Re: Hamilton meets Matata

From: Tim Tyler (tim_at_tt1lock.org)
Date: 03/23/05 

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:32:44 -0500 (EST)

Robert Karl Stonjek <rstonjek@bigpond.net.au> wrote or quoted:
> "Anon." <bob.ohara@NOSPAM.helsinki.fi> wrote in message

> > I really think you're making an argument that is purely semantic. For
> > me, I was describing a mechanism as well (certainly in the sense that
> > the word is used by biologists - if you'll excuse me pulling rank).
> > This also seems to be the sense that Tim was using the word too.
>
> There is nothing semantic here - either an animal breeds and invests in
> young in order to proliferate its genes (kin selection mechanism) or an
> animal breeds due to innate desire to do so and invests in young for the
> same reason.

Those are what is known as proximate and ultimate causes:

An individual breeds through a desire to do so.

However - if you ask the why question a few more times - you
will ultimately find that the reason individuals have such desires
in the first place is all to do with whether the genes of
ancestors with similar tendencies out-competed their companions.

Forcing an "either <proximate cause> or <ultimate cause>" choice
without further qualification dosen't seem to make much sense.

It's like asking whether an egg caused a chicken, or whether
it's mother caused it.

The options are not mutually exclusive: both can be - and are - true. 

-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim@tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.