3 ms·

That doesn't float. Natural selection can never select for suicide to benefit the group, unless the group is genetically identical - such a trait simply isn't a

by dTal 6y ago

That doesn't float. Natural selection can never select for suicide to benefit the group, unless the group is genetically identical - such a trait simply isn't adaptive.

nicoburns 6y ago
Natural selection of whole group does make sense if they are genetically related (and you consider the fact that in addition to individual dying off, it is possible for whole groups to die off (over longer time scales))
dwaltrip 6y ago
Kin selection: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection I have no idea if it applies to depression. I don’t really buy the simple story from GP.
quesera 6y ago
I think you might be combining Darwinism with Dawkinsism here. Natural selection isn't necessarily preservational of individual genes (nor of genotypes). It just argues that the survivors are more genetically fit for survival. This aligns with GP's comment. The Selfish Gene theory argues that behaviours among the group tend toward preservation of the genotype. Family over strangers, generally. I do take issue with GP's "evolutionary purpose" -- these two words cannot be combined in a meaningful way. But, interpreted as "evolutionary contribution", it could make sense. All that said, I also don't think that GP's idea floats, nor does it hold water. Genetic predisposition to depression is very poorly understood, but seems (to me) to be just ordinary phenotypical noise in the signal. Quasi-random variation which is to be expected in any sufficiently complicated system.
AntiImperialist 6y ago
You're looking at it from a very individualist perspective. In reality, genes don't belong to the individual, or a tribe or species for that matter. Genes belong to the ecosystem i.e. genes favor behavior which is good for the fitness of the ecosystem, even at the expense of the individual itself or other lower level organisms or super-organisms. It will be clear if you look at it from a different perspective. White blood cells kill bodies own cells all the time. If you think the reason might be to protect the larger organism, it makes more sense. But there's more. Think of the "freeze" response that, say, deer have when they get caught by a leopard. It would be best for the deer (and its family i.e. those with similar genes) if it didn't have a freeze response. It would be much better for them if they had a "fight till death" response. That way, every time a leopard caught a deer, it would get most likely get injured and leopards would be able to hunt fewer deer. The deer has a freeze response because it has nothing to do with what's good for the deer and everything to do with what is good for the ecosystem. It's best if it outruns the leopard... but if it gets caught, it's best if it freezes while the leopard kills it. P.S. The mainstream explanation of the freeze response is that "it helps the deer deal with the pain". However, they fail to explain what the evolutionary benefit to not feeling pain as one is being eaten is.
AntiImperialis2 6y ago
You're looking at it from a very individualist perspective. In reality, genes don't belong to the individual, or a tribe or species for that matter. Genes belong to the ecosystem i.e. genes favor behavior which is good for the fitness of the ecosystem (you could say it's because of the other way around, but you get the idea), even at the expense of the individual itself or other lower level organisms or super-organisms. It will be clear if you look at it from a different perspective. White blood cells kill bodies own cells all the time. If you think the reason might be to protect the larger organism, it makes more sense. But there's more. Think of the "freeze" response that, say, deer have when they get caught by a leopard. It would be best for the deer (and its family i.e. those with similar genes) if it didn't have a freeze response. It would be much better for them if they had a "fight till death" response. That way, every time a leopard caught a deer, it would get most likely get injured and leopards would be able to hunt fewer deer. The deer has a freeze response because it has nothing to do with what's good for the deer and everything to do with what is good for the ecosystem. It's best if it outruns the leopard... but if it gets caught, it's best if it freezes while the leopard kills it. P.S. The mainstream explanation of the freeze response is that "it helps the deer deal with the pain". However, they fail to explain what the evolutionary benefit to not feeling pain as one is being eaten is.
- dTal 6y ago
  >genes favor behavior which is good for the fitness of the ecosystem No, they don't. That's simply wrong. They favor their own survival. And you really didn't need to post this twice.

by dTal 6y ago

That doesn't float. Natural selection can never select for suicide to benefit the group, unless the group is genetically identical - such a trait simply isn't adaptive.

nicoburns 6y ago

Natural selection of whole group does make sense if they are genetically related (and you consider the fact that in addition to individual dying off, it is possible for whole groups to die off (over longer time scales))

dwaltrip 6y ago

Kin selection: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection I have no idea if it applies to depression. I don’t really buy the simple story from GP.

quesera 6y ago

I think you might be combining Darwinism with Dawkinsism here. Natural selection isn't necessarily preservational of individual genes (nor of genotypes). It just argues that the survivors are more genetically fit for survival. This aligns with GP's comment. The Selfish Gene theory argues that behaviours among the group tend toward preservation of the genotype. Family over strangers, generally. I do take issue with GP's "evolutionary purpose" -- these two words cannot be combined in a meaningful way. But, interpreted as "evolutionary contribution", it could make sense. All that said, I also don't think that GP's idea floats, nor does it hold water. Genetic predisposition to depression is very poorly understood, but seems (to me) to be just ordinary phenotypical noise in the signal. Quasi-random variation which is to be expected in any sufficiently complicated system.

AntiImperialist 6y ago

You're looking at it from a very individualist perspective. In reality, genes don't belong to the individual, or a tribe or species for that matter. Genes belong to the ecosystem i.e. genes favor behavior which is good for the fitness of the ecosystem, even at the expense of the individual itself or other lower level organisms or super-organisms. It will be clear if you look at it from a different perspective. White blood cells kill bodies own cells all the time. If you think the reason might be to protect the larger organism, it makes more sense. But there's more. Think of the "freeze" response that, say, deer have when they get caught by a leopard. It would be best for the deer (and its family i.e. those with similar genes) if it didn't have a freeze response. It would be much better for them if they had a "fight till death" response. That way, every time a leopard caught a deer, it would get most likely get injured and leopards would be able to hunt fewer deer. The deer has a freeze response because it has nothing to do with what's good for the deer and everything to do with what is good for the ecosystem. It's best if it outruns the leopard... but if it gets caught, it's best if it freezes while the leopard kills it. P.S. The mainstream explanation of the freeze response is that "it helps the deer deal with the pain". However, they fail to explain what the evolutionary benefit to not feeling pain as one is being eaten is.

AntiImperialis2 6y ago

You're looking at it from a very individualist perspective. In reality, genes don't belong to the individual, or a tribe or species for that matter. Genes belong to the ecosystem i.e. genes favor behavior which is good for the fitness of the ecosystem (you could say it's because of the other way around, but you get the idea), even at the expense of the individual itself or other lower level organisms or super-organisms. It will be clear if you look at it from a different perspective. White blood cells kill bodies own cells all the time. If you think the reason might be to protect the larger organism, it makes more sense. But there's more. Think of the "freeze" response that, say, deer have when they get caught by a leopard. It would be best for the deer (and its family i.e. those with similar genes) if it didn't have a freeze response. It would be much better for them if they had a "fight till death" response. That way, every time a leopard caught a deer, it would get most likely get injured and leopards would be able to hunt fewer deer. The deer has a freeze response because it has nothing to do with what's good for the deer and everything to do with what is good for the ecosystem. It's best if it outruns the leopard... but if it gets caught, it's best if it freezes while the leopard kills it. P.S. The mainstream explanation of the freeze response is that "it helps the deer deal with the pain". However, they fail to explain what the evolutionary benefit to not feeling pain as one is being eaten is.

dTal 6y ago
>genes favor behavior which is good for the fitness of the ecosystem No, they don't. That's simply wrong. They favor their own survival. And you really didn't need to post this twice.