Before a notice to mariners. If you think that viruses are not valid models for studying evolution because they think they are as simple as a pacifier, do not waste your time. This is not the entry you need to read now. First approach the world of viruses, you know how they work, how are the relationships they establish with the hosts to infect, and when you see the enormous complexity they bring to the biology of the "other" living things, go back and read this entry . It is unacceptable to find comments like "extrapolate experimental virus evolution in general is much extrapolate ".
A tremendously interesting topic in evolution and population is the population structure called quasispecies (was theme of this blog back in October 2007 ). To go back to his concept, quasispecies is a set of different but closely related individuals that are characterized by being, as a whole, the element of choice. This latter assertion has been empirically demonstrated in two very good groups of Karla Kirkegaard Stanford ( PLoS Pathogens ) and Raul Andino at UCSF ( Nature ), while Juan Carlos de la Torre working in the laboratory of John Holland in La Jolla and gave a first track (JVI ). As you can see from these articles, the study model are positive-strand RNA virus. So far we have found population structure type virus quasispecies in positive-strand RNA and negative, and small genome DNA virus (parvovirus type). And this is because they are viruses that replicate with a high frequency of mutation due to the lack of proofreading activity of the polymerases that direct their replication cycle.
But the purpose of this entry is delve into the biology of quasispecies, but in the philosophy of the concept. "Philosophy? SI. Very good work being carried out Isabel Cacho (philosopher) and Jordi Gomez (biologist) is core analyzed from the perspective of quasispecies establishing relations in terms of power. They began with Nietzsche and conclusions expressed go far, but here try to be brief. The original article you can find it here . As the authors comment on the article (emphasis mine)
"For Nietzsche, the idea That the Struggle of Life Can Be Explained as a competition (a war of all Against all) ignore the Immense Amount of co-operation in the Struggle ( Simultaneous co-operation and competition ) Because this is Not to preserve Struggle one’s life, but rather in the main to achieve power:
«My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (its will to power) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement (‘union’) with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they conspire together for power. And the process goes on» [F Nietzsche, La voluntad de poderio (Madrid: EDAF,S.A., 1981), 271-465].
In order to remain coherent with this premise, Nietzsche could not agree that the result of the struggle of life is the triumph of the fortunate individual endowed Strongest with the constitution. Rather, the result is individuos That average will finally beat the exceptional ones, and this is so average individuos Because, Being in number Greater Than Their Counterparts exceptional, in Their urge for self-improvement, will interact to Confront The Strongest [G Deleuze Nietzsche and Philosophy, ed. Anagram SAEditorial (Barcelona: Editorial Anagrama, SA, 1986), 59-104; F Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, ed. Alianza Editorial SA, (Madrid: Alianza Editorial SA, 1973), 85-128; F Nietzsche, The Gay Science, ed. Editorials SARBAProyectos (octave: RBA Publishing Projects, SA, 1984), 169-217.]
And to underscore the connection experimental con el tema del poder los autores continúan diciendo,
"To date, science has not produced a mechanistic description of how power relationships operate that would allow us to investigate Nietzsche’s criticisms of Darwin experimentally. Moreover, as pointed out by J. Gayon in a recent systematic evaluation of Nietzsche’s work with regard to Darwinism [J. Gayon, Biology and the Foundation of Ethics, eds. J.Maienschein and M.Ruse, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 154-97], such studies have been rare in philosophy since the middle of the last century [...] Average individuals will finally beat the exceptional ones, and this is so because average individuals, being greater in number than Their Counterparts exceptional, in Their urge for self-improvement, will interact to Confront The Strongest .
Therefore, the initial question: the fittest survive, the strongest, most fit? For RNA viruses to the structures known as quasispecies, the answer seems to be NO. What about the other agencies? The body type and species concepts are used but less and less merit. If we consider ourselves to be an amalgam of components, some of them in its own right as bacteria and viruses, and they all cooperate, the answer is complicated. While watching the world behaves in general and humans in particular, I pointed to the conclusion underlying the work:
"... distinguished by a lower mutants replication component outnumber May Those component distinguished by the Highest, But the main point is this That Happens Within the structure of internal interaction Relationships, and in particular Within the structure of Relationships Nietzschean power, and Not As a result of a comparison-selection process. "
