Re: Hamilton's rule in small population


JoeSixPack wrote:
> "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:djn36m$1kqe$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >> > Bark beetles, honeybees, wolves hunting in packs, all these organisms
> >> have
> >> > evolved traits that do nothing to benefit the individual, but when they
> >> > occur to several members in a group, they suddenly confer benefits to
> >> all in
> >> > that group. It's really quite simple.
> >
> >> This thread appears to be about Hamilton's rule.
> >> If you want to discuss the viabiliy of group selection theories, you may
> >> be better off starting another thread with a different subject line.
> >
> > JE:-
> > Hamilton's Rule is group selective. To reduce it to organism selective you
> > must divide rb/p where p is the number of recipients. Whenever you do so
> > the
> > rule fails.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John Edser
> > Independent Researcher
> >
> > edser@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> The rule fails? Evolution does not fail to use it effectively for group
> selection.

I think what you're saying is that selective factors in the spirit of
Hamilton's Rule do exist. I agree. Nevertheless Hamilton's Rule is
scientifically invalid.

> I suppose you are right with regard to the individual, but since
> the individual is part of the group, group dynamics still function to the
> benefit of the individual.
>
> I agree that individuals can benefit within a group from selfish behavior in
> the short term, but since that weakens the group, that group will be
> selected against. That's why other traits sometimes exist that act to
> "police" the group, and expel selfish individuals.


I agree. (Of course this is true for some species more than others.
IOW, some species are more group selected than are others.)

Group selection is the underlying cause of altruism and related
adaptations. But it's not even considered by neoDarwinists. There's a
reason for this. Once of the simplifying assumptions that neoDarwinist
almost always employ, and which unfortunately is rarely made explicit
in their arguments, is the notion that only individuals evolve. Groups
and selective factors that favor groups are ignored. Hamilton's rule
is a desperate attempt to describe the evidence of altruism without
resorting to group selection, of which neoDarwinists have an irrational
fear.

Jim


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hamiltons rule in small population
    ... >>> If you want to discuss the viabiliy of group selection theories, ... >> rule fails. ... >> Regards, ... > "police" the group, and expel selfish individuals. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Hamiltons rule in small population
    ... >>> rule fails. ... > But nobody doubts the existence of altruism. ... > against the existence of group selection. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again
    ... evolution, is in theoretical disarray. ... based on group selection had become taboo and has not recovered since. ... scientists David Sloan Wilson and Edward O. Wilson-whose book ... rallying cry that paraphrases Rabbi Hillel: "Selfishness beats altruism ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Group selected altruism - (was: Hamiltons rule)
    ... >>> mechanism for the spread of altruism. ... >>> as a whole under the group selection mechanism. ... One way of doing this is to have the successful groups colonize ... > I would claim that the 'reduced gene flow' actually works against you ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again
    ... evolution, is in theoretical disarray. ... scientists David Sloan Wilson and Edward O. Wilson usher in a new era ... explanation based on group selection had become taboo and has not ... and how altruism can be maintained in groups that happen to ...
    (talk.origins)