Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kin Selection & Altruism
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 136 (259778)
11-14-2005 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by FliesOnly
11-14-2005 8:00 AM


Re: Not that kin-da gene ??
FliesOnly writes:
And at no reproductive cost either = not altruism.
Now you're redefining the cost issue and making it much more specific than it needs to be. All that is necessary is for the act to cost the individual, whether it is a meal or 20 winks is immaterial, there was effort involved that did not contribute to that individuals overall fitness.
Well, this wouldn't really matter. Since they are helping, their lifetime fitness (direct + indirect) would be higher than individuals that did not help (assuming that these first year breeder failed of course).
I'm not sure what you're asking here?
It does seem you are missing the mniddle concept posed ...
There are two choices for a first year male.
Or a third choice: not helping the parents and not breeding either, but becoming a fully developed individual first.
Now, remember, this was almost 13 years ago
I'd be interested in reading the study to see how they control the variables. Can you remember enough key words to google it?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by FliesOnly, posted 11-14-2005 8:00 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by FliesOnly, posted 11-15-2005 9:05 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 48 by FliesOnly, posted 11-15-2005 11:47 AM RAZD has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 47 of 136 (259895)
11-15-2005 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
11-14-2005 11:58 PM


Re: Not that kin-da gene ??
RAZD writes:
Now you're redefining the cost issue and making it much more specific than it needs to be. All that is necessary is for the act to cost the individual, whether it is a meal or 20 winks is immaterial, there was effort involved that did not contribute to that individuals overall fitness.
Oh no...you're one of "those" people
Actually, I'm not the one redefining anything. Altruism is all about direct fitness.
I once read a paper that claimed that tadpoles that died, and were eaten by their cohorts, were altruists. Death is an altruistic behavior...really? You have to look at the effects the behavior has on direct fitness of both (donor and recipient) participants, otherwise anything I do outside of having unprotected sex with a fertile female could be considered an altruistic behavior.
I mean, hey, if that's the case and since altruists are so often talked about in such high regards, then why does the Catholic Church frown so much on masturbation? You'd think they be all about celebrating those of us who engage so often in such an altruistic behavior!
RAZD writes:
Or a third choice: not helping the parents and not breeding either, but becoming a fully developed individual first.
You are correct...they could indeed engage in this behavior. Somehow I doubt that this is all that common though. I'd bet that most returning first year males that do not help at the nest instead try quite vigorously to establish a territory, attract a mate, and attempt to rear young. I don't see how there could be any selective value to simply returning and doing nothing. (This does assume of course, that learning is an important aspect of successful breeding...and I'm not an ornithologist so again, PIDOOMA comes into play here.)
RAZD writes:
I'd be interested in reading the study to see how they control the variables. Can you remember enough key words to google it?
This may sound like a dodge...but in all honesty, I cannot. However, I have talked to an ornithologist about helpers at the nest and he has loaned me a book about the Florida Scrub Jay. He also told me about Harry Power, a relatively famous ornithologist that looked quite a bit at altruism in Mountain Bluebirds. I'm in the process of reading some of this material in my spare time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2005 11:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2005 9:20 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 48 of 136 (259932)
11-15-2005 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
11-14-2005 11:58 PM


Re: Not that kin-da gene ??
RAZD.
I'm not really sure how to link these papers so I'll just supply the citations. Neither deal with helpers at the nest (I'm still perusing that stuff) but are quite interesting nonetheless. I especially like the second one. It almost brings a tear to my eye...thinking bout those poor baby gulls floating away, or being abandoned, or beat up and "pirated" by unrelated males (hmmmm...pirates...spaghetti monster...decline related to global warming...perhaps this study should be repeated to see if gull pirate numbers have also decreased as global warming has increased...), but then memories of gull interactions come back to me and I don't feel so bad anymore.
Power, H.W.III. 1975. Mountain Bluebirds: experimental evidence against altruism. Science 189: 142-143.
Peirotti, R. 1980. Spite and altruism in gulls. American Naturalist 115:290-300.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2005 11:58 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 49 of 136 (260070)
11-15-2005 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by FliesOnly
11-15-2005 9:05 AM


Re: Not that kin-da gene ??
You are correct...they could indeed engage in this behavior. Somehow I doubt that this is all that common though.
This is what you need to know though to control for the possibility that the delayed breeding crows are just better fed, and because of that more developed, than their cohorts who run themselves ragged trying to breed the first year - ie it may have nothing to do with helping the parent nest.
Actually, I'm not the one redefining anything. Altruism is all about direct fitness.
thought that the definition was set by
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.
The problem here is how much detriment are we talking? Loss of some sleep? In certain conditions that can become life threatening, while in others it is of no longer effect once sleep has been caught up. Same can be said for any expenditure of time and energy that does not specifically lead to {survival\breeding}. Certainly it doesn't require a reproductive cost, so that is a little more narrow than it needs to be.
... in Mountain Bluebirds.
The most amazing blue you will ever see, no picture does them justice. Against a background of the "Craters of the Moon National Monument" a truly awesome experience.
Craters Of The Moon National Monument & Preserve (U.S. National Park Service)
msg 48 writes:
Power, H.W.III. 1975. Mountain Bluebirds: experimental evidence against altruism. Science 189: 142-143.
Peirotti, R. 1980. Spite and altruism in gulls. American Naturalist 115:290-300.
Great ... more reading ... gulls can be viscious.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by FliesOnly, posted 11-15-2005 9:05 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by FliesOnly, posted 11-16-2005 10:33 AM RAZD has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 50 of 136 (260206)
11-16-2005 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
11-15-2005 9:20 PM


Re: Not that kin-da gene ??
RAZD writes:
This is what you need to know though to control for the possibility that the delayed breeding crows are just better fed, and because of that more developed, than their cohorts who run themselves ragged trying to breed the first year - ie it may have nothing to do with helping the parent nest.
Let me see if I have your argument correct. Those birds that return and do nothing (ie: do not attempt to breed or help) do so in "hopes" of increasing their health so that next year, they will be bigger and stronger, and more likely to successfully breed? If that's the case, then the behavior is still not altruistic.
I've read some of Woolfenden and Fitzparerick's book on the Florida Scrub Jay (The Florida Scrub Jay: Demography of a Cooperative-Breeding Bird. Glen E. Woolfenden and John W. Fitzpatrick, Princeton University Press. 1984.) and I have to admit; thus far the results are a bit surprising. First off, as it turns out, almost all scrub jays help at least one year prior to attempting to breed on their own, so the comparisons are made between those that helped only one year and those that helped two or more years. On average, any increase in reproductive success (birds that fledge) will occur between the 1st and 4th years of breeding. That is to say, after the 4th year, there will be no increase in the number of chicks fledged. Ok, so for those birds that helped only one year, their increase was from 1.4 fledglings for the first year, up to 2.6 by their fourth year, while those that helped two or more years showed a success rate of 2.0 fledglings their first year with an increase to 2.8 by their forth year. Not too bad.
Now here's the kicker. Those that help only one year...well guess what...they show a significantly higher survival rate than those that help two or more years. The hypothesis is (was?) that perhaps those that help more than one year are in some manner less healthy than those that start breeding in their second year.
Also, as it turns out, females are often helpers. However, the ratio is skewed towards males and becomes even more skewed as the number of seasons an individual remains a helper increases.
RAZD writes:
thought that the definition was set by
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.
Hey, maybe you guys set some parameters, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. Not to be an asshole (as I am so often accused of being), but altruism already has a definition, so changing it to fit certain circumstances is not unlike a creationist moving the goal posts (a common complaint here) whenever they want/need to.
Sorry, but the gorilla that helped the child was in no way acting as an altruist. As I said in my earlier post, if you think that the gorilla was acting as an altruist then what behavior(s) would you consider as non-altruistic? Is helping an old lady cross the street an altruistic behavior...even if she's beyond reproductive age? Is placing you coat over a puddle so your wife can walk across it without getting her shoes wet and altruistic behavior?
RAZD writes:
Great ... more reading ... gulls can be viscious.
Yes they can...but the paper was very interesting to read.
My wife studies cormorants on the Great Lakes and when she has to visit a breeding colony to count, band, or place transmitters on the birds, the gulls wait for our arrival and when the cormorants fly off (they flee at the drop of a hat) the gulls go nuts...grabbing up as many chicks as they can. She actually designates a "gull chaser" whose job it is to chase away as many gull as possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2005 9:20 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2005 10:01 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 136 (260414)
11-16-2005 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by FliesOnly
11-16-2005 10:33 AM


Re: Not that kin-da gene ??
Let me see if I have your argument correct. Those birds that return and do nothing (ie: do not attempt to breed or help) do so in "hopes" of increasing their health so that next year, they will be bigger and stronger, and more likely to successfully breed?
The argument was that crows that helped obtained a benefit in better reproductive success in the following years, the question that I have is whether that benefit was due to (a) helping the parent nest or (b) delayed breeding while continuing to mature and develop. If there is no difference in breeding success between (a) and (b) then helping the parents does not lead to better reproductive success.
Hey, maybe you guys set some parameters, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. Not to be an asshole (as I am so often accused of being), but altruism already has a definition, so changing it to fit certain circumstances is not unlike a creationist moving the goal posts (a common complaint here) whenever they want/need to.
All I was pointing out was that the definition posted covers zoological usage. You made a comment that further limited the applicability to reproductive success rather than just an (ill defined) detriment. The nature and the degree of the detriment is not discussed in the definition, so it could be just a temporary waste of time and energy.
A person who stops to help another change a car tire is making a temporary waste of time and energy to no benefit to themselves, direct benefit to the other person(s), and could jeopardize the {stoppers} life if conditions were bad - it has the potential for personal disaster, yet once completed there would be no lingering detriment.
Behavior of any individual animal that does not specifically further its {survival\breeding} success is a temporary waste of time and energy with the potential for personal disaster, and if that time and energy benefits another (a potentially benefits the other to further its {survival\breeding} success) then the behavior qualifies under the definition.
My wife studies cormorants on the Great Lakes and when she has to visit a breeding colony ...
My condolances. I've been downwind of such places kayaking.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by FliesOnly, posted 11-16-2005 10:33 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by FliesOnly, posted 11-17-2005 11:09 AM RAZD has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 52 of 136 (260554)
11-17-2005 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
11-16-2005 10:01 PM


Re: Not that kin-da gene ??
RAZD writes:
The argument was that crows that helped obtained a benefit in better reproductive success in the following years, the question that I have is whether that benefit was due to (a) helping the parent nest or (b) delayed breeding while continuing to mature and develop. If there is no difference in breeding success between (a) and (b) then helping the parents does not lead to better reproductive success.
The studies I have seen to date suggest that this is not the case. That is, those that do not help (and do not breed) will have lower lifetime fitness than those that do help. I will admit, however, that thus far I have found nothing that looks directly at your question. Most studies focus primarily on the comparative lifetime fitness of first year breeders versus those that help at least one season. I will continue to search, but again, I doubt that your question will bear fruit, and maybe I can hypothesize as to why.
Those that help are doing so for some reason or another. Whether it is kin selection, safety in numbers, learning how to nest build, feed and fledge young, or future inheritance of a territory and/or a mate. No matter the reason, they are getting some benefit from the behavior.
Those that simply return and then do nothing...get nothing. Or what little they do gain in terms if health (bigger, stronger, or whatever) would be outweighed by the draw backs of not getting any of the things I mentioned above.
The common theme in the papers I have read is that helping occurs when some extraneous factor(s) come into play. Territory limitations (size, availability, quality, etc.), difficulty in fledgling success, predation concerns, and other stuff of that nature. The implication being that helping is beneficial and therefore selected for. So, in summary, it seems that doing nothing in situations where others are helping would not be the correct choice to make.
RAZD writes:
All I was pointing out was that the definition posted covers zoological usage.
Yes, I know that...and I was pointing out that that definition sucks. It is meaningless from an ethological or behavioral standpoint. Even you seem to admit that any behavior outside of the “mommy/daddy dance” would fit the definition. It's the "dumbing down" approach to explaining difficult concepts to the scientific illiterate...IMHO.
RAZD writes:
My condolances. I've been downwind of such places kayaking.
From cormorant colonies on the Great Lakes? If so, perhaps we have crossed paths...so to speak.
You should try going to one sometime (wait...you had better not, seeing as how cormorants are Federally protected and it takes quite a few permits even to approach a colony). Early on in her studies, my wife had to collect both regurgitate from the young and pellets (similar to what owls do) in order to obtain dietary information. It was kind of fun, in that sick sort of way the only field biologists can truly appreciate. You would approach a chick, which would first just kind of stare at you with these big green eye (please don’t eat me!), but as you got closer they would start to make a god-awful noise (similar to something you hear out of a 30 year smoker with lung cancer), and as you got even closer...YACK! Then you’d reach down, pick up the puke, place it in a whirl pack, record some info, and head off for another chick. The truly fun part was when you walked under the few individuals that had actually nested in what pathetic example of “trees” were left on the islands, and you were unaware that a chick was up there until it was too late. Cormorant puke landing on your head is NOT a pleasant experience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2005 10:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2005 9:54 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 136 (260756)
11-17-2005 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by FliesOnly
11-17-2005 11:09 AM


Re: Not that kin-da gene ??
Yes, I know that...and I was pointing out that that definition sucks. It is meaningless from an ethological or behavioral standpoint. Even you seem to admit that any behavior outside of the “mommy/daddy dance” would fit the definition. It's the "dumbing down" approach to explaining difficult concepts to the scientific illiterate...IMHO.
Actually I have a problem with relating altruism to some evolutionary benefit to the recipient plus deficit to the doner as if fitness were exchanged.
But I'm trying to keep within the bounds set. The 'cost' can include a potential for {bad things to happen} during the action and still qualify imho. Perhaps the problem is trying to over analyse the behavior to find some long term benefit when none was intended?
From cormorant colonies on the Great Lakes? If so, perhaps we have crossed paths...so to speak.
I used to live in Grand Rapids, grew up in A2, and in between travelled from one end of this country to the other and back before moving to the Northeast (but not the northeast kingdom), and am now a block away from tidal waters ... and where I can get decent seafood cheap.
The cormorant colonies I am most familiar with are just off the Elizabeth Islands south of Woods Hole.
Cormorant puke landing on your head is NOT a pleasant experience.
Especially considering that coming from a chick, it is twice regurgitated ...
I've also seen adults upchuck to lighten ship for takeoff, and I've seen seagulls take advantage of it.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by FliesOnly, posted 11-17-2005 11:09 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by FliesOnly, posted 11-18-2005 2:05 PM RAZD has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 54 of 136 (260974)
11-18-2005 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by RAZD
11-17-2005 9:54 PM


Re: Not that kin-da gene ??
Hey RAZD...looks like it's down to you and me, so this one will probably just fade away.
RAZD writes:
Actually I have a problem with relating altruism to some evolutionary benefit to the recipient plus deficit to the doner as if fitness were exchanged.
Well, be that as it may, it is what altruism actually is all about.
As it turns out, I have had no real luck finding any current info on helpers at the nest. Most of the papers I have found are from the 80s and before. However, most do seem to suggest a life-time fitness increase to helpers relative to nonhelpers (with the understanding that I found nothing with the added comparison to those that return and do nothing but sit back, drink some beer, and watch the tele).
I will also admit that I have not put a great deal of time into searching for additional material over and above what I could find with relative ease. Perhaps if more people join in, I'll look deeper into the literature.
RAZD writes:
But I'm trying to keep within the bounds set. The 'cost' can include a potential for {bad things to happen} during the action and still qualify imho.
I cannot really contend this point, as you, by agreeing with the arbitrary bounds that have been set, are widening the scope of the definition to the point of meaninglessness(wow...is that even a word?).
Like I said in my earlier posts(s), any behavior that is something other than "scronking" would fit within these bounds.
RAZD writes:
Perhaps the problem is trying to over analyse the behavior to find some long term benefit when none was intended?
Intuitively, I feel that something is wrong with this explanation, but I cannot quite put it in to words. Maybe...I guess...maybe I do not see any over analyses occurring.
RAZD writes:
I used to live in Grand Rapids, grew up in A2, and in between travelled from one end of this country to the other and back before moving to the Northeast (but not the northeast kingdom),
I live about an hour North of GR, and spend a great deal of time there (in the non-snowy months) riding and racing my bike (the kind you pedal).
RAZD writes:
Especially considering that coming from a chick, it is twice regurgitated ...
Very true.
RAZD writes:
I've also seen adults upchuck to lighten ship for takeoff, and I've seen seagulls take advantage of it.
Ya have to admit though...gulls are certainly a very adaptive species. They can land on water, they can land on land, they can land in trees, they can land of wires, and they can land on piers. They will eat just about anything. They are great soarers and can stay aloft for long periods without flapping. All-in-all, if I could choose to be any kind of bird, being a gull would not be all that terrible of a choice to make.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2005 9:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2005 8:42 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 136 (261126)
11-18-2005 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by FliesOnly
11-18-2005 2:05 PM


Re: Not that kin-da gene ??
Intuitively, I feel that something is wrong with this explanation, but I cannot quite put it in to words. Maybe...I guess...maybe I do not see any over analyses occurring.
What I am objecting to is the study of trends far beyond the scope of the mental capacity of the individual organism to compute in it's deliberations while making the choice to act altruistically or not.
I seriously doubt that the crows, scrub/bluejays, etcetera, can conceive of a future benefit to themselves beyond a week, let alone a year or two down the line.
That there is a benefit to the individuals in later years is a reason for the crows that behave altruistically to be selected for.
To argue that the improved reproductive success is part of the decision making process is really a post hoc fallacy if not the 'reverse direction' fallacy.
I cannot really contend this point, as you, by agreeing with the arbitrary bounds that have been set, are widening the scope of the definition to the point of meaninglessness(wow...is that even a word?).
I think the {cost/benefit} have to be readily observable within the duration of the action or in its immediate aftermath. Anything a month or so later is really irrelevant as there is no way it could have been part of the considerations, imh(ysa)o.
There needs to be a link before you can dismiss the action as altruistic because of a later observed benefit.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by FliesOnly, posted 11-18-2005 2:05 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by FliesOnly, posted 11-21-2005 10:40 AM RAZD has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 56 of 136 (261883)
11-21-2005 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by RAZD
11-18-2005 8:42 PM


RAZD writes:
What I am objecting to is the study of trends far beyond the scope of the mental capacity of the individual organism to compute in it's deliberations while making the choice to act altruistically or not.
I'm not sure I have stated otherwise, but I let me be clear: I do not think that helping at the nest is a conscious decision made by a bird with the knowledge of some future gain in reproductive success. They do it because they have the gene to do it, which will be selected for because they will leave more offspring than those that do not help. I never said that they somehow know that by helping they will become more successful themselves.
Also, I think it's important to note that the behaviors we have been discussing are not some anecdotal thing. Helping at the nest cannot be compared to some spur of the moment rescue attempt.
And lastly, since I do not think altruism exists, then I guess I’m inclined to agree with your assessment. I cannot come up with an example (outside of some human behaviors) where one individual sacrificed their fitness such that the recipient gained in fitness.
RAZD writes:
To argue that the improved reproductive success is part of the decision making process is really a post hoc fallacy if not the 'reverse direction' fallacy.
I never said improved reproductive success was part of the decision making process. It is, however, a consequence. And if that’s the case, then it is not, by definition (at least the definition that I’m using) altruism. But by the same token, NS will not select against such behaviors.
This is a tough area for me. Let’s use Omnivorous as an example. He jumped back into a burning truck to save an unrelated individual. I would argue that while he was not an altruist (he lived), the behavior itself was altruistic. Now, I have a friend that would completely disagree. He would (and does) argue that Omnivorous did what he did in hopes of some future reproductive benefit. It may have been an unconscious behavior, but the “goal” was the accolades bestowed on him as a true hero. He may not have been thinking that at the time, but that was what truly happened, and that such a behavior would be selected for. Personally, I disagree with this assessment . but there ya go.
RAZD writes:
I think the {cost/benefit} have to be readily observable within the duration of the action or in its immediate aftermath. Anything a month or so later is really irrelevant as there is no way it could have been part of the considerations, imh(ysa)o.
I think I might be getting confused here. You think that the gorilla that helped save the child behaved in an altruistic manner because there was an energy cost to her, while at the same time there was a obvious benefit to the child. Yet you argue against helpers at the nest as being altruists because the result of their behavior is not seen for some time? Helpers at the nest are not considered altruists. The behavior is not altruistic. The behavior was once thought to be altruistic because: “how could such a sacrifice be selected for?” it was asked. Once it was looked into it deeper, and it was found that there were many benefits (territory inheritance, acquiring a mate, learning how to feed young, etc.), then we could see how NS would favor helping. Why should it matter how long it takes for the benefit to manifest itself?
If you recall, my primary argument against helpers is not the time lag between the behavior and the results. My argument is that since the helpers show higher lifetime fitness, the behavior does not fit the definition.
Remember, I'm against calling the vast majority of these behaviors "altruism". I don't believe altruism exists, except in the most rare of occurrences, and almost exclusively associated with humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2005 8:42 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2005 3:21 PM FliesOnly has not replied
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2005 10:59 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 57 of 136 (262975)
11-24-2005 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by FliesOnly
11-21-2005 10:40 AM


cart and horses
They do it because they have the gene to do it, which will be selected for because they will leave more offspring than those that do not help.
No. This is cart before the horse logic. That does not explain why it happened the first time, it just explains why it continues to happen in that species: the fact that it confers a benefit is why it is selected to be continued
There could just as easily be the same behavior in other species where it does not confer a selective advantage and thus would not be passed on to the next generation.
It could well be a common mutation that {confuses\transfers} DNA between male and female genome subsets (similar to, say, homosexual behavior} with no selective advantage. You could say that the helpers are the {nerd\gay\mothers-boys} of the flock, while their cohorts are busy learning how to be a dick.
The behavior would be the same. Thus the following year benefit has no bearing on the behavior, just on the greater preservation of it in one species compared to the other.
The only difference would be in the proportion of the gene within the populations ...say ~10% for common repeating mutation gene set versus +50% for the selective advantage copies the gene set.
Thus the argument that it is a reproduced benefit does not negate the behavior itself from being altruistic.
Yet you argue against helpers at the nest as being altruists because the result of their behavior is not seen for some time?
No, the helpers at the nest sacrifice their {time\energy} to raising other young. The ones that receive an immediate benefit are the parents of the young who do not have to spend as much {time\energy} to raise the young. The next beneficiaries are the young, obviously.
The helpers do not see an advantage in the first year {other than maybe being more {healty\fit} than their party-hearty pals.
My argument is that since the helpers show higher lifetime fitness, the behavior does not fit the definition.
In the species where that is the case. That is why it is selected to be reproduced in those species, but not why it occured in the first place.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by FliesOnly, posted 11-21-2005 10:40 AM FliesOnly has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 136 (265173)
12-02-2005 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by FliesOnly
11-21-2005 10:40 AM


new example?
I was working on another website and had this thought
Bacterial Conjugation (with animation)
Bacterium {A} injects material into bacterium {B} that makes {B} immune to drug X
{A} gets no benefit from it, either reproductive or survivalist, yet has given {B} a big benefit to future survival.
{A} can also be a different species from {B}.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by FliesOnly, posted 11-21-2005 10:40 AM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Cal, posted 12-03-2005 10:58 AM RAZD has replied

  
Cal
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 136 (265223)
12-03-2005 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by RAZD
12-02-2005 10:59 PM


Re: new example?
{A} gets no benefit from it, either reproductive or survivalist
Injecting genetic material into another organism looks like reproductive benefit to me (besides that, it's fun).
{A} can also be a different species from {B}.
Which is why the biological species concept cannot be meaningfully applied to prokaryotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2005 10:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 11:11 AM Cal has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 60 of 136 (265230)
12-03-2005 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Cal
12-03-2005 10:58 AM


Re: new example?
looks like reproductive benefit to me
The material in question is related to drug resistance and not to reproducing the genoptype of bacterium A in another cell. It is not reproducing {A}.
I also doubt that {A} has a smoke afterwards too ....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Cal, posted 12-03-2005 10:58 AM Cal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Cal, posted 12-03-2005 11:35 AM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024