General > Biology

Selfish Gene

<< < (3/4) > >>

ikke:

--- Quote from: Numsgil ---Exactly.  Just reasoning it out that should be the outcome.  But there is empirical evidence for local populations of neolithic humans and animals limiting their reproduction to benefit everyone.  This is the selfish gene vs. altruistic group problem.  Just reasoning on the gene level altruism should always die out to selfishness.  Since the selfish individuals will out-compete the altruistic individuals.  And it's actually one of the first things evolution will do, is break altruism.
--- End quote ---
You haven't read the selfish gene, because one of the central themes of the selfish genes is how selfish genes give rise to altruistic inidividuals.

--- Quote from: Numsgil ---But we see altruism all the time in the natural world.  We can dismiss it as kin selection and therefore really a form of selfishness by the gene.  But that doesn't explain why altruism develops in the natural world but breaks down under laboratory conditions.  Or why only some animals are altruistic and others aren't.  It in now way helps us form a scientific theory of altruism, with real and testable predictions.  It's just a form of handwavium that says "if it's an observable trait, it benefits the genes".  That would be like saying "if it's an observable result, it's because God said so".  Maybe true, but it doesn't make testable predictions.
--- End quote ---
One of the thing I like most about the theory is its ability to predicts sex ratios in social insects based on gene selfishness

--- Quote from: Numsgil ---Which is where selection on a group level comes in.  This is this aggressive mouse/altruistic mouse in the haystack model for group selection.  In a single haystack, if there are any aggressive mice, they will always win out and the entire haystack will be aggressive mice.  But there are other haystacks.  Maybe ones with just passive mice.  Passive mice will do better and there will be more of them.  Every now and then the haystacks get removed and all the mice scurry around in a mouse orgy then repopulate new haystacks.  Using game theory and a bit of math, it's possible to formulate exact conditions under which aggressive mice will become 100% of the population, and under which altruistic mice will become 100% of the population.

These conditions are dependent on aspects of how individuals interact once the haystacks are removed (whether mating is purely random, that sort of thing).  So while the behavior (and thus these conditions) are controlled by genes, the end result is not immediately clear from that.  It is emergent complexity.  The unit of selection essentially is groups in this model.  Aggressive mice can win out in every single local haystack fight and still lose globally.
--- End quote ---
Nice guys finish first...

Numsgil:

--- Quote from: ikke ---
--- Quote from: Numsgil ---Exactly.  Just reasoning it out that should be the outcome.  But there is empirical evidence for local populations of neolithic humans and animals limiting their reproduction to benefit everyone.  This is the selfish gene vs. altruistic group problem.  Just reasoning on the gene level altruism should always die out to selfishness.  Since the selfish individuals will out-compete the altruistic individuals.  And it's actually one of the first things evolution will do, is break altruism.
--- End quote ---
You haven't read the selfish gene, because one of the central themes of the selfish genes is how selfish genes give rise to altruistic inidividuals.

--- End quote ---

A.  I have not read the book, no.
B.  It's concepts represent the entire modern, popular (among scientists) interpretation of evolutionary biology.  So it's not exactly a foreign concept to me.
C.  Altruism is said in the book to be expected to arise when rb>c.  But if you read this wiki article section I linked a while ago (if you open it in Chrome, you will need to physically navigate to the multilevel selection theory section), that model is considered, by a growing minority of biologists, to be an incomplete representation because of counter cases (like the naked mole rat apparently).

Since it's Monday, I can now link this interesting article: Evolution of Social Behavior : Individual and Group Selection Models.  It's directly relevant, so it's worth a read (at least the first few pages).

Basically, Dawkin's book is 30 years old.  It's not the final word.  New empirical and theoretical (from game theory) evidence is being gathered which is casting doubt on the simplistic view of gene centric evolution.  There's been progress in evolutionary biology in the mean time.  Progress which has produced a more nuanced view of evolution.  We'll probably have to wait till the old guard (Dawkins et al) die off before the new ideas can fully blossom.


--- Quote ---One of the thing I like most about the theory is its ability to predicts sex ratios in social insects based on gene selfishness
--- End quote ---

There are certainly species for which a purely gene centric view of altruism and socialism works very well.  But there are others for which it breaks down.  Naked mole rats, apparently (according to wiki on the multilevel selection link I posted last time).  There is a growing body of evidence that the rb>c Hamilton's rule central to kin selection (and thus gene centric evolution) does not adequately describe all empirical evidence.  There is growing evidence that the equation should be something more like rb+g>c, where r is the relatedness, b is the benefit to kin, c is the cost, and g is the benefit to the group against other groups.  So it's theoretically possible for altruism to develop between entirely unrelated individuals if it makes the local group competitive against foreign groups (enemy of my enemy is my friend).

Likewise it's possible for altruistic behavior to break down under laboratory settings if group competition is removed and you essentially just have a single group in isolation.

Instead of naked mole rats, I think a good example would be meerkats.  Individuals within a group are often strongly related, but it is not at all uncommon for members of the group to defect to rival groups, or vice versa.  Likewise, what was once one single cohesive group will often split apart in to separate rival groups after the death of the matriarch.  So while there's a strong element of kin selection, I don't think you can just wave your hands and say all forms of socialism in the animal world are from kin selection.

I think it's probably like Nationalism in humans.  Yes, there's a strong racial component, (both spitefulness towards other races and altruism towards the unifying race), but it's used more as an underlying motivation for a form of group selection (hence the "nation" in Nationalism).

deoxymoron:

--- Quote ---Just the opposite in fact. Or that's the commonly accepted scientific consensus. On a quantum level things are uncertain (probabilistic). And the consensus is that this is not a measurement problem, but a fundamental nature of the quantum world. (See: Copenhagen interpretation). There is even a hypothesis that there can not be any hidden variables. Here's the wiki article.

There is an argument to be made for "superdeterminism", but it is not considered probable or even testable, so it can't be theory.
--- End quote ---

Well, this is why i'm still open minded and uncertain that everything is certain. i have still got some research to do with quantum theory, but i have read 'briefer history of time' and other bits here and there about it. i just find it hard to imagine that everything on our level is essentially predictable, then you get down to a certain level and you can't really go any further predicting things. it doesn't make sense for something to just randomly happen; even for pro-god (not necessarily religious god beleivers), they might attribute this randomness to a source- god. or in other words, give the randomness a reason thus meaning it's not random any more. it makes it even harder when  seemingly never changing qualities of the universe like time come into question, and string theory with its 11 dimensions isn't helping lol. but i'm always open minded, just leaning towards determinism however.

also, in the world of genes and behaviours of living things, the world is effectively deterministic i think. quantum randomness doesn't really change anything.

anyway, not quite biology any more, so Dawkin eh..

i think his view is most definitely simplistic, i agree. and multi selection theory, as far as i can tell, is an elaboration so they're not mutually exclusive (i need to read up on multi selection theory). though i think some times its better to see it one way, and some times the other; for DBs, probably Dawkins. i suppose the man saving his kids using dawkins view was not really the best way to see it, but it still holds that dawkins view is still valid. And its a good way to remember it comes down to the genes (unless you claim its not?), however misleading this view can be in other ways (btw, yes probably thousands of genes, not just one).

as for the case given in evolution of social behaviour. the case about populations of humans thousands of years ago purposely limiting their population, perhaps this is because a well feed group is healthier and stronger overall than a group that, while at first may be 'more successful' in terms of genes because they have produced more of themselves. the other healthier groups would win out if conflict ever occured between the two groups, dispite the fact, the other group would have more people, because those people would be less able to over due to thier group habits (not limiting thier pop)

so following the gene based view, Dawkins would easily explain this. but viewing it group-wise, and keeping genes in mind, also does. just mutually acceptable theories i think. the genes for making people choose to limit their population would flourish, even if not so in a 'reproduce like mad' group... suppose this is just a variant of the haystack model lol. so all in all i agree. (i havent read the whole article yet)

the main thing is, it holds that it always comes down to the gene. it's an important thing to remember i think because it just wouldn't make sense that there are genes in a population, without their own survival in mind. it would be like finding a city with flourishing businesses which are all losing money, surely they'd all go bankrupt. no matter how complex their dealings are with other companies and customers (other species and food) their bottom line profit should be priority.

anyway it's a complex issue so it's best focus on perspective.

Also my link didn't go through about 'Life is just a product of the laws of entropy', so it should be attached now. it's also worth a read. (i cant figure out how to attach it here with a 'link')

deoxymoron:
actually i retract that about the gene being the only thing that matters... :/ change of thoughts. i suppose groups can be seen as reproducing entities themselves... even of its a gradual constant reproducing, evolutionary forces could act primarily on them rather than gene. but still a perspective change in a way.

this should probably be in biology forum now.

but bringing it back to DBs dna. i think it's unlikely to see interesting group behaviour if bot pop is under 200ish. or atleast what needs to happen is you have to create several stable populations of bots, then allow them to become adapted to their environment; seperate from the other populations (also their environment should be different, maybe different shapes) then i think some group selection may occur. i realise this can be hard.

another way would be to have one group and two environments in the hope that they evolve into two groups.

also, i can seem to have more than one stable group because either one or the other eats all their food, then stave. (i usually have veg pop dependant on how much the bots can eat. so if their pop gets too small, harder for bots to find. then they repop. if too big, easier to find, thus die out a little)

Numsgil:

--- Quote from: deoxymoron ---but bringing it back to DBs dna. i think it's unlikely to see interesting group behaviour if bot pop is under 200ish. or atleast what needs to happen is you have to create several stable populations of bots, then allow them to become adapted to their environment; seperate from the other populations (also their environment should be different, maybe different shapes) then i think some group selection may occur. i realise this can be hard.
--- End quote ---

My thought as well.  I think that's what made internet mode so interesting in its heyday.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page