Hi Chris I think alarm calls are explained adequately by the benefits afforded to individuals in a group that share some genetic material. If you are a monkey with a few brothers and sisters in a troupe and plenty of cousins then a lot of 'your' genes get protected by putting yourself at risk by alarm calls. Whatever genes underpin alarm calling then have a good chance of passing on. If members of another species then derive some benefit from that then that in fact is a form of cheating. There might be mutual cheating insofar as both species might have evolved alarm calling and both noticed the alarm calls of the other species. I dont see the need to invoke group selection here.
As for dogs saving babies its not difficult to see the benefits. That dog is made for life by that one risk. Its now king dog. The cats in the neighbourhood must be kicking themselves. They do all the serious symbiotic work keeping the vermin population down and some stupid dog puts on a big display and steals all the limelight. Acts of kindness to complete strangers is harder to explain. I think humans evolved in small groups where genetic relatedness was high. Even though we live in groups of thousands and even millions in cities our behaviour reflects what would be adaptive in much mich smaller groups. All the best --- Original Message --- From: "Chris de Morsella" <cdemorse...@yahoo.com> Sent: 14 August 2013 3:05 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong Chris P - I agree, classic Darwinian selection is usually sufficient to explain the presence of traits, such as altruism (which as you noted is not a specifically human one) as long as one extends it to account for group survival fitness. This hypothesis would seem to be supported by a high correspondence of genetic closeness with altruistic behavior. It becomes a little more indirect when for example one considers the case where loose groupings, comprising of multiple species exhibit this behavior. For example in the case of the various monkey and bird species that seem to forage the tropical rain forest together, the individual animal that sounds the alarm call for some predator is increasing its own risk of becoming predated in order to alert individuals who may not even be the same species. I still think however that by increasing the overall group fitness of the loose multi-species confederation that individual benefits, on average. The linkage is however less clear. Altruism however becomes harder to explain - using Darwinian selection -- when it is pure altruism, such as an act of kindness to some complete stranger (that provides no easily discernible benefit to the individual initiating the altruistic act) or even a cross species acts of altruism, which on occasion seem to occur, for example the classic headline say of "stray dog jumps into pool saves drowning baby". This pure altruism that occurs between individuals that are not closely related is what interests me most. In these cases what is the fitness payback for the individual who behaves in the altruistic manner; unless it is the indirect fitness payback that comes from that individual's act helping to build in a higher degree of altruism into their social group dynamics thus helping to lower transactional costs perhaps. Cheers, -Chris D From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chris peck Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 4:04 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong Hi Chris d m The papers Ive been reading regard horizontal genetic transfer as a mechanism by which the machinery of translation, transcription and replication evolved. As cellular organisms became more complex this mechanism gives way to vertical genetic transfer which then dominates evolution. They call this hypothetical period the Darwinain Transition. At this point selection at a genetic level takes over. I cant vouch for the ideas plausibility. I think that selection at a genetic level is enough to account for altruism. Hamilton's law predicts that behaviors will be undertaken so long as the benefit multiplied by the degree of genetic relatedness outweighs the cost. This equation gets healthy support from the study of bees, wasps and ants etc where the unusual 2/3 relatedness between female siblings gives rise to unisially co-operative behaviour and between sisters. All the best --- Original Message --- From: "meekerdb" <meeke...@verizon.net> Sent: 13 August 2013 4:56 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong On 8/12/2013 9:41 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote: What co-evolutionary traits have been shown to have occurred in dogs and cattle because of their association with humans (so which are therefore part of the equation)? Dogs are just wolves that, thru (un)natural selection have evolved to bond with humans as with a pack. Cattle similarly evolved to be docile and tolerant of humans. For example with sheep - is sheep dog behavior evolved? Or are they expressing genetic potential that was already innate in their species? That would also be an interesting example, if it can be shown that an evolved set of behaviors (e.g. instincts) developed in those dog species that were bred for working with cattle or sheep that is absent in other dog species that there are epigenetic and/or DNA encoding differences that are related to and underpin the behaviors and traits being observed. Wolves herd sheep too, so there was innate potential. But dogs can also learn a lot of words. I don't know whether wolves can or not. That might be an evolved capability. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
