Evolution favours altruism

[pineapplebunnybounce]

@Chuck, if you look into this, it'll show that a group with one or two altruistic members survives better than a group with no altruistic members at all. Which is how altruism is passed on. Usually at a low frequency, but it's there. Animals are more likely to be altruistic if they're around kin than when they're around strangers. But kin doesn't necessarily mean offsprings.

[Anomalocaris]

You are still missing the point just below the surface of altruism. How does altruist behavior remain in the population if it makes the population survive better for a few generation while the individuals with uktruist behavior lasts, but by harming themselves these individuals would after a few generations disappear from the population even as the rest of the population prospers at their expense?

Your assertion of true altruism (in the sense the altruistic individual is harmed, not actually also benefited but to a lesser degree than some other beneficiary) can not be sustained by known mechanisms of genetics in any group consisting of genetically significantly different individuals, which include any population karge enough to not be inbreeding, such as any group of humans from several moderately distantly related (say shared ancesters more than 3 generations back) to unrelated families.

It can only be sustained in a group with no or very little genetic variation, in other words any group if it were capable of breeding, could only inbreed, such as a hive of bees or a very closely related human family clan. Here harming one individual bearing the gene does harm the gene because all the rest of the individual's in the group benefiting from the sacrafice also carry the same gene, and the gene selfishly chose to sacrafice a few of its own bearers in order for itself to better prosper.

This difference come down to why fundamebtally appearently altruistic behavior can only exist if it really serves the genes that promote it, and by extension, altruistic behavior can only exist if it prompts the organism that bears it to act in a way that ensures genes promoting this behavior passes down to the next generation.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

You are still missing the point just below the surface of altruism. How does altruist behavior remain in the population if it makes the population survive better for a few generation while the individuals with uktruist behavior lasts, but by harming themselves these individuals would after a few generations disappear from the population even as the rest of the population prospers at their expense?

it doesn't help the population survive for a few generations, one act gets the population pass one incident that may have cost them all their lives. That's all there is to it, no need to speculate beyond that because that would involve speculation about whether the group stays together for all these generations or if they continue on in the same environment, it's just, too much with too little basis also an unnecessary speculation for my point.

Your assertion of true altruism (in the sense the altruistic individual is harmed, not actually also benefited but to a lesser degree than some other beneficiary) can not be sustained by known mechanisms of genetics in any group consisting of genetically significantly different individuals, which include any population karge enough to not be inbreeding, such as any group of humans from several moderately distantly related (say shared ancesters more than 3 generations back) to unrelated families.

Firstly, I said that altruistic behaviours are observed when animals are around kin. While that isn't inbreeding, it is a lot of your genes in the pool, in fact, except for inbreeding, that's as many copies of your genes you're likely to gather in one spot. And inbreeding is selected against in many species, and most wouldn't last long enough to foster another evolutionary trait like altruism.

It can only be sustained in a group with no or very little genetic variation, in other words any group if it were capable of breeding, could only inbreed, such as a hive of bees or a very closely related human family clan. Here harming one individual bearing the gene does harm the gene because all the rest of the individual's in the group benefiting from the sacrafice also carry the same gene, and the gene selfishly chose to sacrafice a few of its own bearers in order for itself to better prosper.

This difference come down to why fundamebtally appearently altruistic behavior can only exist if it really serves the genes that promote it, and by extension, altruistic behavior can only exist if it prompts the organism that bears it to act in a way that ensures genes promoting this behavior passes down to the next generation.

Not sure if you're trying to say the explanation for altruism is inbreeding? here's something on inbreeding in bees :http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130617111341.htm

I have never argued against the last point, my point is that you have to acknowledge that the individual doing the altruistic act is lowering its chances of passing on many of its genes, and that it happens so often in the animal kingdom, you need to take more time to look into it than just say, oh they'll die out in 3 generations. Otherwise you cannot begin to understand how altruism works. And then, it's pretty easy to explain, if the altruism gene is in most of its kin, by dying, it actually saved many copies of that one gene, potentially sacrificing the rest of its other genes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

Kin selection is the evolutionary strategy that favours the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to the organism's own survival and reproduction. Kin altruism is altruistic behaviour whose evolution is driven by kin selection.

[Anomalocaris]

I did not say ultruism results from inbreeding.

i said close "enough for inbreeding" represents a useful yardstick to measure how close the genetic relationship must be between the ultraist and the beneficiary for altruistic behavior on the level of the individual to become sufficiently self serving on the level of genetic inheritance that it could possibly survive in the long term as a genetic trait,