nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW
461
edits
Changes
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 15:17, December 18, 2008
, 15:17, December 18, 2008→Altruism
::Actually they do provide for evolution. It does not really matter what the act is, just as long as it does not reduce the chance of the population having genetic spread. You have to think about altruism in terms of gene dispersion, what helps it spread and what helps it survive, thus favoring evolution. If organisms share among each other then the genes will survive and spread at an increased rate than organisms that do not. Another piece of evidence that shows that altruistic behavior falls in line with evolution is the evidence that parallel and convergent evolution are functions of altruistic behavior between two populations (part of the environmental selective pressures). I believe the point you are missing is that a single mutation in an organism is not enough to cause an evolutionary shift, that mutation must spread; therefore evolutionary shift is based on population and not the individual thus supporting altruistic behaviors due to their impact on the population's survivability over the individual. Perhaps you can counter this argument with some explanation as to why altruism can not be beneficial to evolutionary theory. I would agree that if the organism sacrifices itself before producing offspring then the behavior would counter evolution, however when one removes learned social constructs, you will see that the time an organism develops altruistic behaviors is often after the organism is able to reproduce. As for the comment about buying in, I am a biochemist, if I did not understand evolutionary theory then most of what I study would make no sense, such as seeing the similar metabolic pathways in different species with only slight, and progressive, modifications to differentiate them.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:40, 18 December 2008 (EST)
::Actually they do provide for evolution. It does not really matter what the act is, just as long as it does not reduce the chance of the population having genetic spread. You have to think about altruism in terms of gene dispersion, what helps it spread and what helps it survive, thus favoring evolution. If organisms share among each other then the genes will survive and spread at an increased rate than organisms that do not. Another piece of evidence that shows that altruistic behavior falls in line with evolution is the evidence that parallel and convergent evolution are functions of altruistic behavior between two populations (part of the environmental selective pressures). I believe the point you are missing is that a single mutation in an organism is not enough to cause an evolutionary shift, that mutation must spread; therefore evolutionary shift is based on population and not the individual thus supporting altruistic behaviors due to their impact on the population's survivability over the individual. Perhaps you can counter this argument with some explanation as to why altruism can not be beneficial to evolutionary theory. I would agree that if the organism sacrifices itself before producing offspring then the behavior would counter evolution, however when one removes learned social constructs, you will see that the time an organism develops altruistic behaviors is often after the organism is able to reproduce. As for the comment about buying in, I am a biochemist, if I did not understand evolutionary theory then most of what I study would make no sense, such as seeing the similar metabolic pathways in different species with only slight, and progressive, modifications to differentiate them.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:40, 18 December 2008 (EST)
:::''All'' unnecessary action reduces the chance of the population having genetic spread, through wasting of energy. And to suggest that evolution is inherently population based undermines your argument. Any genetic change which improves altruism ''reduce'' the altruistic individual's survivability, thus the altruistic changes are lost. Thus altruism should not be seen in nature, as it destroys its own propagation. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 09:43, 18 December 2008 (EST)
:::''All'' unnecessary action reduces the chance of the population having genetic spread, through wasting of energy. And to suggest that evolution is inherently population based undermines your argument. Any genetic change which improves altruism ''reduce'' the altruistic individual's survivability, thus the altruistic changes are lost. Thus altruism should not be seen in nature, as it destroys its own propagation. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 09:43, 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)