20 ms·
It's not actual science though. The "selfish gene" explanation is just wrong. There are plenty of traits that have nothing to do with spreading genes. Some trai
by mempko 6y ago
It's not actual science though. The "selfish gene" explanation is just wrong. There are plenty of traits that have nothing to do with spreading genes. Some traits simply have no measurable impact on gene selection and therefore just exist and can pass along without cost.
By putting every trait through the "it must help gene selection somehow" is simply wrong and isn't scientific.
Also, why doesn't mutual aid apply to human societies? I haven't seen any evidence why it wouldn't considering the fact that its so pervasive. I literally see it everyday.
- jhbadger 6y agoNo. There are certainly mutations that have no measurable impact on fitness (as per Kimura's neutral theory), but the very reason they don't affect fitness is because they don't have any impact on traits. The problem with imagining a trait that has no selective impact is that there is no way it could have come into existence in the first place. Even the simplest trait would require many mutations to evolve, and without the power of selection driving it, that would be just statistically impossible. In terms of mutual aid not applying to human societies I mean Kropotkin's idea of it as something he thought was a natural instinct of helpfulness. Obviously humans can and should help each other, but this has nothing to do with our instincts. Humans share the genetic programming of other animals, but because of our greater reasoning powers we can go beyond our instincts.