3 ms·

I've never understood how biologists could argue non-selfish evolution couldn't be a thing. If you look at groups of organisms as systems, and you pit the syste

by tinco 12y ago

I've never understood how biologists could argue non-selfish evolution couldn't be a thing. If you look at groups of organisms as systems, and you pit the systems against each other, surely eventually the system that evolved to be superior would win in the end, regardless of whether that means any subspecies in that group of organisms would evolve to not reproduce? Is it not just a question of whether evolution could produce specialized one-offs that don't reproduce but do serve a purpose? Wouldn't the significant population of homosexuals be a sign of this? Perhaps a biologist could give some info on why many biologists think this is unlikely?

lkrubner 12y ago
In "The Selfish Gene" Dawkins makes the point that you do not need to have children to pass on your genes. You get 100% of your genes from your mother and father, and you full-brothers and full-sisters also get 100% of their genes from your mother and father. Therefore, from the point of view of your parents, there is absolutely no difference between you having a child yourself, or you bringing in enough extra food that your sister's child lives through the next famine (whereas they would have died without the food you brought in). In both cases, your parents end up with 1 extra grandchild, because of you. And this is a possible explanation for the fact that in humans the more sons a woman has, the more likely it is for the son to be homosexual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_... Biologists do not normally regard it is "altruism" if you give resources to someone who shares at least "50%" of your genes. (The 50% is in quotes because any 2 creatures that belong to the same species will have well over 99% of the same genes, and often 99.9% of the same genes. The "50%" actually refers to only to those genes that vary in your species. Dawkin talks about this, too, in "The Selfish Gene".)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
azakai 12y ago
> I've never understood how biologists could argue non-selfish evolution couldn't be a thing. If you look at groups of organisms as systems, and you pit the systems against each other, surely eventually the system that evolved to be superior would win in the end, regardless of whether that means any subspecies in that group of organisms would evolve to not reproduce? Of course, all other things equal, when you pit groups against each other then group selection will occur. But the problem is that a huge body of science, both theoretical (game theory) and observational, argues that things are not equal: At the same time as the groups are competing, there is in-group competition. There has to be, because the groups consist of organisms that are being selected for, unless someone can propose a mechanism that would suppress that. What this means is that group selection is unstable. A group behavior might be selected for, but individuals in the successful group will still be selected for "selfishly" - normally - breaking the pattern. If selection operates on the gene level - and almost all biologists believe it does - then it is inherently going to act on a scale much smaller than that of groups, and in an inevitable manner. And that is going to destabilize any group selection. For these reasons it was thought that altruism couldn't be easily explained through evolution. That's why kin selection, reciprocal alruism, and a few other theories are so revolutionary - they show how useful group behaviors arise from selection at the gene level. > Is it not just a question of whether evolution could produce specialized one-offs that don't reproduce but do serve a purpose? That does occur in the "eusocial" animals, such as ants and bees. But it is generally believed that happens due to how genes are passed on in those insects (different than we are used to among mammals), and they are a large exception. In practically every species we are aware of, group-level selection does not occur. Hence any evidence, as in this article, is very interesting.
- jostmey 12y ago
  Well put! Selfless behavior may sometimes evolve, but it is unstable and will eventually be selected against.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Gravityloss 12y ago
Yeah, it's just extremely obvious and was discovered in the nineteenth century already by Kropotkin. I haven't actually read any Kropotkin (I haven't read original Darwin either) but it pops ups if you read for example Frans de Waal. The whole evolutionary biology field is quite depressing actually. It doesn't seem to make any cumulative progress whatsoever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evoluti...

by tinco 12y ago

lkrubner 12y ago

In "The Selfish Gene" Dawkins makes the point that you do not need to have children to pass on your genes. You get 100% of your genes from your mother and father, and you full-brothers and full-sisters also get 100% of their genes from your mother and father. Therefore, from the point of view of your parents, there is absolutely no difference between you having a child yourself, or you bringing in enough extra food that your sister's child lives through the next famine (whereas they would have died without the food you brought in). In both cases, your parents end up with 1 extra grandchild, because of you. And this is a possible explanation for the fact that in humans the more sons a woman has, the more likely it is for the son to be homosexual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_... Biologists do not normally regard it is "altruism" if you give resources to someone who shares at least "50%" of your genes. (The 50% is in quotes because any 2 creatures that belong to the same species will have well over 99% of the same genes, and often 99.9% of the same genes. The "50%" actually refers to only to those genes that vary in your species. Dawkin talks about this, too, in "The Selfish Gene".)

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

azakai 12y ago

> I've never understood how biologists could argue non-selfish evolution couldn't be a thing. If you look at groups of organisms as systems, and you pit the systems against each other, surely eventually the system that evolved to be superior would win in the end, regardless of whether that means any subspecies in that group of organisms would evolve to not reproduce? Of course, all other things equal, when you pit groups against each other then group selection will occur. But the problem is that a huge body of science, both theoretical (game theory) and observational, argues that things are not equal: At the same time as the groups are competing, there is in-group competition. There has to be, because the groups consist of organisms that are being selected for, unless someone can propose a mechanism that would suppress that. What this means is that group selection is unstable. A group behavior might be selected for, but individuals in the successful group will still be selected for "selfishly" - normally - breaking the pattern. If selection operates on the gene level - and almost all biologists believe it does - then it is inherently going to act on a scale much smaller than that of groups, and in an inevitable manner. And that is going to destabilize any group selection. For these reasons it was thought that altruism couldn't be easily explained through evolution. That's why kin selection, reciprocal alruism, and a few other theories are so revolutionary - they show how useful group behaviors arise from selection at the gene level. > Is it not just a question of whether evolution could produce specialized one-offs that don't reproduce but do serve a purpose? That does occur in the "eusocial" animals, such as ants and bees. But it is generally believed that happens due to how genes are passed on in those insects (different than we are used to among mammals), and they are a large exception. In practically every species we are aware of, group-level selection does not occur. Hence any evidence, as in this article, is very interesting.

jostmey 12y ago
Well put! Selfless behavior may sometimes evolve, but it is unstable and will eventually be selected against.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Gravityloss 12y ago

Yeah, it's just extremely obvious and was discovered in the nineteenth century already by Kropotkin. I haven't actually read any Kropotkin (I haven't read original Darwin either) but it pops ups if you read for example Frans de Waal. The whole evolutionary biology field is quite depressing actually. It doesn't seem to make any cumulative progress whatsoever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evoluti...