Changes

::::Rod, all I can say is that you are mistaken.  I provided you with several instances where altruistic behavior would allow for genetic dispersion (father giving up life for child), provided you with a hypothetical situation where two populations could benefit from altruistic behavior as compared to populations that do not show similar behaviors and explained in detail why you are mistaken due to your understanding of evolution being based on the individual instead of being based on the population.  So to answer your point about wasted energy, populations are not closed systems and evolution is not based on the conservation of energy.  So when an organism invests energy in an act where no defined outcome will occur it is not against evolutionary theory, nor is it for due to it being based on the individual once again.  However if the energy used did happen to encourage a response from the environment that would improve the gene dispersion and chances of the population's survivability then it truly supports evolution.  "All" unnecessary action does not reduce the chance of the population having genetic spread, for example reciprocal altruism: Sharing food is a good example. Suppose an animal captures a food source which is so plentiful that it cannot consume it all alone before it goes off. Sharing it with others may entail getting slightly less food now, for the possibility of more food later (when it might be sorely needed) if the recipients reciprocate the altruistic action. Kin Selection: When adult animals risk their life to distract potential predators away from their offspring they are exhibiting this form of altruism. Such behavior is evolutionarily stable since although it decreases an animal's chances of survival, it increases the chances for its offspring. Multilevel selection theory: Consider, for example, an animal population made up of warring groups. This would entail two levels of selection - between groups and within groups. Within any one group, altruistic behavior would be deselected by the dominance of selfish behavior. However, if altruistic behavior increased the overall fitness of the group, then the groups with the highest proportion of altruists would outperform the more selfish ones. Under appropriate conditions, this alternative selection pressure could dominate the disadvantage of altruism for the individual. Multi-level selection doesn't only occur on these two levels, since animals may be a part of various groups - close family group, extended family, tribe etc. We can consider evolutionary selection to happen on each level simultaneously. This explanation of altruism finds more evidence from anthropological studies which support viewing of groups of humans as adaptive units. According to Sober and Wilson,  "the concept of human groups as adaptive units may be supported not only by evolutionary theory but by the bulk of empirical information on human social groups in all cultures around the world."  More reading [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/][http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/pdf_attachments/de%20Waal%20(2008).pdf] As you can see your example supports evolution more than it counters it.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:17, 18 December 2008 (EST)

::::Rod, all I can say is that you are mistaken.  I provided you with several instances where altruistic behavior would allow for genetic dispersion (father giving up life for child), provided you with a hypothetical situation where two populations could benefit from altruistic behavior as compared to populations that do not show similar behaviors and explained in detail why you are mistaken due to your understanding of evolution being based on the individual instead of being based on the population.  So to answer your point about wasted energy, populations are not closed systems and evolution is not based on the conservation of energy.  So when an organism invests energy in an act where no defined outcome will occur it is not against evolutionary theory, nor is it for due to it being based on the individual once again.  However if the energy used did happen to encourage a response from the environment that would improve the gene dispersion and chances of the population's survivability then it truly supports evolution.  "All" unnecessary action does not reduce the chance of the population having genetic spread, for example reciprocal altruism: Sharing food is a good example. Suppose an animal captures a food source which is so plentiful that it cannot consume it all alone before it goes off. Sharing it with others may entail getting slightly less food now, for the possibility of more food later (when it might be sorely needed) if the recipients reciprocate the altruistic action. Kin Selection: When adult animals risk their life to distract potential predators away from their offspring they are exhibiting this form of altruism. Such behavior is evolutionarily stable since although it decreases an animal's chances of survival, it increases the chances for its offspring. Multilevel selection theory: Consider, for example, an animal population made up of warring groups. This would entail two levels of selection - between groups and within groups. Within any one group, altruistic behavior would be deselected by the dominance of selfish behavior. However, if altruistic behavior increased the overall fitness of the group, then the groups with the highest proportion of altruists would outperform the more selfish ones. Under appropriate conditions, this alternative selection pressure could dominate the disadvantage of altruism for the individual. Multi-level selection doesn't only occur on these two levels, since animals may be a part of various groups - close family group, extended family, tribe etc. We can consider evolutionary selection to happen on each level simultaneously. This explanation of altruism finds more evidence from anthropological studies which support viewing of groups of humans as adaptive units. According to Sober and Wilson,  "the concept of human groups as adaptive units may be supported not only by evolutionary theory but by the bulk of empirical information on human social groups in all cultures around the world."  More reading [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/][http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/pdf_attachments/de%20Waal%20(2008).pdf] As you can see your example supports evolution more than it counters it.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:17, 18 December 2008 (EST)

:Able806, I don't have time to read through evolutionist propaganda.  You have yet to explain intra-species altruism, which is the key point.  Parents dying for their children is obvious in its advantage, but an animal nursing one of another species invariably reduces its ability to propagate its own genes.  Dolphins assisting injured humans and animals do so at risk to themselves, with no possible genetic propagation or benefit.  So long as ''any'' examples cannot be explained by evolution, it must be discarded; this is the nature of ''science.''  Altruism is endowed by God, not Darwin. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 10:28, 18 December 2008 (EST)

:Able806, I don't have time to read through evolutionist propaganda.  You have yet to explain intra-species altruism, which is the key point.  Parents dying for their children is obvious in its advantage, but an animal nursing one of another species invariably reduces its ability to propagate its own genes.  Dolphins assisting injured humans and animals do so at risk to themselves, with no possible genetic propagation or benefit.  So long as ''any'' examples cannot be explained by evolution, it must be discarded; this is the nature of ''science.''  Altruism is endowed by God, not Darwin. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 10:28, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I don't pretend to understand all of this, but I don't think the existence of [[altruism]] either proves or disproves the [[Theory of Evolution]]. Certainly a species whose individuals "do nice things for each other" without getting an immediate reward will survive better than species who are more individualistic. But God might have set it up that way for a reason.  

I don't pretend to understand all of this, but I don't think the existence of [[altruism]] either proves or disproves the [[Theory of Evolution]]. Certainly a species whose individuals "do nice things for each other" without getting an immediate reward will survive better than species who are more individualistic. But God might have set it up that way for a reason.  

It's fun to speculate on how traits like [[cooperation]] may have "evolved", but until we can read behavior in the [[fossil record]] it's all academic. The only scientific question about evolution is whether it was directed by an [[intelligent designer]] or its was merely due to the "creative" force of [[natural selection]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 10:41, 18 December 2008 (EST)

It's fun to speculate on how traits like [[cooperation]] may have "evolved", but until we can read behavior in the [[fossil record]] it's all academic. The only scientific question about evolution is whether it was directed by an [[intelligent designer]] or its was merely due to the "creative" force of [[natural selection]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 10:41, 18 December 2008 (EST)