3 ms·

No. You're succumbing to the fallacy of group selection. Evolution operates on a gene-specific level. A trait that maximizes an individual's inclusive genetic f

No. You're succumbing to the fallacy of group selection. Evolution operates on a gene-specific level. A trait that maximizes an individual's inclusive genetic fitness at the expense of the species will always out-complete. Genes most definitely do not want to promote evolution in any sense. Since evolution by definition implies the replacement of currently existing genes with new genes.

derefr 7y ago
Wouldn't a gene prefer to transmit copies of itself into descendants that replace all the other genes in the DNA it shares, with better fitness-maximizing ones? That is, if a gene's options are "copy into clone" or "copy into 100% optimal genetic superman, with the only common gene being me, left completely untouched", I assume any given gene would "choose" the latter. Which is to say, presuming a given gene is already helpful and is "core" to the organism's functionality, that gene would see evolution as a helpful service that causes it to end up copied into better-performing descendants, rather than same-performing descendants. This also serves as a decent explanation of why sexual reproduction persists even in species that can also parthenogenetically reproduce: the "good" genes are betting on being retained, and getting the "bad" genes culled out in the process.
- dcolkitt 7y ago
  Yes, if a gene's surrounded by copies of itself, then there might be certain scenarios where it will destroy a copy of itself to help other copies of the same gene. For example apoptosis happens all the time in human cells. If a cell believes it's infected by a virus or a cancerous mutation, it will voluntarily destroy itself. That's because its continued existence threatens its genetically identical cellular neighbors. Thus genetic inclusive fitness is maximized. But what absolutely wouldn't happen is such self-sacrifice on a species wide level. Two random members of a species are not closely enough related for self-sacrifice to maximize inclusive genetic fitness. Almost certainly a non-complying free rider mutation would arise in one or more individuals, and exploit the other species' members altruism. The hypothesis was that aging evolved as an adaptation to accelerate the evolution of the species. To see the absurdity of this hypothesis, consider that if this logic held, then mate guarding would definitely not exist. In fact just the opposite, males would routinely solicit the highest-quality males they could find to mate with their females. And be happy about it. After all this would also accelerate species wide evolution, at the expense of individual fitness.
  - derefr 7y ago
    What I'm saying is that "genetically identical" doesn't matter; only the integral of all "contains the particular gene sequence from whose perspective you are analyzing selfishness" considerations matters. Which is to say, it's not the genome that's selfish, it's a population of genes that are all individually selfish, at the expense of other genes in the genome. Which means that, if there's a trade-off that involves killing the current host of the gene, in exchange for creating a new host (a descendant) that has the same gene, but is otherwise more inclusively-fit because it has better other genes—then any given gene will "want" to take that trade. Thus the evolution of reproductive strategies that require the deaths of one or both parents. Mate-guarding (and, really, sexual reproduction preference generally) can be understood as a desire of your more-fit genes, to kick out your less-fit genes and replace them (in your descendants) with more-fit immigrant genes, to build a more-inclusively-fit descendant where the gene has higher likelihood of continuing the next step of exponential-spread-to-fixation.

derefr 7y ago

Wouldn't a gene prefer to transmit copies of itself into descendants that replace all the other genes in the DNA it shares, with better fitness-maximizing ones? That is, if a gene's options are "copy into clone" or "copy into 100% optimal genetic superman, with the only common gene being me, left completely untouched", I assume any given gene would "choose" the latter. Which is to say, presuming a given gene is already helpful and is "core" to the organism's functionality, that gene would see evolution as a helpful service that causes it to end up copied into better-performing descendants, rather than same-performing descendants. This also serves as a decent explanation of why sexual reproduction persists even in species that can also parthenogenetically reproduce: the "good" genes are betting on being retained, and getting the "bad" genes culled out in the process.

dcolkitt 7y ago
Yes, if a gene's surrounded by copies of itself, then there might be certain scenarios where it will destroy a copy of itself to help other copies of the same gene. For example apoptosis happens all the time in human cells. If a cell believes it's infected by a virus or a cancerous mutation, it will voluntarily destroy itself. That's because its continued existence threatens its genetically identical cellular neighbors. Thus genetic inclusive fitness is maximized. But what absolutely wouldn't happen is such self-sacrifice on a species wide level. Two random members of a species are not closely enough related for self-sacrifice to maximize inclusive genetic fitness. Almost certainly a non-complying free rider mutation would arise in one or more individuals, and exploit the other species' members altruism. The hypothesis was that aging evolved as an adaptation to accelerate the evolution of the species. To see the absurdity of this hypothesis, consider that if this logic held, then mate guarding would definitely not exist. In fact just the opposite, males would routinely solicit the highest-quality males they could find to mate with their females. And be happy about it. After all this would also accelerate species wide evolution, at the expense of individual fitness.
- derefr 7y ago
  What I'm saying is that "genetically identical" doesn't matter; only the integral of all "contains the particular gene sequence from whose perspective you are analyzing selfishness" considerations matters. Which is to say, it's not the genome that's selfish, it's a population of genes that are all individually selfish, at the expense of other genes in the genome. Which means that, if there's a trade-off that involves killing the current host of the gene, in exchange for creating a new host (a descendant) that has the same gene, but is otherwise more inclusively-fit because it has better other genes—then any given gene will "want" to take that trade. Thus the evolution of reproductive strategies that require the deaths of one or both parents. Mate-guarding (and, really, sexual reproduction preference generally) can be understood as a desire of your more-fit genes, to kick out your less-fit genes and replace them (in your descendants) with more-fit immigrant genes, to build a more-inclusively-fit descendant where the gene has higher likelihood of continuing the next step of exponential-spread-to-fixation.