RE: Evolution favours altruism
August 4, 2013 at 12:20 am
(This post was last modified: August 4, 2013 at 1:16 am by Anomalocaris.)
I do not say no such behavior exists. The appearance of new genetically driven behavior is an essentially random affair. The efficient, but more critically - aimless, generation of new genetic combination and new mutation is the hallmark of genetic process. Therefore in any generation a fraction of new behavior is bound, by random chance, to be in your words, altruistic. By you definition of altruism, the gene would be detrimental to the survival of the individual bearing it, and by extension the ability of this ultruistic gene itself to survive. So, such gene would, by definition of "detrimental to own survival", soon be eliminated.
So the key is altruistic gene, by your definition of ultruism, must be self eliminating. So although new ones may pop up all the time, and some may be sltruistic, none that is sltruistic would endure for long in the gene pool. Self serving gene, on the other hand, self perpetuating, and will endure.
So in any gene pool, there will be the chaff, some of which could be ultruistic, and the chaff will soon be gone. there would also be the wheat, all of which are, in the sense they exist to aid the gene itself and by necessity the organism bearing the gene, selfish.
In your warning call example, do you really need me to work out for you why, if the gene is truly altruistic in the sense that it truly reduce the survival prospect of the animal issuing the warning call over the long run compare to those that don't, in a few generations there would be no more animals with the genes to issue warnings?
So the key is altruistic gene, by your definition of ultruism, must be self eliminating. So although new ones may pop up all the time, and some may be sltruistic, none that is sltruistic would endure for long in the gene pool. Self serving gene, on the other hand, self perpetuating, and will endure.
So in any gene pool, there will be the chaff, some of which could be ultruistic, and the chaff will soon be gone. there would also be the wheat, all of which are, in the sense they exist to aid the gene itself and by necessity the organism bearing the gene, selfish.
In your warning call example, do you really need me to work out for you why, if the gene is truly altruistic in the sense that it truly reduce the survival prospect of the animal issuing the warning call over the long run compare to those that don't, in a few generations there would be no more animals with the genes to issue warnings?
