Bibliographie générale
Bibliographie générale |
|
 |
|
Dover, G. (2001). Dear mr darwin: Letters on the evolution of life and the human nature. Londres: Phoenix (Orion Books Ltd). Added by: Dominique Meeùs (2009-07-11 17:28:51) Last edited by: Dominique Meeùs (2009-08-05 16:09:45) |
| Resource type: Book ID no. (ISBN etc.): ISBN:0-75381-127-8 BibTeX citation key: Dover2001a View all bibliographic details  |
Categories: Biologie Keywords: biologie, biologie moléculaire, cellule, Darwin, darwinisme, évolution, gène, génétique, spéciation Creators: Dover Publisher: Phoenix (Orion Books Ltd) (Londres) |
Views: 3/1668 Views index: 40% Popularity index: 10% |
| Notes |
|
Édition de poche de (Dover, 2000) Dover, G. (2000). Dear mr darwin: Letters on the evolution of life and the human nature. Londres: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. Added by: Dominique Meeùs |
| Quotes |
|
p.xii, Chapter How to read this book
The recent discoveries in biology are challenging how we think about biological evolution. We are entering a world of biology that lies far beyond the naivety of selfish genes and their supposedly lonely pursuits of self-replication and self-immortalization.
Added by: Dominique Meeùs
Keywords: évolution biologie Dawkins gène gène égoïste selfish gene |
|
p.49, Chapter The fourth correspondance : The ignorant gene
The belief that there is a specific gene or set of genes for every observable characteristic of an organism (eyes, language, sexuality and so on), and that the current ubiquity of these genes is due to their own selfish pursuits in times past, is currently setting the intellectual agenda for many important aspects of human nature and society.
Added by: Dominique Meeùs
Keywords: Dawkins gène phénotype selfish gene |
|
p.50
It was Mr Engels who in 1878 wrote a brilliantly mischievous book called Anti-Dühring, in which Herr Eugen Dühring’s self-proclaimed « revolution in philosophy, political economy and society » was systematically exposed for what it was. […] There are notable similarities between Dawkins and Dühring, and, like Engels, I intend to use a provocative anti-Dawkins polemic as a device to paint a much larger picture of some of the late-twentieth-century excitements of new genetic discoveries and their evolutionary implications. These developments have no room for Dawkins’ misappropriation of [the] theory of natural selection, as embodied in the selfish-gene illusion. Added by: Dominique Meeùs Comments: La comparaison est excessive. Dühring était un savant « self-proclaimed » tandis que Dawkins est un des scientifiques qui comptent dans le domaine. Il a énervé beaucoup de monde avec son (Dawkins, 1976) et l’idée paradoxale et provocante qu’on pouvait mieux interpréter l’évolution comme le devenir des gènes. Cela a donné une violente controverse entre deux camps, celui de Gould et celui de Dawkins. La controverse a été envenimée par l’exploitation des idées de Dawkins en psychologie et en sociobiologie. Les deux principaux protagonistes (dont le premier est décédé en 2002), étant des scientifiques, ont su, en même temps qu’ils polémiquaient durement, écouter les arguments de l’autre et reconnaitre leurs apports intéressants. Il suffit pour s’en convaincre, dans le cas de Dawkins, en lisant (en s’aidant de l’index) dans son (Dawkins, 2007) tous les passages où il mentionne Gould. Dover est donc un peu en retard d’une guerre. Ensuite, quand on attaque durement quelqu’un, on doit rappeler les positions qu’on condamne et argumenter avec précision contre elles. Or Dover parle peu de Dawkins dans la suite. Il semble penser que les thèses (supposées simples et éternelles) de Dawkins sont bien connues et que le lecteur doit voir lui-même en quoi les idées qu’il défend, lui Dover, les réfutent. On voit bien que les apports de la génétique du développement (voir plus loin les gènes Hox) donnent, de manière très convaincante, plus d’importance à l’organisme qu’au gène, mais on reste quand même sur sa faim par rapport à la déclaration de guerre ci-dessus. Dawkins, R. (2007). Il était une fois nos ancêtres: Une histoire de l’évolution M.-F. Desjeux, Trans. Paris: Éditions Robert Laffont. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford et New York: Oxford University Press. Added by: Dominique Meeùs (2009-08-05 16:09:45) |
|
p.51
To justify the concept of the gene as a unit of selection, Dawkins makes several assumptions, all of which are wrong.
Added by: Dominique Meeùs
Comments: Il faudra donner les arguments et les faits avancés par Dover et indiquer les thèses exactes de Dawkings qu'il refute précisément. Added by: admin (2009-07-13 12:19:36) |
|
p.131, Chapter The tenth correspondance : Biological barriers
Hughes [the English poet Ted Hughes, 1930-1998], like every one of us, is nothing but pure, unadulterated « individual ». There is no biological connection with the past or with the future. We uniquely live only in the present, even though our ignorant genes were inherited from generations past. What cannot be inherited is the particular collection of interactions of genes with genes and of genes with environment that uniquely defines each of us. Each gene is a unit of inheritance, but it can not carry into the next generation the unique set of interactive functions that defines every individual. A gene cannot control which genetic partners it finds itself with in any individual. The one-off set of genetic interactions that specifies the unique unfolding of an individual cannot be inherited. A result of this, as I argued extensively in an earlier letter, is that the genes, in themselves, cannot be the targets of selection, nor can they be, individually and independently, the arbiters of our creativity. Some of Bach’s twenty children were composers but many were not and none was like the father. As for the grandchildren…
Added by: Dominique Meeùs
Keywords: environnement gène individu interaction |
|
pp.156-157, Chapter The twelfth correspondence : Hox ! Hox ! Hox !
Ed Lewis found that the same genes that caused homeotic transformations in the adult [of D. melanogaster] (for example, a pair of wings on T3 in place of halteres) also caused segment transformations in the larva. Three particular genes, which turned out to be among the first three Hox genes discovered, could be deleted from the chromosome and the resultant segments of the embryo examined. These genes are called Ultrabithorax (Ubx), abd-A and abd-B. If all three genes are deleted together, which is possible because they lie very near to each other on the same chromosome, the resultant larva has segment structures T1, (T2) × 10. In other words, ten of the segments have the structure of T2. lf Ubx is added back, the larva has segment structures T1, T2, T3, (A1) × 8. lf abd-A is added back as well, we have T1, T2, T3, A1, A2, A3, (A4) × 5. In the absence of all three Hox genes, all the segments except T1 would tum into T2, and if the larva could overcome this little problem and develop into an adult, we would have a fly with ten pairs of wings and eleven pairs of legs — something resembling Manchester United Football Team, to which I shall return later ! In the absence of only the Ubx gene, we get our four-winged fly. In the absence of abd-B, several of the most posterior segments resemble the fourth abdominal segment. And finally, in the absence of both abd-A and abd-B, all the abdominal segments look like the very first one. Added by: Dominique Meeùs Keywords: évolution Dawkins Drosophila drosophile gène gène égoïste Gould larve segment abdominal segment thoracique transformation homéotique Comments: Gould (1991, pp.219–233) avait déjà insisté sur l’importance de phénomènes de ce genre dans notre compréhension de l’évolution et mentionne le même exemple, puis d’autres. Lewis (1978), qui a eu en 1995 le prix Nobel pour ses travaux dans ce domaine, a publié ce résultat en 1978, deux ans après la publication du Selfish gene de Dawkins (1976), mais il travaillait sur ce genre de choses depuis les années soixante. Il me semble que le résultat expérimental rapporté ci-dessus réfute (« falsifie ») pratiquement à lui tout seul le paradigme de « gène égoïste » de Dawkins. De nombreux gènes commandent la construction et la forme des balanciers, des pattes et des ailes des drosophiles. Les trois gènes mentionnés ci-dessous, en commandent l’activation ou non au cours du développement de l’organisme. Il est absurde d’accorder à tous ces gènes, tant aux gènes de structure qu’aux gènes de déclenchement, un devenir individuel. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford et New York: Oxford University Press. Gould, S. J. (1991). Quand les poules auront des dents…: Réflexions sur l’histoire naturelle 3 M.-F. de Palomera, Trans. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Lewis, E. B. (1978). A gene controlling segmentation in drosophila. Nature, 276, 565–570. Added by: Dominique Meeùs (2009-07-20 23:35:41) |
|
p.174
It is interesting that quantitative changes probably precede qualitative changes in biology. This reminds me of Karl Marx’s concept of dialectical materialism. Quantitative changes need to accumulate to a certain point before they cause a qualitative change in state — like heating liquid water to the fixed point at which it turns into gaseous steam, or cooling water to the point at which it turns into solid ice. This is similar to the processes of evolution, whether by natural selection or molecular drive. But biological organisms are not like the simple case of water because we do not know at what point we should be expecting a change of state, be it a new species, a new appendage or a new example of molecular coevolution.
Added by: Dominique Meeùs
Keywords: changement quantitatif changement qualitatif loi de la dialectique biologie dialectique Marx matérialisme dialectique |