Why We Do It

猫咪头 · Post by **猫咪头** » 2005-01-14 12:45

I am back into this world.

That how it feels to come to work in regular hours, instead of taking half days off to take turns with my spouse to tend my sick baby. That is how it feels to do my job without the daily negotiations, the apologic tones, the excuse me’s, the i-really appreciate-this’s. Today the sun is shining on this windy city. Today the icy gale feels refreshing. As the bus takes its time along the frozen lake shore drive, I managed to finish the book “why we do it”.

The book catches me with its subtitle --rethinking sex and the selfish gene. For I am just tired of those molecular biologist gone preacher who gave other serious biologist a bad name. I hoped the author, a paleontologist (someone who study life existing in prehistoric or geologic times), can set some record straight. Is evolution guided by the survival of the fittest, of the luckiest, of the crookest, or is it simply a record of survival of the survivor?

The book turned out to be badly written, to say the least. The author tried so hard to fight the “widely promoted myth that human beings are the prisoners of their own genes, guided in all by the urge to reproduce”, as if this is more a morality challenge than a scientific dispute. The author mingled sociological and culture forces besides science to discuss his main question: do organisms live to reproduce or do they reproduce to live.

But wait, I can’t review this book today. Today I am a bit confused.

Do we groom and work to gain society recognition, and ultimately gain a good spouse and healthy offspring; or do we have good healthy spouse and children so that we can groom and go out to work to gain this society’s recognition? I got confused.

tiffany · Post by **tiffany** » 2005-01-14 13:24

永恒的鸡先还是鸡蛋先的问题啊

猫咪头 · Post by **猫咪头** » 2005-01-14 13:45

A chicken lay eggs to make more chickens vs. a chicken is just an egg's way to make more eggs.

helenClaire · Post by **helenClaire** » 2005-01-14 13:54

圣诞节的时候买了本书：<<The Mating Game>>不是很新的书了。

书的第一句提出这样的问题："Why do women bother to have sons?"
我心里就回答"Why not? So I wasted half of my reproduction effort, so what? I could afford it and it makes me happy."
当然啦，书要讲的不是生男生女的选择，而是从分子学，遗传学，细胞学和进化的角度论述"male is a redundancy"。科学家写给有生物学背景知识的人读的，挺有趣。
我断断续续看了三分之一，偷偷翻了末页，作者带着沉重的危机感说“我们的用途好象就剩下一条：给人类提供比较健全的免疫系统。”即使这个，也不是不能用今天的科学技术在实验室里完成。我恍然大悟，作者说的“我们”不是泛指的“我们”，是“we male homo sapiens”

前面没有注意到，这是两位男科学家，失敬失敬。
决定回去把书读完。

笑嘻嘻 · Post by **笑嘻嘻** » 2005-01-14 14:09

书的第一句提出这样的问题："Why do women bother to have sons?"

to make some other women happy later.

tiffany · Post by **tiffany** » 2005-01-14 14:14

书的第一句提出这样的问题："Why do women bother to have sons?"

这个好像多少年以前是没有选择的耶。
我突然想到这个社会重男轻女的传统结构难道不是因为男性潜意识里认识到这个问题，非常sneaky的设计出这么一个社会秩序来维持其存在的重要性么。

tiffany · Post by **tiffany** » 2005-01-14 14:16

笑嘻嘻 wrote:
书的第一句提出这样的问题："Why do women bother to have sons?"
to make some other women happy later.

阿大你太不女权了！我痛心疾首的说，为哈一个woman必须要一个man才happy

笑嘻嘻 · Post by **笑嘻嘻** » 2005-01-14 14:29

我没说"必须"啊. 多一个功能选择总是好的嘛. 看来是我选词错误.

helenClaire · Post by **helenClaire** » 2005-01-14 14:31

tiffany wrote:
书的第一句提出这样的问题："Why do women bother to have sons?"
这个好像多少年以前是没有选择的耶。

白金，这个问题问的不是选择权或选择能力，而是从进化的角度讲，理论上可以由随机突变而出现一个能够自身繁殖的女性，那么她的繁殖能力是双性繁殖女性的两倍--她所有的后代都是女儿，她的女儿都可以再生女儿，很快，她的后代数目就会大大超过甚至取代别人，使人类这个物种从双性变单性(双性数目少到可以忽略不记)。
这种情况没有出现，那么sex有它的进化上的存在价值：比如后代多样化，不会被一个流感菌株给wiped out。但是它的价值能不能justify它的代价(繁殖速度慢了一半)？
我觉得有意思的是，随机突变本身并不知道突变后是不是会成功，it just happens, 那么在人类或任何一个双性物种里，为什么没有看到这样的单性突变，和它带来的boom and bust的单性数目变化规律？

tiffany · Post by **tiffany** » 2005-01-14 14:44

嗯，这么说来，我觉得单性繁殖最大的问题就是多样性比较少，一套基因重复又重复，进化的余地恐怕比双性的要小。
你们看过前一阵子pbs的一个哈节目，查人类的基因的。追溯到上古人类，大家其实好像都是从同一个支儿上传下来的。就是说倒回去那么几千年，大家都是一个洞里蹲着的猿人。

Jun · Post by **Jun** » 2005-01-14 14:52

Mutations are not "created," but just whatever happens. If something FABULOUSLY effective did not happen, then it didn't happen. This is the same as what Helen said.

tiffany · Post by **tiffany** » 2005-01-14 15:02

我的意思是说双性繁殖dna排列重组，变化性比较大。
单性的话，主要是复制，变化性比较小。
总结地说，双性繁殖的话，基因突变的可能性比较大----又或者根本不是突变，而是某些基因排列组合，u know, transcription factors and all that crap,

橙 · Post by 橙 » 2005-01-14 23:52

不被流感病毒wipe out，倒不是因为不同个体基因的多样性，而是因为个体间相同的免疫系统能够产生多样的抗体。
小白说：我的意思是说双性繁殖dna排列重组，变化性比较大。
x染色体跟y染色体杂交，可不如跟x产生的多样性大啊。为哈不能xx跟xx呢？也就是说，如果女同性恋者，能够通过两个生殖细胞杂交，而不是单性克隆，来产生后代，那不是更有进化上的优势？

silkworm · Post by **silkworm** » 2005-01-15 0:47

橙 wrote:如果女同性恋者，能够通过两个生殖细胞杂交，而不是单性克隆，来产生后代，那不是更有进化上的优势？

俩卵子往一块堆儿融合，这个构想比较神奇。这样后代必定是雌性，彻底消灭男性指日可待。

Jun · Post by **Jun** » 2005-01-15 13:13

The author tried so hard to fight the “widely promoted myth that human beings are the prisoners of their own genes, guided in all by the urge to reproduce”, as if this is more a morality challenge than a scientific dispute.

I am skeptical about any argument that makes people feel good, because the likelihood of wishful thinking is just too high for scientific validity. Real scientists must have the courage to face the truth even if the truth is unpleasant, otherwise I have no time for him.

Nature vs. nurture. It would be nuts to say either element is absolute and the other is nonexistent. A person's mind and personality are just like schizophrenia or type 2 diabetes, x% comes from genes and y% comes from the environment. It's useless to argue that. The only point of contention is how much x and y are.

And life, fate, whatever you call is, has another component that contributes z% to its essence -- pure luck (ie, coincidence).

tiffany · Post by **tiffany** » 2005-01-17 16:23

橙 wrote:不被流感病毒wipe out，倒不是因为不同个体基因的多样性，而是因为个体间相同的免疫系统能够产生多样的抗体。
小白说：我的意思是说双性繁殖dna排列重组，变化性比较大。
x染色体跟y染色体杂交，可不如跟x产生的多样性大啊。为哈不能xx跟xx呢？也就是说，如果女同性恋者，能够通过两个生殖细胞杂交，而不是单性克隆，来产生后代，那不是更有进化上的优势？

水果这话说得，一看就知道是免疫的行家。
嗯，据说y上的基因也不是全无用处，n年以前看的哈报道。两个卵子结合产生下一代------老天爷真不聪明，这都没有想到！