4 ms·
If a sufficiently large part of a population behaves altruistically, it does makes sense for adoption to happen. In the example with the elephant seals, if a m
by Scandiravian 2y ago
If a sufficiently large part of a population behaves altruistically, it does makes sense for adoption to happen.
In the example with the elephant seals, if a mother becomes separated from her calf during a storm, having a predisposition in the population to adopting someone else's calf is beneficial to the mother, as her offspring might be adopted as well
- MrMcCall 2y agoYes. As well, prey animals also have better safety with greater numbers.
- jstanley 2y agoThat's not how natural selection works.
- ujikoluk 2y agoIt is though, at the group level. The groups that adopt will have better survival than groups that don't, if the environment is such that parents regularly die while the cubs are small.
- shellfishgene 2y agoIf group selection happens is still much debated among biologists, and not at all resolved!
- beeflet 2y agoDo you think group selection applies to eusocial species such as bees? It must. If so, imagine a species that is incrementally less social than eusocial. Unless there is some threshold degree of sociality required for group selection, then there clearly some level of group selection occurs for other animals (whether or not it's a major effect)
- shellfishgene 2y agoThis is usually explained by kin selection, which is different from group selection. I'm not an expert on either though.
- Toine 2y agoPlease explain since you seem to have a PhD in darwinism.
- dukeyukey 2y agoAt an individual level, no. At a group level, yes.
- vibrio 2y agoCheck your assumptions.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pron 2y agoNatural selection is not about the phenotype. It is not beneficial to the mother to have "her genes" propagate. Natural selection works on a gene-by-gene basis and, if anything, the genes "use" the individual as a carrier serving their "benefit", not the other way around. Even more precisely, it's about genes becoming more or less widespread in the population. A gene doesn't "care" what happens to one of its carriers. You gain nothing by spreading "your" genes; your genes, however, may use you as a vehicle to spread themselves. The question is, then, if there is some gene that encourages adoption, will such a gene spread in the population or not? I'm not sure I see why it would. However, if such a trait is already spread in the population, especially if it's not a specific gene but an outcome of others, indeed I don't think there would be selective pressure working against it for the reason you mentioned.
- dTal 2y ago>You gain nothing by spreading "your" genes; your genes, however, may use you as a vehicle to spread themselves. Getting philosophical here, but what does it even mean for me to "gain something", given that my entire existence is a conglomeration of mostly-cooperating genes trying to spread themselves, and my values, desires, and outlook on life are heavily controlled by said genes? Spreading my genes is the intrinsic value, from which all my other instrumental values like eating tasty food, making good friends, enjoying sex etc are derived.
- pron 2y ago> Spreading my genes is the intrinsic value That's not the way natural selection works. A gene either spreads in the population or not, and individuals are merely carriers of a particular gene. It is no more "your" gene than it is "your" flu virus that you spread when infected. The gene and the virus "use" you; you don't use them. Of course, because genes, like a flu virus, use us as carriers, they can only spread if we help them spread, so if we come to think of genes that we and others carry as "our" genes then that helps those gene spread. But natural selection doesn't care about gene carriers beyond their role as carriers any more than a flu virus does.
- 2y ago