Isabella, I don' wanna get into an egocentric pissin match here (and I have no reason to think that you, personally, confuse ISSUES with personal opinion--we're all just trying to be clear, eh?), but your reasonin' is almost correct (well, it's correct, but limited), to wit: Don't behaviours develop because they work? "Selfish" behaviors don't work for organisms that lack the requisite characteristics (physical and behavioral), eh? Genes may be "selfish," but organisms evolve according to a continuing best-fit relationship between their genetic composition/resilience and a complex, continuously changing, cycling, even vibrating, if you will, CONTEXT, no? Drop a bit of saline solution into one side of a petri dish with a planarian "worm" (or other suitable organism) in its most favourable habitat conditions, and it will respond with adaptive behaviour, right? (I could be quite wrong about the particulars, as the last time I remember doing this simple exercise was about 50 years ago, but am I more or less right about the principles?)
All the clever joking, punning, and tongue-in-cheekin' aside, whilst you are quite correct to emphasize that "there is an important [flaw]" flowing through any logic that GENETIC natural selection acts DIRECTLY on groups, but what about complex evolution of behaviors within and between cultures? At the level of intelligence, one way (the most fundamental?) of separating the sheep from the goats is (back to the planarian) the ability to choose the superior over the inferior, eh? Tigers, for example, are solitary because they and their more or less immediate evolutionary predecessors made "superior" choices given their genetic/behavioural compliment and the dynamic context/environment; the same kind of interactions produced social species like Homo sapiens, no? I submit this, not to split hairs, but to explore crucial distinctions (including, perhaps unfortunately, but necessarily, semantic ones). I am not concerned about agreement with my "opinion," but interested in a non-personal integrated approach to intellectual enquiry. I am also under no illusion that this contribution is in any way complete or comprehensive. In fact, I beg your pardon that (apologies to J. Goethe) I didn't take the time to write a shorter one. I hope others will fill in the blanks as necessary and correct any discrepancies. WT At 12:49 PM 2/14/2006, isab972 wrote: >Dear Warren, > >Your reasoning on selection is almost correct but there is one important >flow: natural selection does not act on clans or groups but only on >individuals. Group selection indeed does not work in nature. In very few >cases, there might be traits selected under kin-selection, but very very >few. > >You talked about helping the others and cooperative behaviours. Under the >word "cooperation" there are many different behaviours and in many cases the >individual advantage is what drives the evolution of "cooperative >behaviours", not group selection. A simple example: you have an antipredator >advantage in larger groups through dilution effect and improved detection of >approaching predators. So, the costs of alerting the group about the >presence of a nearby predator are small for the caller, the call helps the >others to escape but the apparent cooperation is driven by selfish >individual advantage. > >Isabella > >-- >Isabella Capellini, PhD >Research Associate > >Evolutionary Anthropology Research Group >Department of Anthropology >Durham University >43 Old Elvet >DH1 3HN >Durham (UK) > >phone: +44 (0)191 3346177 >fax: +44 (0)191 3346101 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Warren W. Aney > > Sent: 14 February 2006 20:04 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: current natural selection pressures > > > > I may not be the person to raise this discussion to a more > > rigorous ecological level, but let me try: > > > > As I understand one view of natural selection, it is a > > process that favors those qualities that increase the > > likelihood of a particular set of genes being passed on to > > succeeding generations. So we have the obvious, e.g., > > selecting for opposable thumbs and bigger brains led to > > selecting for learning the use of tools (and weapons) which > > improved that particular clan's survivability -- and the > > survival of its gene set. It also explains some altruistic > > behaviors -- taking care of elderly clan members may have > > cost a little in terms of resource allocation, but that may > > have been more than offset by their providing services > > beneficial to the clan's survival. > > Services such as infant care, child mentoring and the > > transfer of accrued skills, knowledge and wisdom. > > > > It also may have led to learning some other behaviors such as > > killing the males and enslaving the females of competing > > clans -- not very altruistic but certainly improving the > > survival of the victorious clan's gene set. > > > > So why do we now seem to be learning behaviors that would > > appear to work against the survival of the gene set of the > > "clan" we belong to? Behaviors such as being kind to > > strangers instead of killing the males and raping the > > females, sending aid to foreign countries instead of engaging > > in genocide, promoting birth control instead of large > > families, honoring monogamy and celibacy instead of > > promiscuity, protecting and conserving other species instead > > of eliminating them as competitors or threats, honoring > > humility instead of belligerence, honoring artists more than > > soldiers (okay, this may be a bad example since we expend > > much more of our resources on the military than we do on the arts). > > > > It appears, at least to this field ecologist, that we are > > practicing behaviors aimed at improving the survival of a > > whole host of competing and maybe even antagonistic gene > > sets. And most of us (but not all of us) believe that is > > exactly what we should be doing. Where and how is natural > > selection at work in all this? > > > > > > Warren Aney > > Senior Wildlife Ecologist > > Tigard, Oregon > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of isabella capellini > > Sent: Tuesday, 14 February, 2006 08:36 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: current natural selection pressures > > > > > > > > Perhaps human intelligence and humility will become > > > > > a selective pressure. > > > > Really?? How? will more intelligent and humile people have > > more offspring??? > > Isabella > > > > > > Dr. Isabella Capellini, PhD > > Research Associate > > > > Department of Anthropology > > Durham University > > 43 Old Elvet > > Durham > > DH1 3HN (UK) > > > > phone: +44 (0)191 3346177 > > fax: +44-(0)191-3346101 > > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > webpage: http://www.dur.ac.uk/anthropology/staff/ > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > > Yahoo! Photos - NEW, now offering a quality print service > > from just 8p a photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com > >
