Re: Altruistic cooperation
From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 03/11/05
- Next message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: OOL VI - Chirality and Sugars."
- Previous message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Species Selection Redux"
- Maybe in reply to: Boyd: "Altruistic cooperation"
- Next in thread: Malcolm: "Re: Altruistic cooperation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:01:46 -0500 (EST)
> > B:-
> > Could you tell me why an individual needs to carry out an altruistic
> > behaviour as what is said in the definition of "altruism" ? If the
> > population gets denser, how would I know which ones will sacrifice
for
> > the community ?
> > Do you know of any simulation models or reasonings you think I
should
> > take a look at ? Or am I totally out of track with misunderstandings
> > about altruism ? I am still a college student with actually no firm
> > background on biology...Please help...
> > Thank you so much in advance
> JM:-
> There is no simple answer. I would suggest you start with Robert
Wright's
> book "The Moral Animal", and then expand your reading from there.
Another
> good starting point might be a book by Richard Axelrod. I don't
remember
> the name, but I think that the word "cooperation" was in the title.
Or,
> another place to start might be "Unto Others" by Sober and Wilson.
But
> I consider their group-selective explanations to be unconvincing.
JE:-
I thought I would wait until somebody else responded
before I replied.
I would go back to the source: V.C. Wyne-Edwards, Animal
Dispersion in Relation to Social Behaviour (London:
Oliver and Boyd, 1967). All of altruism is based on
classical group selection including Hamilton's Rule.
Please note: Felsenstein can derive the rule from classical
group selection. This is obvious because more than
one (a minimum of 4 when all gene fitness epistasis remains
artificially deleted to a minimum of 16 when it is
included) recipients are required to form one ongoing rb
total using normal meiotic sex.
Wyne-Edwards' massive collection of documented _empirical_
observations makes his first book one of the most important
since Darwin. His last book (which is almost totally
ignored): "Evolution Through Group Selection" Blackwell
Scientific Publications 1986 is even more important.
In it he reverses his assumption of cause and effect
that he incorrectly assumed in his first book so that
"group selection" now means selection of individuals BY
the group and not FOR the group, excluding any proposition
of a single additive in fitness _selectee_. In
effect, Wyne-Edwards is developing the Baldwin effect
which IMHO is entirely based on Darwinian fitness
mutualisation. This is a process whereby the total number
of fertile forms reproduced into one population by each
parent always becomes maximised.
I recommend that you make VERY sure that you can separate
out in your own mind selector (the process doing
the selecting) from selectee (that being selected
by this process). While it may appear simple this
critical separation continues to befuddle some of the
best minds in evolutionary theory. Next you must sort out
what fitness is EMPIRICALLY and then decide if any association
formed to increase it is dependent (selected together) or
interdependent (selected separately).
Neo Darwinians do not define each selectee fitness empirically and
do not even allow each selectee to form one fitness total. Thus they
end up talking about forever-ongoing-fitnesses at a plethora
of heuristic multi-levels of selection which they never specify as
dependent or independent. To cope, they delete the Popperian requirement
that a proposition of science must provide at least one empirical
refutation. This grants them a Post Modern blank cheque to
say whatever they wish in the name of the sciences. Mostly,
this epistemological error has been perpetrated by
mathematicians who do not understand the difference between
logic and reason.
It is enlightening to witness the evolution of
Wyne-Edwards _reasoned_ and empirically based argument
within his own mind from his original proposition of
a hypothetical grouped selectee to the group being
restricted to be only a grouped selective force and NOT
anymore a grouped selectee. The transition is subtle
but enormous. Most here will never be able to appreciate
it because they remain almost totally immersed in non
refutable mathematical models which they misuse with
abandon.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@tpg.com.au
- Next message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: OOL VI - Chirality and Sugars."
- Previous message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Species Selection Redux"
- Maybe in reply to: Boyd: "Altruistic cooperation"
- Next in thread: Malcolm: "Re: Altruistic cooperation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
