Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Altruism: It's evolution

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Altruism: It's evolution

    Religion often takes credit for altruism in humans but throughout history natural philosophers and then scientists have noted self-less behavior in nonhuman animals.
    There are many ways to look at altruism from an evolutionary perspective, many of them described in this open access primer. One I don't often read about is the honest signal; looking at at altruism is as an honest signal of such superior fitness that you can afford to spend resources on another.

    "After so much progress with kin selection, it seems today difficult to conceive that helping behaviour among relatives could ever have been viewed as a challenge to Darwinism. The appearance of altruism was based on sloppy reasoning, such as ignoring inclusive fitness effects."


    Altruism

    Altruistic actions are generally seen as ‘noble’. Yet some ‘lowly’ organisms are apt to match the most heroic human acts of devotion and self-sacrifice. To use a widely-quoted example, consider Dicrocoelium dendriticum, also known as brainworm. These parasites spend some of their stages in the innards of cows, exit in the feces and, in the form of cercaria, are eaten by ants a few stages later. Once ingested, a gang of cercaria will break through the ant's stomach wall. One of them makes it to the brain of the ant, and causes it to climb on the tips of grass blades, thus exposing itself to be taken up by the grazing cattle. The other cercaria form cysts in the ant's body, ready to pursue their life-cycle within the cow that swallows them. But the one who made it to the brain — the ‘brainworm’ — dies without leaving offspring. It has effectively sacrificed itself for the survival of its gang. In humans, comparable feats would be the stuff of epic poetry.
    Small wonder that evolutionary biologists feel challenged by such behaviour and see it as a high priority aim ‘to take the altruism out of altruism’. To begin this task, they define the term ‘altruism’ in purely Darwinian terms, devoid of any moralistic undertones. An action performed by individual A and affecting individual B is said to be altruistic if it increases the fitness — the reproductive success — of the recipient B, and decreases the fitness of A. In this context, one may as well give names to the other possible scenarios: if the action increases the fitness of both A and B, one speaks of cooperation; of spite, if it decreases both fitnesses; and of selfishness if A's fitness is enhanced and B's fitness diminished. Both altruistic and spiteful traits lower the reproductive success of their bearers and seem at first inconsistent with the action of natural selection. Yet they abound.
    "Kids & Adults love Fairy Tale Ark exhibit" - Ken Ham

  • #2
    Originally posted by Promethean View Post
    Religion often takes credit for altruism in humans but throughout history natural philosophers and then scientists have noted self-less behavior in nonhuman animals.
    There are many ways to look at altruism from an evolutionary perspective, many of them described in this open access primer. One I don't often read about is the honest signal; looking at at altruism is as an honest signal of such superior fitness that you can afford to spend resources on another.
    "After so much progress with kin selection, it seems today difficult to conceive that helping behaviour among relatives could ever have been viewed as a challenge to Darwinism. The appearance of altruism was based on sloppy reasoning, such as ignoring inclusive fitness effects."
    [B][URL="https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(02)00797-2"]Altruism
    Altruistic actions are generally seen as ‘noble’. Yet some ‘lowly’ organisms are apt to match the most heroic human acts of devotion and self-sacrifice. To use a widely-quoted example, consider Dicrocoelium dendriticum, also known as brainworm. These parasites spend some of their stages in the innards of cows, exit in the feces and, in the form of cercaria, are eaten by ants a few stages later. Once ingested, a gang of cercaria will break through the ant's stomach wall. One of them makes it to the brain of the ant, and causes it to climb on the tips of grass blades, thus exposing itself to be taken up by the grazing cattle. The other cercaria form cysts in the ant's body, ready to pursue their life-cycle within the cow that swallows them. But the one who made it to the brain — the ‘brainworm’ — dies without leaving offspring. It has effectively sacrificed itself for the survival of its gang. In humans, comparable feats would be the stuff of epic poetry.
    Small wonder that evolutionary biologists feel challenged by such behaviour and see it as a high priority aim ‘to take the altruism out of altruism’. To begin this task, they define the term ‘altruism’ in purely Darwinian terms, devoid of any moralistic undertones. An action performed by individual A and affecting individual B is said to be altruistic if it increases the fitness — the reproductive success — of the recipient B, and decreases the fitness of A. In this context, one may as well give names to the other possible scenarios: if the action increases the fitness of both A and B, one speaks of cooperation; of spite, if it decreases both fitnesses; and of selfishness if A's fitness is enhanced and B's fitness diminished. Both altruistic and spiteful traits lower the reproductive success of their bearers and seem at first inconsistent with the action of natural selection. Yet they abound.
    n>1) Is that some sort of joke? Surely you jest. No? What with all the brights putting all those bright minds together... come up with that rubbish?
    2) The little girl next door would have seen through that voodoo reasoning from those brights in your silly OP. If I were to show her your OP/joke/whatever, here's what she'd probably say... though I will use my words pretending she saw your stuff.
    "Who wrote those sillies?" she might ask.
    "That's funny. People are people. Ants and cows do stuff from instinct."
    3) Do your sciency pals not know the difference? I'll break it down more simply. Do you know anything about robots? Do you think maybe that a bright programmer could make a robot look altruistic?
    4) Humans are very different. Many events and examples in many millennia tend to show that unless retrained humans have and will continue to make enormous trouble for everyone and everything.
    5) Your evol stories don't work out very well. Extinctions... look it up. Evol does not work.
    That OP is full of involved, created beans ... and some funnies... such a big shock!
    Congrats you restrained yourself from inventing an imaginary creo.
    .
    Last edited by noemail001; 01-30-19, 11:03 PM.
    Mouser Larry Roy: "yippee ki yay"
    “... see the loonies in their cages… are they not witty… how much amusement they afford… ours is a human world, theirs is a bestial world… " Bedlam

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by noemail001 View Post

      n
      .
      Annoying trolling redacted. Back to the paper


      Altruism

      Altruistic actions are generally seen as ‘noble’. Yet some ‘lowly’ organisms are apt to match the most heroic human acts of devotion and self-sacrifice. To use a widely-quoted example, consider Dicrocoelium dendriticum, also known as brainworm. These parasites spend some of their stages in the innards of cows, exit in the feces and, in the form of cercaria, are eaten by ants a few stages later. Once ingested, a gang of cercaria will break through the ant's stomach wall. One of them makes it to the brain of the ant, and causes it to climb on the tips of grass blades, thus exposing itself to be taken up by the grazing cattle. The other cercaria form cysts in the ant's body, ready to pursue their life-cycle within the cow that swallows them. But the one who made it to the brain — the ‘brainworm’ — dies without leaving offspring. It has effectively sacrificed itself for the survival of its gang. In humans, comparable feats would be the stuff of epic poetry.
      Small wonder that evolutionary biologists feel challenged by such behaviour and see it as a high priority aim ‘to take the altruism out of altruism’. To begin this task, they define the term ‘altruism’ in purely Darwinian terms, devoid of any moralistic undertones. An action performed by individual A and affecting individual B is said to be altruistic if it increases the fitness — the reproductive success — of the recipient B, and decreases the fitness of A. In this context, one may as well give names to the other possible scenarios: if the action increases the fitness of both A and B, one speaks of cooperation; of spite, if it decreases both fitnesses; and of selfishness if A's fitness is enhanced and B's fitness diminished. Both altruistic and spiteful traits lower the reproductive success of their bearers and seem at first inconsistent with the action of natural selection. Yet they abound.
      "Kids & Adults love Fairy Tale Ark exhibit" - Ken Ham

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Promethean View Post
        Religion often takes credit for altruism in humans but throughout history natural philosophers and then scientists have noted self-less behavior in nonhuman animals.
        There are many ways to look at altruism from an evolutionary perspective, many of them described in this open access primer. One I don't often read about is the honest signal; looking at at altruism is as an honest signal of such superior fitness that you can afford to spend resources on another.

        "After so much progress with kin selection, it seems today difficult to conceive that helping behaviour among relatives could ever have been viewed as a challenge to Darwinism. The appearance of altruism was based on sloppy reasoning, such as ignoring inclusive fitness effects."


        Altruism

        Altruistic actions are generally seen as ‘noble’. Yet some ‘lowly’ organisms are apt to match the most heroic human acts of devotion and self-sacrifice. To use a widely-quoted example, consider Dicrocoelium dendriticum, also known as brainworm. These parasites spend some of their stages in the innards of cows, exit in the feces and, in the form of cercaria, are eaten by ants a few stages later. Once ingested, a gang of cercaria will break through the ant's stomach wall. One of them makes it to the brain of the ant, and causes it to climb on the tips of grass blades, thus exposing itself to be taken up by the grazing cattle. The other cercaria form cysts in the ant's body, ready to pursue their life-cycle within the cow that swallows them. But the one who made it to the brain — the ‘brainworm’ — dies without leaving offspring. It has effectively sacrificed itself for the survival of its gang. In humans, comparable feats would be the stuff of epic poetry.
        Small wonder that evolutionary biologists feel challenged by such behaviour and see it as a high priority aim ‘to take the altruism out of altruism’. To begin this task, they define the term ‘altruism’ in purely Darwinian terms, devoid of any moralistic undertones. An action performed by individual A and affecting individual B is said to be altruistic if it increases the fitness — the reproductive success — of the recipient B, and decreases the fitness of A. In this context, one may as well give names to the other possible scenarios: if the action increases the fitness of both A and B, one speaks of cooperation; of spite, if it decreases both fitnesses; and of selfishness if A's fitness is enhanced and B's fitness diminished. Both altruistic and spiteful traits lower the reproductive success of their bearers and seem at first inconsistent with the action of natural selection. Yet they abound.
        One has to wonder how such a lifecycle could possibly evolve.

        The evo-scientist speculate with possible scenarios...with visions of increasing and decreasing fitness....pretty much coloring book...and no real model to actually show how the brainworm could have evolved.

        On a side note, I found this interesting..."dies without leaving offspring. It has effectively sacrificed itself for the survival of its gang. In humans, comparable feats would be the stuff of epic poetry." That sounds a lot like what Jesus did.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by CrowCross View Post

          One has to wonder how such a lifecycle could possibly evolve.
          If you read the papers and understand the math you don't really have to wonder all that much.

          "Kids & Adults love Fairy Tale Ark exhibit" - Ken Ham

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Promethean View Post
            If you read the papers and understand the math you don't really have to wonder all that much.
            I read this

            "Unfortunately, the empirical evidence for reciprocal altruism lags behind theory."

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by CrowCross View Post

              I read this

              "Unfortunately, the empirical evidence for reciprocal altruism lags behind theory."
              That quote is true. Doesn't mean there is no empirical evidence.

              And it's also how you know you are dealing with honest scientists instead of dishonest creationists.
              "Kids & Adults love Fairy Tale Ark exhibit" - Ken Ham

              Comment


              • #8
                Altruism only makes sense to people who are not religious fundamentalists.
                Religious fundamentalism causes selfishness.
                When evil is powerful, good men are silenced.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Promethean View Post
                  That quote is true. Doesn't mean there is no empirical evidence.

                  And it's also how you know you are dealing with honest scientists instead of dishonest creationists.
                  God is watching you,

                  God watched Darwin spit on science.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Nouveau View Post

                    God is watching you,

                    God watched Darwin spit on science.
                    NO evidence of your little god.

                    Makes Darwin more powerful than your little god who could not stop Darwin.

                    Pretend deities can't stop real humans.
                    "Kids & Adults love Fairy Tale Ark exhibit" - Ken Ham

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      [QUOTE=Promethean;n5799943]..........


                      Altruism


                      The lion not concerned with the opinions of the sheep.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by lightbeamrider View Post
                        The lion not concerned with the opinions of the sheep.
                        The scientist is not interested in the opinions of the fundamentalist

                        "Kids & Adults love Fairy Tale Ark exhibit" - Ken Ham

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Promethean View Post

                          The scientist is not interested in the opinions of the fundamentalist
                          You are not a scientist. These parrot papers are packed with speculations. Next thing evo world will label road kill as altruistic. Why hasn't skunk species evolved a car repelling scent?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Nouveau View Post

                            You are not a scientist. These parrot papers are packed with speculations. Next thing evo world will label road kill as altruistic. Why hasn't skunk species evolved a car repelling scent?
                            You are not a scientist
                            You are not a psychologist
                            You are not a CPA
                            You are not a surgeon
                            You are not a captain
                            You are not an economist

                            You delusional brags are sad.

                            "Kids & Adults love Fairy Tale Ark exhibit" - Ken Ham

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by lightbeamrider View Post
                              ......




                              The lion not concerned with the opinions of the sheep.
                              Just a professional comment on "altruism" that you will understand.

                              To evaluate altruism they must INTERVIEW the subject to learn of motive. Can't do that with critters.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X