Natural selection past the reproductive age

[BigBlueHead]

John, I gave you a definition of altruism and you don't agree with it. That doesn't mean you can continue to ride your shadow definition; you're gonna have to explain what you mean when you use the word. When you say things like:

YES. And there are a lot of things in the wild which do not improve personal fitness and in fact lower it (altruism).

- you're being a nerd. Being stung by a bee is not an altruistic action because it's not an action. I don't want to go into the whole acting/allowing argument here, and it's not necessary to do so because I think we can all agree on what an action is.

So, what's your definition of altruism?

 

[John Connellan]

John, I gave you a definition of altruism and you don't agree with it. That doesn't mean you can continue to ride your shadow definition; you're gonna have to explain what you mean when you use the word. When you say things like:

I have given a definition countless times I thought. Here, I'll give it again:

An altruistic act would one which benefits other individuals while not benefiting or even hindering the benefactor

- you're being a nerd.

Don't call me a nerd u twat.

Being stung by a bee is not an altruistic action because it's not an action.

Who used that example?

 

[BigBlueHead]

You used that example: you said "And there are a lot of things in the wild which do not improve personal fitness", without any clarification of what "things" were. Did you mean "there are a lot of actions taken by organisms in the wild which do not improve personal fitness"?

In view of the concept of genetic propagation and evolution, your definition of altruism is woefully incomplete and this shows up in your discussion points. I think most people came to this discussion believing that "parent cares for child" is not an altruistic action, since ultimately the parent does benefit from the care that they provide to the child.

 

[John Connellan]

You used that example: you said "And there are a lot of things in the wild which do not improve personal fitness", without any clarification of what "things" were. Did you mean "there are a lot of actions taken by organisms in the wild which do not improve personal fitness"?

Yes, thats what I meant

In view of the concept of genetic propagation and evolution, your definition of altruism is woefully incomplete and this shows up in your discussion points.

It is not incomplete because genetic propogation has nothing to do with benefits for the individual. There simply is no benefit there. Instead of being incomplete, your theory is in fact just plain wrong as far as I can see.

I think most people came to this discussion believing that "parent cares for child" is not an altruistic action,

I knew that and I wanted them to think about that defiition a bit more. Is it really right?

since ultimately the parent does benefit from the care that they provide to the child.

I'm afraid not. It doesn't. If u disagree then jus tell me how it benefits.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

why is altruism not countered by anti-altruism?

 

[John Connellan]

Because anti-altruism can never get a foothold over altruism in the genetic pool due to the inclusive fitness effect of most altruistic acts.

Antialtruism DOES exist on its own but it won't get rid of altruism

 

[BigBlueHead]

It is not incomplete because genetic propogation has nothing to do with benefits for the individual. There simply is no benefit there. Instead of being incomplete, your theory is in fact just plain wrong as far as I can see.

This is BS. Why do organisms reproduce if it doesn't benefit them?

If you don't believe in the continuity of a species as a benefit to its members, then no living thing should reproduce, as this only produces unneeded competition for them. Then altruism can be defined as "any action toward a conspecific that involves not killing them". I don't think this is a fruitful line of logic.

 

[John Connellan]

This is BS.

I'm sorry to have to break it to ya!

Why do organisms reproduce if it doesn't benefit them?

Ahh, u finally asked a good question that should get to the heart of the matter. U (along with everyone else) were taking a self-centered view of nature. Survival of the individual is not the ultimate goal in life. Reproduction does not benefit organisms but we still do it. Can u guess why yet?

If you don't believe in the continuity of a species as a benefit to its members, then no living thing should reproduce, as this only produces unneeded competition for them.

Continuity of a species is quite important. More imortant is continuity of life. Hence evolution. Nature doesn't give a shit if a species survives or not.

Then altruism can be defined as "any action toward a conspecific that involves not killing them". I don't think this is a fruitful line of logic.

Huh?

 

[paulsamuel]

Why isn't it right to say that inclusive fitness allows these altruistic traits to evolve, rather than "apparent altruistic"? I've always been taught that Kin selection explained altruism

Because one's fitness is increased (enhanced) when our relative genetic representation in the population is increased. An increase in fitness is a benefit. Therefore the altruistic traits are not really altruistic in the most literal sense.

 

[BigBlueHead]

Survival of the individual is not the ultimate goal in life. Reproduction does not benefit organisms but we still do it. Can u guess why yet?

Gee, I dunno John... is it cuz u and eye gots totally different definitions of the word "benefit"? Hurr hurr hurr.

Maybe, since Survival of the individual is not the ultimate goal in life, a statement from which we can interpolate that reproduction is 'cause that's the only other thing we're talking about, we could stretch our minds far enough to believe that managing to reproduce could be considered, in fact, in the fullness of time, at the end of the day, taking all things into consideration, to be a BENEFIT.

Continuity of a species is quite important. More imortant is continuity of life. Hence evolution. Nature doesn't give a shit if a species survives or not.

"Nature" doesn't divide things into species at all. In fact, "Nature" doesn't do anything. And please tell me that your "hence evolution" statement here is not a post hoc rationalization of the purpose of evolution...

 

[John Connellan]

Because one's fitness is increased (enhanced) when our relative genetic representation in the population is increased. An increase in fitness is a benefit. Therefore the altruistic traits are not really altruistic in the most literal sense.

One's fitness is NOT a benefit to the organism however. At least not in my mind. The organism is till going to die so how could it be? In fact the act of reproducing ensures he dies quicker!

 

[John Connellan]

Maybe, since Survival of the individual is not the ultimate goal in life, , a statement from which we can interpolate that reproduction is 'cause that's the only other thing we're talking aboutwe could stretch our minds far enough to believe that managing to reproduce could be considered, in fact, in the fullness of time, at the end of the day, taking all things into consideration, to be a BENEFIT.

No, as I've explained to Paul in the post above, reproduction is actually an expense to life. There are even some animals which die immediately after reproducing. This cannot be a benefit to the individual. It just smacks u in the face with its obviousness

"Nature" doesn't divide things into species at all. In fact, "Nature" doesn't do anything. And please tell me that your "hence evolution" statement here is not a post hoc rationalization of the purpose of evolution...

What I meant by "hence evolution" is that nature does not strive to keep one species going like u were implying earlier. Species will come and go and its not imortant that a species survives to anyone (even an individual).

 

[paulsamuel]

It appears you have a good grasp of the concept of altruism as it pertains to behavioural ecology.

Examples of truly altruistic behaviour:
A) Suicide - since the increase in individual fitness for all of your conspecifics will be about equal, a suicidal gene that does not have some other inherent act (such as defending the hive) could be considered truly altruistic since it does not specifically aid your relatives.

Which is why a suicide gene could not evolve in a population except under the four conditions cited above.

B) Pathological behaviour caused by parasites - some parasites, such as everyone's favourite Leucochloridium snail parasite, can change the behaviour of their host. In the case of the aforementioned snail fluke, they make the snail seek out sunny places so that they can be eaten by birds. Now, this is a case where the parasite has evolved to take advantage of a weakness in the snail's physiology, but the snail's behaviour can still be considered altruistic by the criteria of (1) and (2).

Yes, this is 'manipulation,' number three in the list I provided based on the outline in the Krebs and Davies text.

 

[paulsamuel]

Originally Posted by BigBlueHead, “We can pretty confidently assert that propagation of your genetic material is of benefit to you.”

I disagree.

Originally Posted by BigBlueHead, “Since inclusive fitness theorizes that helping your offspring and their offspring and so on, we can consider the propagation of your offspring's genetic material to be of benefit to you, and hence aiding this is not altruistic.”

I disagree.

This is ridiculous! The passing on of one's genetic material (i.e. one's fitness) is the ONLY critereum by which to measure benefit.

YES. And there are a lot of things in the wild which do not improve personal fitness and in fact lower it (altruism).

Bullcrap! Name them.

No, I'm afraid I don't believe this should be considered in the definition of altruism scientifically. Exactly so that definition of altruism should not exist.

Manipulating definitions to force them to match natural phenomena is not science.

 

[BigBlueHead]

There are even some animals which die immediately after reproducing. This cannot be a benefit to the individual. It just smacks u in the face with its obviousness

Does it? Okay, I'm going to give you two options:
1) Inherit the ability to reproduce, exist.
2) Don't inherit the ability to reproduce, don't exist.

In general you exist because you are descended from reproducing things. Some hybrids can't reproduce, and may they lead great lives; most of us, along with our existence, unstoppably inherit reproductive ability and tendencies.

So if you consider getting to live instead of not getting to live to be a benefit, then inheriting the propensity to reproduce appears to have benefit.

As for creatures that die after they reproduce: who cares? This is a strategy that they have adapted to employ, which they need not have done - nothing stops a new strain of salmon from evolving who spawn and then live, and either come back next year to have more babies, or maybe just while away their twilight years swimming the ocean currents. You're generalizing examples from specific organisms to all organisms, which is usually a big mistake.

 

[paulsamuel]

I disagree. I was taught that is a means by which ALTRUISTIC traits can evolve. The reason I am arguing it so much is because I feel it is a better definition.

You were either taught wrong, or you didn't understand what was attempted to be taught to you.

I have no idea what u are thinking here. Experiments? I am not opposing biological science as such (I think!)

You absolutely are. Read the reference I provided.

What did I say that sounded puerile?

You will sound puerile if someone tells you something, like, "It's raining. Put on your slicker," and you disagree without bothering to check saying, "It's NOT!" and you leave anyway in the rain.
You know, puerile, like a two-year-old.

I'll have to get round to reading some text alright to find out what altruism really is nowadays!

It means what it always meant.

 

[paulsamuel]

It is not incomplete because genetic propogation has nothing to do with benefits for the individual. There simply is no benefit there. Instead of being incomplete, your theory is in fact just plain wrong as far as I can see.

This is NOT BBH's theory. This is basic evolutionary theory, which you appear not to understand, which is why you don't understand altruism, inclusive fitness and behavioural ecology. We are speaking at 2 different levels, and I'm afraid you will never understand what we are discussing unless you get some background education in evolution. Please don't be offended, this is not a criticism. One can't know everything. I know very little of economic theory, but then again I would not go into the economics forum and start telling the economists that Keynesian economics is all wrong. well, maybe I would.

In evolutionary theory, benefits to individual orgainisms are those things or traits that increase one's fitness, i.e. the ability to increase one's relative ability to get their genes into the next generation. All traits that evolve that will do this, will be selected for, any that don't or do the reverse, will be selected against.

The problem was that we biologists saw natural phenomena that appeared altruistic. We came up with hypotheses that would explain the evolution of altruistic traits, then we tested them. The results are summarized in the reference I provided many posts ago, which can be further summarized in the list of four things that can explain the evolution of altruism. Of course, the model organisms are the eusocial ones, in which a large proportion of the population actively forgo reproduction to help a single member of the population to reproduce, i.e. bees and ants.

The first thing you need to do John, is accept that you've misunderstood the concepts. Then, if you're still interested, you can begin to learn what altruism and kin selection tell us about nature and the world we live in. However, the posturing and egotism need to stop. You'll need to accept that there are some people who know more about this subject than you.

 

[John Connellan]

Does it? Okay, I'm going to give you two options:
1) Inherit the ability to reproduce, exist.
2) Don't inherit the ability to reproduce, don't exist.

In general you exist because you are descended from reproducing things. Some hybrids can't reproduce, and may they lead great lives; most of us, along with our existence, unstoppably inherit reproductive ability and tendencies.

So if you consider getting to live instead of not getting to live to be a benefit, then inheriting the propensity to reproduce appears to have benefit.

Not getting to live is not a benefit or a disadvantage. Ur not here so who cares. We're talking about benefits to an individual while it is alive.

As for creatures that die after they reproduce: who cares? This is a strategy that they have adapted to employ, which they need not have done - nothing stops a new strain of salmon from evolving who spawn and then live, and either come back next year to have more babies, or maybe just while away their twilight years swimming the ocean currents. You're generalizing examples from specific organisms to all organisms, which is usually a big mistake.

I'm not generalising. Reproduction reduces the ability of an individual to survive longer. It is a documented case in almost all animals. To the individual it is a needless expenditure of energy it worked so hard to get. However its fun. thats why individuals are compelled to do it.

 

[John Connellan]

This is NOT BBH's theory. This is basic evolutionary theory, which you appear not to understand, which is why you don't understand altruism, inclusive fitness and behavioural ecology.

The only thing I am having a problem with is your definition of altruism. I understand the rest.

We are speaking at 2 different levels, and I'm afraid you will never understand what we are discussing unless you get some background education in evolution. Please don't be offended, this is not a criticism. One can't know everything. I know very little of economic theory, but then again I would not go into the economics forum and start telling the economists that Keynesian economics is all wrong. well, maybe I would.

Just because I am arguing your definition of altruism (or what u claim is the accepted version) does not mean u know more than me. I really don't think u are speaking on a different level to me and I've no idea where u got that from.

In evolutionary theory, benefits to individual orgainisms are those things or traits that increase one's fitness, i.e. the ability to increase one's relative ability to get their genes into the next generation. All traits that evolve that will do this, will be selected for, any that don't or do the reverse, will be selected against.

OK then if that is the case and accepted definition of benefits and altruism then u are right. There is no true altruism just apparent altruism. However take a look at it from the viewpoint of an individual. If reproduction reduces longevity then can it seem like a benefit to them? Think of it in the way that we are merely tools (carriers) for our genes. This is what i was taught. In that case the accepted definition seems absurd. A much better definition would have an individual having its own goals but ultimately being controlled by the goals of your genes.

The problem was that we biologists saw natural phenomena that appeared altruistic. We came up with hypotheses that would explain the evolution of altruistic traits, then we tested them. The results are summarized in the reference I provided many posts ago, which can be further summarized in the list of four things that can explain the evolution of altruism. Of course, the model organisms are the eusocial ones, in which a large proportion of the population actively forgo reproduction to help a single member of the population to reproduce, i.e. bees and ants.

Its ok Paul, I've known this stuff for years

The first thing you need to do John, is accept that you've misunderstood the concepts.

I accept the definition biologists take but I don't like it. Unless u can prove to me why it is a good definition. That would be great!

Then, if you're still interested, you can begin to learn what altruism and kin selection tell us about nature and the world we live in.

Again I've known it for years.

However, the posturing and egotism need to stop. You'll need to accept that there are some people who know more about this subject than you.

U can't conclude u know more about the whole subject than me just because I am arguing against the held definition of altruism.

 

[BigBlueHead]

Not getting to live is not a benefit or a disadvantage. Ur not here so who cares. We're talking about benefits to an individual while it is alive.

So, what's a benefit John? Genetic transmissions's out according to you. Since reproduction is pleasurable, pleasure's gone out the window as benefit. Existence is apparently to be taken for granted and cannot be appreciated. What is left?

I'm not generalising. Reproduction reduces the ability of an individual to survive longer. It is a documented case in almost all animals.

Look, you are generalizing. At the most basic level, bacteria gain vast fitness benefits by reproducing, since their little offspring create biofilms that protect the entire colony from dangerous chemicals.

Ants and bees reproduce, even if it's largely vicarious; in terms of your measures here, not a single member of an ant colony benefits in any way from its labour. The females work day and night, their energy expenditure equalling their intake almost exactly. The males are born, breed, and die. The queen does nothing but reproduce. The story of the hive is the story of torture. Apparently.

Furthermore, you said "there are even some animals that die after reproducing," not "slight energy penalties are levied by reproduction that may increase to large penalties in the case of certain organisms". The fact that some organisms adopt this strategy doesn't mean anything about reproduction.

Furthermore I dispute that "It is a documented case in almost all animals."

Male scorpionflies make food offerings to females when they mate, which helps to offset the "energy cost".

Certain kinds of male katydids permit the female to drink nutritious fluids from specialized glands on their backs under similar circumstances.

Mormon crickets have a large, sticky, edible spermatophore that they transfer to the female; it's thought that the time she spends eating it gives the sperm time to fertilize her eggs, but no matter.

In these cases, mating several times will increase the individual fitness of the female organism.