|
Author
|
Topic: Kin Selection & Altruism
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 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 |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 62 of 136 (265234)
12-03-2005 11:41 AM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by Cal
12-03-2005 11:35 AM
|
|
Re: new example?
the injection into {B} modifies {B} to no advantage for {A} and with a possible disadvantage when {B} can now outcompete {A} for the same {resources\environment}. certainly {B} gains an advantage from the action of {A}. the injection into {B} of material from {A} means that {A}'s resources are diminished, resources that could have gone into reproduction, with no present or future benefit to reproduction or survival. we are discussing altruism.
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 61 by Cal, posted 12-03-2005 11:35 AM | | Cal has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 63 by Cal, posted 12-03-2005 12:13 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 64 of 136 (265253)
12-03-2005 12:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 63 by Cal
12-03-2005 12:13 PM
|
|
... you are trying to justify altruism from the perspective of the individual organism. Actually it is staying within both the definition of altruism as applied to biology and the topic of this thread. 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 63 by Cal, posted 12-03-2005 12:13 PM | | Cal has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 65 by Cal, posted 12-03-2005 1:27 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 66 of 136 (265282)
12-03-2005 2:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 65 by Cal
12-03-2005 1:27 PM
|
|
I'm sorry but it is not reporoduction. The organism is not reproduced. You are changing the definition of reproduction to make your argument fit and that falsifies it. Organism {A} gives resistance to drug {X} to organism {B}. The result is not a new {A}. The result is a more drug resistant {B}, better able to survive. The result is also a less resourceful {A} having given away some material that could have been used for something ... like reproduction. You can equivocate on definitions if you want to, but don't call it an argument.
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 65 by Cal, posted 12-03-2005 1:27 PM | | Cal has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 68 of 136 (265313)
12-03-2005 5:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by Cal
12-03-2005 3:51 PM
|
|
word games. have fun.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by Cal, posted 12-03-2005 3:51 PM | | Cal has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 69 by Cal, posted 12-03-2005 7:56 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 70 of 136 (265438)
12-04-2005 12:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by Cal
12-03-2005 7:56 PM
|
|
No. We went over the definitions early on in this thread what the parameters were and the specific definition (zoological) of altruism to be used: http:// EvC Forum: Kin Selection & Altruism You are redefining {reproduction} to make your point valid, and without that redefinition it is false. Thus you are the one playing word games. re·pro·duc·tion n.
1. The act of reproducing or the condition or process of being reproduced.
2. Something reproduced, especially in the faithfulness of its resemblance to the form and elements of the original: a fine reproduction of a painting by Matisse.
3. Biology. The sexual or asexual process by which organisms generate new individuals of the same kind; procreation.
The biological one would apply here, and this is my usage. If you have a gripe with it, take it up with the dictionary. 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 69 by Cal, posted 12-03-2005 7:56 PM | | Cal has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 71 by Cal, posted 12-04-2005 12:56 PM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 73 of 136 (265894)
12-05-2005 9:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 72 by FliesOnly
12-05-2005 8:33 AM
|
|
Re: It's still not altruism
actually I think it could be where sex came from ... so it is very generous on their part  not sure commensalism applies as it really appears to be more unspecific nonselective in behavior, especially if it can be done to several other bacteria as well as the same species (mistaken identity?) it certainly is not "mindful" of the consequences ...
if it could be shown that there is reproductive loss to species "A" The specific organism in question gives up material that could otherwise be used for reproduction, setting back the time it takes to acquire sufficient resources for reproduction. In terms of species I think it does offer the possibility that it enables the species {B} to be more fit than species {A} for survival.
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 72 by FliesOnly, posted 12-05-2005 8:33 AM | | FliesOnly has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 75 of 136 (267346)
12-09-2005 8:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by FliesOnly
12-09-2005 11:05 AM
|
|
Re: It's still not altruism
Has any looked into the comparative reproduce success of individuals that transferred genes to those that did not? I hate to be a stickler for detail, but with no corresponding decline in reproductive success,... Lets see, throwing away perfectly good cellular material, expending energy unrelated to feeding or reproduction, positive benefit? At a minimum the energy would need to be recovered before the organism could proceed to reproduce.
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 74 by FliesOnly, posted 12-09-2005 11:05 AM | | FliesOnly has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 76 by Cal, posted 12-09-2005 10:42 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
logical problem.
Quite right, but the existence of plasmids whose transfer to other cells directly benefits the donor means that a mechanism of such transfer could have readily evolved, and thus we have no need to invoke altruism. That just explains why it persists in the population, not why it started. Claiming that altruism only applies to confering a reproductive benefit and then claiming that reproduction of it is evidence that altruism is not necessary for an explanation is circular reasoning. Thus either one or both of these positions is false. The benefit to the whole species is different than the benefit to the individual of the species, and the definition of altruism that has been mentioned here is an individual making a sacrifice of elements of self to some detriment to individual reproduction does so to confer a benefit to the species as a whole. This is a very narrow definition, but using it means that demonstrated benefit to the species as a whole, as done here, does not mean that it is not altruism. Regardless of the 'population' of plasmids within the organism, energy and resources have gone into the production of those plasmids. If this is not directly related to the individuals {fitness for survival or for reproduction} then this is wasted use of energy and resources, as those resources could have been directed to result in earlier reproduction. This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*10*2005 07:44 AM
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.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 82 of 136 (267478)
12-10-2005 9:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 76 by Cal
12-09-2005 10:42 PM
|
|
Re: It's the plasmid, I tell ya
But I see that I have yet to persuade you that plasmids are best viewed as autonomous entities ... So you are saying that plasmids are infections in the host cell? That individual organisms are sum{host DNA + infection DNA}?
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 76 by Cal, posted 12-09-2005 10:42 PM | | Cal has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 83 by Cal, posted 12-10-2005 9:09 AM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 84 of 136 (267481)
12-10-2005 9:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 83 by Cal
12-10-2005 9:09 AM
|
|
Dong
So the fitness of an individual organism for {survival\reproduction} depends on random mutation (whether this includes copy errors or not) within the host genes and infection? Just wondering.
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 83 by Cal, posted 12-10-2005 9:09 AM | | Cal has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 85 by Cal, posted 12-10-2005 9:29 AM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: NO logical problem.
but it doesn't happen in all the cases. only those where the defense is to broadcast chemicals.
but one of the most commonly transferred ways involves passing on genetic info for the production of enzymes that break down the antibiotic. conflating "most common" with "all" is a logical error. This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*10*2005 11:57 AM
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.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 92 of 136 (267523)
12-10-2005 11:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 88 by Cal
12-10-2005 10:05 AM
|
|
Re: Got it
so the fitness of the host depends on the {host\guest} interaction which depends on the guest?
the fitness of both 'guest' and 'host' need to be considered both separately and collectively. natural selection operates on the total organism yes? genetic drift (gd) could separate them in daughter cells: cell division could omit a guest or two (although some are nasty guests -- makes long term poison while producing short term antidote, daughter without guest has no antidote ... deselection due to gd's random division and not natural {survival\reproductive} selection fitness). So is the host altruistic for harboring and assisting a plasmid that can kill off its offspring?
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 88 by Cal, posted 12-10-2005 10:05 AM | | Cal has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 96 by Cal, posted 12-10-2005 1:07 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: NO logical problem.
No altruism needed. how does this negate altruism in the other cases? especially if you are not conflating some with all ...?
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.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Can't you see it? logical problem.
What other cases? Lets see if I can lay it out for you;
pink sasquatch, msg 77 writes: There are various ways of becoming resistant to antibiotics - but one of the most commonly transferred ways involves passing on genetic info for the production of enzymes that break down the antibiotic. emphasis mine. This means that there are some that do not act in this way. These would be "other" cases where that explanation is not a rebuttal of altruistic behavior.
RAZD, msg 91 writes: conflating "most common" with "all" is a logical error. pink sasquatch, msg 93 writes: Thus, there is no need to invoke altruism or species-level selection to explain the evolution of such gene tranfer. Not talking about the evolution of the process but the action of the process in those other cases.
RAZD, msg 95 writes: how does this negate altruism in the other cases? especially if you are not conflating some with all ...? The other cases would be where " some that do not act in this way."
pink sasquatch, msg 97 writes: I'm talking about hypothetical non-altruistic possibilities for the arisal of gene transfer during evolution. So? That's not the discussion. The discussion is about altruistic behavior. Specifically here I'm talking about the behavior in those "other" cases where " some that do not act in this way" -- and whether it can be considered altruistic behavior or not ... the topic of the thread. Your mechanism doesn't negate altruism in those cases. Claiming it does is a logical fallacy (part for the whole). Claiming it explains something else is also a logical fallacy (strawman or non-sequitur).
"what ... is he talking about?" I thought I've been fairly clear about what I am talking about (on several issues) only to have others rebut some different argument that I am not making. Did the english language change while I was sleeping?
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.
|
™ Version 4.2