「リチャード・ドーキンス博士に質問のメールをお送りいたしました」

リチャード・ドーキンス博士に質問のメールをお送りいたしました。


差出人 ********* M***** <b *******@g****.***>
宛先 richard.dawkins@oum.ox.ac.**
日付 2008/06/10 18:28
件名 I have some questions about ‘The Selfish Gene’.


Dear Prof. Richard Dawkins,

I have read your book titled 'The Selfish Gene'.
It was very interesting and I have learned many things.
I do, however, have some questions.

I would really appreciate it if you answered the following questions.


1. On page 15, you mention the birth of the replicator.

The problem here is that not only affinity adsorption but also breakdown is necessary to create copies.

The replicator cannot be constructed unless these 2 events occur in sequence.

If each building block only has the property of affinity, it would only be able to adsorb another building block but not break it down.

Because they are molecularly stable, the blocks will permanently exist in this attached state.

Therefore, I think that there is a discrepancy in your explanation regarding the existence of only an affinity property.

Further, I think that the existence of the replicator requires the simultaneous existence of the Splitter which splits them into the state that they existed in prior to adsorption.

What are your views in this regard?


2. On page 19, you mention that
'Other replicators perhaps discovered how to protect themselves, either chemically or by building a physical wall of protein around themselves.
This may have been how the first living cells appeared'.

Considering that only the chemical reaction occurs, the following statement holds true.
'The first survival machines probably consisted of nothing more than a protective coat'.

However, the presence of a protective coat would require extracellular interaction, and it would be impossible for replicators to replicate and multiply.

In the existing cell model, the cell membrane is closely associated with the intracellular functioning of the cell.

Without these functions, the protective coat would result in the death of the replicators, and the evolution process would have been terminated.

Therefore, from a scientific point of view it is clearly impossible for a structure like a cell, to form only as a result of a chemical reaction, as you say.

What are your views in this regard?



3. On page 21 it is mentioned that
'The original replicators may have been a related kind of molecule to DNA, or they may have been totally different. In the latter case we might say that their survival machines must have been seized at a later stage by DNA'.

I do not quite understand the sudden association with DNA in the present context.

Please can you clarify this?


4. On page 23 you mention that 'This brings me to the second important thing DNA does. It indirectly supervises the manufacture of a different kind of molecule-protein'.

Further, you add that 'Making proteins may seem a far cry from making a body, but it is the first small step in that direction'.

I think that there is a large gap in this logic because synthesizing foreign object, e.g. protein, does not contribute to replication directly.

At the very beginning, when proteins were first synthesized, the replication efficiency may have decreased; therefore, the DNA that was responsible for synthesizing these proteins may have been destroyed.

Therefore, it is practically impossible for DNA to synthesize proteins.

What is your opinion on this?


5. On page 23 you say
'The DNA instructions have been assembled by natural selection'.

However, this statement is misleading because natural selection cannot be used as an argument unless reference is being made to the development of the manufacture of bodies.

On page 24 you say
'Now, natural selection favours replicators that are good at building survival machines, genes that are skilled in the art of controlling embryonic development'.

Further, you say that 'The same old processes of automatic selection between rival molecules by reason of their longevity, fecundity, and copying-fidelity, still go on as blindly and as inevitably as they did in the far-off days'.

How do longevity, fecundity, and copying-fidelity lead to the evolution of genes involved in the control of embryonic development?

The characteristics of longevity, fecundity, and copying-fidelity are totally unrelated to the control of embryonic development.

Therefore, controlling embryonic development cannot be explained by natural selection.

What is your opinion on this matter?



6. On page 69 you mention the evolutionarily stable strategy.

Here, I think we have to pay attention to the fact that 'A "strategy" is a pre-programmed behavioural policy'.
(p.69)

All of the examples of strategy written in this book are 'pre-programmed'.

On the basis of the definition of 'pre-programmed', I cannot but say that the strategies had been devised before the process of natural selection began.

What are your views on this?


Yours Sincerely,

「Re:Re:不確定性原理」

被造世界の法則性を保ちながら、心的世界が作用することが可能ですね。

いままで科学者が偶然と言っていた中にこれらは含まれてしまっているわけですよね。

「Re:不確定性原理」

隠れた変数ですか、超ひもなどもそれを追求するものかも知れないですね。
このようなミクロな世界では異次元と通じ合い行き来するような不確定性を持ちながら、マクロな世界では原子があり分子がありと秩序が出来ているというのが不思議なところであり、創造目的を感じさせます。

また、このようなミクロな世界はＡフィールドと呼ばれるような情報世界、統一思想のいう原意識と通じる何かがあると思わされます。
ここらへんも書きたかった内容ですが、補っていただきありがとうございます。

ただ、このような不確定性も、恐らく、理法という立場から考えると、法則の中にあって存在させているのではとも思います。

「不確定性原理」

> 月を見るというのをその位置や大きさなどを知る上では、量子レベルと同じレベルで理解することはできない。


まったくそうですね。
不確定性原理というのは量子レベルでの話ですので、
これを巨視レベルに適用することはできませんね。

ですから、月が突然なくなるということはないでしょう。

不確定性の原因としては、
量子レベルにおける測定上の問題と、量子状態の性質とがあるようですね。

不確定性原理 - Wikipedia
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%8D%E7%A2%BA%E5%AE%9A%E6%80%A7%E5%8E%9F%E7%90%86


しかし、これとは別の問題として、
ひとつの量子が「同時に複数の位置に存在する」ということがあると思います。

これは、時空間上の不確定性とは違い、
時空を超越した世界と時空間とのはざ間で起きるもので、
「同時に複数の位置」という時空間上の表現はふさわしくないかもしれません。

時空を超越した世界を行き来したときに、
時空間では同時に複数の位置にあるように見える、
と言うほうがいいかもしれません。

反粒子のことで前にそんな話が出たことがありましたね。

[116] Re:光（光子）の粒子・反粒子の対への転化
http://www.c-player.com/ac55492/message/20070212?format=time


これは物理学では予測不可能な領域でしょうが、
心的機能や原意識が現れ得る領域だと思います。

これに関して、「隠れた変数理論」というのがあることを知りました。

隠れた変数理論 - Wikipedia
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%9A%A0%E3%82%8C%E3%81%9F%E5%A4%89%E6%95%B0%E7%90%86%E8%AB%96

「例えば隠れた変数理論の最も有名な支持者アルベルト・アインシュタインの言葉に
「神はサイコロを振らない」というものがある。」