportion of cells to sacrifice themselves survive better than genes that cause a sub-optimal proportion of cells (for example zero) to sacrifice themselves. Computing relative benefits to the sacrificing and the non-sacrificing cells is inappropriate, because they are all genetically identical anyway.

This seems very clear to me, and I am baffled as to why the paper was written in this way (I have looked at the original paper in Nature).

Richard

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 01:27:00 UTC | #222797

Joe Morreale's Avatar Comment 13 by Joe Morreale

Richard,

Are you now ready to being exposed as a deluded fool who hides behind the secular establishment who have for 150 years imposed this false idea that science and religion are not compatable on the masses BY ACCEPTING ADNAN OKTAR'S CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE IN PUBLIC ON EVOLUTION?

Please do not bother with petty and ridiculous excuses for avoiding debates with creationists because you very well know that the illusion of evolution would be exposed and you would be humiliated.

I am sure Adnan is fully aware of some mistakes in his Atlas but he and many other rational human beings know that the rest of the book does the job and SO DO YOU YOURSELF so stop clutching at straws with the eels and fishing lures.

If he felt that those mistakes threaten his case he surely would not challenge you to a public debate so come out of your hole, accept the challenge and let history be made.

Let the world witness the disgracefull deception of evolution which perhaps might lead to it OFFICIALLY BEING DECLARED AS NOTHING BUT A SINISTER FAIRY TALE WHICH DESERVES TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CURRICULUM.
OR at least in true democratic fashion let darwinism be taught alongside creationism and let people make up their own minds.
Sadly of course it is extremely unlikely that the secular world order would allow this to happen and this clearly makes a mockery of democracy.

AND YOU HAVE THE CHEEK TO GO AROUND SAYING THAT IT IS RELIGION THAT BRAINWASHES PEOPLE WHEN THE WHOLE MEDIA AND ACADEMIC ESTABLISHMENT IS SET UP TO INDOCTRINATE PEOPLE THAT LIFE IS PURPOSELESS AND ONLY A STRUGGLE FOR SURVIVAL?

Anyway are you going to accept the challenge or can we say that you are nothing but a coward that hides behind the secular establishment which in accordance to its agenda obviously continues to support you all day long.

It is ironic that the titles of some of your books actually befit yourself!
Selfish Gene - and it is you that is selfish
Blind Watchmaker - and it is definately you that is blind
and The God Delusion and no doubt it is you that is deluded!

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 04:51:00 UTC | #222856

Laurie Fraser's Avatar Comment 14 by Laurie Fraser

It is ironic that the titles of some of your books actually befit yourself!
Selfish Gene - and it is you that is selfish
Blind Watchmaker - and it is definately you that is blind
and The God Delusion and no doubt it is you that is deluded!


Top marks for debating skills, Joe.

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 04:57:00 UTC | #222858

Thor'Ungal's Avatar Comment 15 by Thor'Ungal

Kin selection, Like ants. It would be more interesting to find an article about mutually cooperative bacteria that were not related. It might shed some light on the Eukaryote revolution.
Ah sorry off topic.

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 05:03:00 UTC | #222862

Thor'Ungal's Avatar Comment 16 by Thor'Ungal

What was that...

what is with religious people and capitals. Joe, Richard has said no. How many Biologists are there out there that would take up said challenge. In this kind of debate wouldn't it be better dealt with by correspondence. Surely the sheer scope of the subject (especially when dealing with "irreducible complexity") requires some time in front of peer reviewed papers to answer properly. Why exactly do some people think that science is best discussed in a debate format anyway.

Try Ken Miller or someone, keep Atheism out of the argument (or is that really what you wanted to discuss).

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 05:23:00 UTC | #222871

Joe Morreale's Avatar Comment 17 by Joe Morreale

Forget all the crap that is written on paper which has been shown to be nothing but largely speculation upon speculation fuelled by wishfull-thinking backed up by demagogy and propaganda and no concrete scientific evidence whatsoever.
The time of deceiving people and drawing the wool over peoples eyes by media control and manupilation is over.

ADNAN OKTAR ALONG WITH HIS ATLASES CAN BRING NUMEROUS LIVE EXAMPLES OF FOSSILS WHICH CLEARLY AND IRREFUTABLY SHOW THAT EVOLUTION NEVER HAPPENED.

WHERE IS DAWKINS CAN PULL OUT HIS IMAGINARY
TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS FROM?!

DAWKINS KNOWS THIS AND HENCE THE REASON FOR HIS NOT WANTING TO ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE WHICH WOULD HUMILITATE HIM.
HE WOULD NO LONGER BE ABLE TO KEEP THE ILLUSION "ALIVE".

You and his followers know this but conveniently choose to ignore this and pretend otherwise.

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:10:00 UTC | #222892

Laurie Fraser's Avatar Comment 18 by Laurie Fraser

JOE YOU BEING SHOUTING AT SUCH LEVEL BIG CAN YOU SEE NOT THAT THIS GIVE EVERYONE SHIT NO DOUBT AND PLEASE USE PUNCTUATION AT APPROPRIATE TIME OTHERWISE WE ALL AT DAWKIN SITE THINK YOU ARE JUST BIG GALAH NOTHING LESS OR BRAINDEAD FUCKTARD.

Irritating, isn't it Joe?

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:15:00 UTC | #222895

Faithhead's Avatar Comment 19 by Faithhead

Comment #235475 by Joe Morreale on August 23, 2008 at 5:51 am


Is it possible for mods to move these comments to somewhere more appropriate? (The Good, The Bad, The Ugly) It has got nothing to do with the article and they are just preaching.

Regards
Lorcan

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:15:00 UTC | #222896

Roger Stanyard's Avatar Comment 20 by Roger Stanyard

Message to Joe Morreale,

So which jail can we contact Adnan Oktar in so he can convert us with his obious high levels of personal integrity compared to Richard Dawkins?

Presumably he hasn't asked to share the same cell with Kent Hovind.

(Shakes head at the utter banality of a person pushing a convicted criminal as a paragon of virtue.)

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:26:00 UTC | #222900

Roger Stanyard's Avatar Comment 21 by Roger Stanyard

Joe Morreale appears to be so stupid that he doesn't appear to realise that Adnan Oktar is in jail for a long period and therefore Richard can't debate with him.

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:29:00 UTC | #222901

Joe Morreale's Avatar Comment 22 by Joe Morreale

Roger,

The guy has and is ruffling feathers in high places, particularly the architects (freemasons) of current secular world order ever since his mission. (see his recent interviews regarding his latest legal troubles).

As is typical of those who's mission it is to conceal or keep people away from the truth, Adnan is being slandered and accused of all sorts with the aim being to create doubt in the person which could lead to people not taking him seriously.
BUT ANYONE OF A SINCERE AND OBJECTIVE DISPOSITION CAN CLEARLY SEE WHAT IS GOING ON AND CAN THEREFORE NOT BE DECEIVED BY SUCH DESPICABLE TACTICS.

You surely know the ideological importance of evolution. The whole imposed (on scientific establishment, academia and media) lies and deceptive scenario of religion and science not being compatable and that they need to be separate with science taking precedence, to current world order and that is why Adnan's placing the deception of evolution out in the open has and no doubt will continue to create for himself pressure and threats from various groups (again mainly the Masons)who it is causing much inconvenience.

Can you imagine that they have worked behind the scenes for several centuries now to get the secular world order to where it is now and they will try to not let anyone interfere or expose their sinister and disgracefull deception, with the forced atheist and secularization of science being crucial to their agenda.

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:42:00 UTC | #222905

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 23 by Steve Zara

Comment #235538 by Joe Morreale

You surely know the ideological importance of evolution


Please explain.

lies and deceptive scenario of religion and science not being compatable


What predictive power has religion? What testable ideas does it put forward?

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:44:00 UTC | #222906

Thor'Ungal's Avatar Comment 24 by Thor'Ungal

Joe, are you a parody or a troll by chance. It's a little hard to take you conspiracy theory ranting on face value and you don't seem to have much in the way of comment history.

I fear that if peered reviewed studies aren't enough for you then neither side will have anything to go on. Both sides will simply say that the evidence on the other side is lies and conspiracies. Either that or you side will degrade into saying evolution is the work of the devil and lies to promote atheism.

Ooh do we have a link for him to go to so he can express his ideas elsewhere to get torn apart by people in the know? There's got to be a Harun Yahya thread somewhere.

Isn't he still in jail??

http://www.reuters.com/article/artsNews/idUSL0992091620080509?sp=true

edit: Man I'm too slow at this, several comments just in the time it took to write this.

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:44:00 UTC | #222907

Hellene's Avatar Comment 25 by Hellene

JOE MORRALLE

I have picture of TRANSITIONAL SPECIES. It DESTROYS THE LIE OF CREATIONISM once and for all. Hanum Yia Yia and all FALSE CREATIONISTS will all tremble WITH FEAR at this image.

CLICK HERE

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:50:00 UTC | #222908

Joe Morreale's Avatar Comment 26 by Joe Morreale

Hellene,

Very funny.

No joking can avoid the fact that Dawkins like the true coward that he is cannot bring any or ONE SINGLE GENUINE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL to the table and this is why he avoids the public debate.

Adnan Oktar apart from a few mistakes has with his Atlases and numerous live fossils proven that evolution has only happened in the wild imaginations of those who wished it were true (like yourselves for example).

UNLESS HE ACCEPTS THE CHALLENGE WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT HE KNOWS THE GAME IS UP.

AS IT STANDS HE IS AT THE MOMENT SIMPLY A COWARD WHO HAS NOW BEEN CORNERED LIKE THE ANIMAL THAT HE THINKS HE HAS DESCENDED FROM!

Even if Adnan can not himself be present at the debate there are plenty of his colleauges who can be so don't you worry about that.

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 07:05:00 UTC | #222913

Peacebeuponme's Avatar Comment 27 by Peacebeuponme

Joe Morreale

No joking can avoid the fact that Dawkins like the true coward that he is cannot bring any or ONE SINGLE GENUINE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL to the table and this is why he avoids the public debate.
Every single fossil ever found is a transitional fossil between an earlier form and a later form.

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 07:09:00 UTC | #222915

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 28 by Steve Zara

Comment #235548 by Joe Morreale

No joking can avoid the fact that Dawkins like the true coward that he is cannot bring any or ONE SINGLE GENUINE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL to the table and this is why he avoids the public debate.


What are your criteria for a transitional fossil being genuine?

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 07:09:00 UTC | #222916

Peacebeuponme's Avatar Comment 29 by Peacebeuponme

Brian English

Joe, you seriously can't be that stupid.
He follows a rapist and worships a child rapist.

He surely can.

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 07:11:00 UTC | #222917

Joe Morreale's Avatar Comment 30 by Joe Morreale

Steve,

If you think that your games will cut any ice me you are deluded.

Go and play your games somewhere else or just join a circus or something

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 07:13:00 UTC | #222918