Re: Kin Selection contradiction?

From: Guy Hoelzer (hoelzer_at_unr.edu)
Date: 06/29/04 

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:10:43 +0000 (UTC)

Bill,

in article cblk8u$27qa$1@darwin.ediacara.org, William Morse at
wdmorse@twcny.rr.com wrote on 6/26/04 10:00 PM:

> Guy Hoelzer <hoelzer@unr.edu> wrote in
> news:cbdlb2$2mpm$1@darwin.ediacara.org:
>
>> in article cbc9qk$276c$1@darwin.ediacara.org, Perplexed in Peoria at
>> jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net wrote on 6/23/04 9:06 AM:
>>> I fully agree that most altruism-like behaviors in nature (excluding
>>> parental care, and perhaps the social insects) are based on
>>> reciprocity rather than on the unilateral altruism covered by the
>>> Rule.
>
>> It's good to know that our estimates of reality are close.
>
> I disagree with both of your estimates of reality.

;-(

> I thought Hamilton
> originally suggested his rule to answer the question of how a feature like
> the toxicity of monarch butterflies could evolve.

I think his mind was certainly open enough to include this sort of
phenomenon. I personally see his primary motivation as one to come up with
a plausible model for the evolution of individual altruism given the
crumbling of Wynne-Edwards style group selection that was happening at the
time. The discrediting (right or wrong) of "for the good of the species"
thinking re-introduced altruistic phenomena as a big problem begging a
Darwin-istic explanation. Hamilton met this daunting challenge by subtly
shifting the target of selection below (and some argue above) the level of
the individual, although his implicit use of alternative levels of selection
was rather cryptic in his own writings. However, the success of the theory
of kin selection paved the way for David Sloan Wilson and others to develop
multilevel selection theory as a more general expression of Hamilton's
ideas.
 
> This feature has nothing to do with reciprocity.

I don't want to quibble, but I am not so sure about this claim. After all,
if we are both toxic to predators, then I benefit by being near you and you
benefit by being near me. I think that reciprocity is fundamentally about
positive feedback whether or not social interaction is involved.

> It might not be considered
> altruism by most, but in fact is, since being toxic doesn't help an
> individual at first - the individual will still be killed by the
> predator.The predator is likely thereafter to avoid the species - so it is
> only after the toxicity gene has spread that it provides any advantage to
> the bearer. The initial benefit has to be to other individuals who are
> likely to share the gene - i.e. kin. Note here that the benefit does not
> have to be only to kin - in the monarch butterfly example the benefit would
> be to all monarch butterflies - the benefit to kin only has to exceed the
> cost to the individual.

I agree that this accurately represents the kin selection model.

Cheers,

Guy