Alturism: A weakness in creationist reasoning

[leftysergeant]

Although it is widely accepted as given that behavior does not fossilize, the results of behavior often do. And one behavior that does leave a mark in the fossil record has to be a slap in the face of Creationism.

I am referring here to altruism.

The creationists say that the human tendancy toward altruism must disprove Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest," because, to the creationist mind, it has no survival value.

Er...All that that argument proves is the creationists have no clue what Darwin meant.

"Survival of the fittest," in the Darwinian sense, means that those organisms that display a given characteristic which is valueable to the survival of the individual or its offspring will cause the perpetuation of that characteristic through succeding generations.

Clearly, in a species which depends on its ability to form strongly-knit groups, the willingness of one individual to endure hardships for the benefit of the group is conducive to the survival of that group, and thus the species as a whole. In many species that live communally, ecconomicly useless individuals are often left behind when the group moves on or are allowed to become hyena chow when the herd is attacked.

In the human fossil record, however, it is not the least surprising to find, even in such primitive species as Homo habilis, indivuals who were clearly no longer able to contribute in any way to the group, and yet they were clearly taken care of by their fellows.

This may, at first, seem to threaten the survival of the group. But, the fact that we exist proves that this strategy was successful. So, what value has altruism for survival of the species?

Consider that humans and the early hominins enjoyed a far lower reproductive rate than most critters of similar size. They depended on the efforts of others to protect those few precious children. The ability to think of each individual as having some value simple as another human made it that much more logical, even to a simple mind, to stand and defend the females, the infants and the disabled and elderly. The knowledge that one could expect to also be taken care of should something unfortunate happen would, no doubt, have relieved some of the fears that an individual might experience.

The sharing of food, something that only humans and bonobos are known to do, aside from a mother and father bird feeding their chicks, is both conducive to social bonds and increasing the survival rate of the group in adverse conditions.

So, yes, altruism is very much an example of how "survival of the fittest" works.

 

[RandFan]

It would be very helpful if you could provide a link and cite the relevant evidence. Thanks.

Before I respond any further, I would like to ask, have you read The Selfish Gene by Dawkins? Do you have a copy at your disposal? I think this could be an interesting discussion if you did.

 

[plumjam]

I think the OP basically amounts to one sentence: social life forms are social.

Well of course they are.

"Survival of the fittest," in the Darwinian sense, means that those organisms that display a given characteristic which is valueable to the survival of the individual or its offspring will cause the perpetuation of that characteristic through succeding generations.

with this characterisation of Darwinism in mind I'm wondering whether anyone can cast light on the origination and perpetuation, in humans, of the following phenomena:

homosexuality
choosing a life of celibacy
suicide
couples choosing to remain childless despite having plenty of resources


If you're using Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of human altruism, then you must be similarly able to use Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of these phenomena.

 

[RandFan]

homosexuality
choosing a life of celibacy
suicide
couples choosing to remain childless despite having plenty of resources

If you're using Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of human altruism, then you must be similarly able to use Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of these phenomena.

I'll assume that you are asking a sincere question and not arguing from ignorance, right?

There are actually a number of theories and though it is a bit of a challenge no evolutionary biologists are kept awake at night worrying about the implications.

MadScience Network.


A gene that is deleterious (in the sense of reducing reproductive success) in large doses may be beneficial in small doses. A classic example is the gene for sickle cell anemia, which in large doses (i.e., in a person with two copies of the gene) produces a debilitating disease, but in small doses (i.e., in a person with a single copy of the gene) produces a heightened resistance to malaria. For any numerical values you care to pick for (a) the benefit of a little extra malaria resistance, and (b) the penalty for having the debilitating disease, you can compute an equilibrium frequency for the sickle-cell gene, below which the gene will, on the average, benefit the organisms bearing it more than it hinders them.

Similarly, there is evidence that a single dose of the cystic fibrosis gene, which produces disease in a double dose, may increase resistance to cholera. (more on this) The relevance to the homosexual-gene hypothesis is, of course, that such a gene might, in heterozygotes (people with a single copy), produce behavior that promotes reproductive success.
A slightly different observation is that practically all of our genes find themselves, during the evolutionary process, half the time in female bodies and half the time in male bodies. A gene that is somewhat detrimental to male owners can survive if it is sufficiently beneficial to female owners. Selective pressure, in this case, will not be to eliminate the gene, but to build for it a regulatory mechanism that will express it more in females than in males. The appearance of inherited behavior that is reproductively deleterious in one sex but beneficial in the other might merely reflect evolution's failure to surround some such gene with well functioning regulatory machinery.

Also, from the master.

Could a gay gene really survive? (3rd question)

 

[HawkeyeMD]

Before I respond any further, I would like to ask, have you read The Selfish Gene by Dawkins? Do you have a copy at your disposal? I think this could be an interesting discussion if you did.

What he said.

There's another really good author named Matt Ridley--his "The Origins of Virtue" is a pretty awesome read, too. This is neither a new attack idea on the part of creationists nor a new idea for biologists, but it does make for a fascinating talk.

 

[Drummer]

I think the OP basically amounts to one sentence: social life forms are social.

Well of course they are.




with this characterisation of Darwinism in mind I'm wondering whether anyone can cast light on the origination and perpetuation, in humans, of the following phenomena:

homosexuality
choosing a life of celibacy
suicide
couples choosing to remain childless despite having plenty of resources


If you're using Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of human altruism, then you must be similarly able to use Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of these phenomena.

There is a basic error in here: the assumption that every physical property or form of human behaviour must have been selected for by natural selection. This is simply not the case. The ability to play the piano for instance. It has no survival benefit (although you could argue that musicians get all the girls). It is simply an emergent property of the selection for large, flexible brains. Some things are a by-effect of a selected property, sickle cell anemia comes to mind. The selected property is protection against malaria, the by-effect is less effective red blood cells. If you're unaware of the protection against malaria, you are of course going to wonder what the selective advantage of defective red blood cells is.
And BTW, why do you use 'Darwinism' for evolutionary theory? You don't call physics 'Newtonism' do you?

 

[Broes]

The sharing of food, something that only humans and bonobos are known to do, aside from a mother and father bird feeding their chicks, is both conducive to social bonds and increasing the survival rate of the group in adverse conditions.

Actually, most animals that live in groups tend to do this...

 

[leftysergeant]

I use the term "Darwinism" because the term "survival of the fittest" is so closely associated with Darwin's theories.

Altruism is "selected for" in the sense that groups of self-centered apes would not have been as effective in adapting to a wide enough variety of environments to have spread as widely as we have. They would have been hyena chow if they got hurt.

In every species of fossil humans found to date, there have been examples of some sorts of pathology or injury that would have been at least temporaily debilitating, but the indications are that the individuals survived.

The Home habilis that Donald Johansen found at Olduvai showed signs of having eaten a plant that destroys the periostracum of the bones, but she survived. The community would have to have supported her during convalesance, and bloody little use she would have been to anyone during that time. That, in such a harsh environment is the height of altruism.

The fossils recently found at Dmanisi in Georgia, possibly the first hominins to have left Africa, also showed signs of caring for their disabled. One of the fossils was obviously quite elderly and toothless at the time of death.

All of the multiple burial sites of Homo neanderthalensis include at least one person who suffered injuries like those of a very unfortunate rodeo cowboy, and still lived a good long life, even though they could not possibly have done much to help around the cave.

Having developed this sort of behavior obviously works to promote social structures that aid in reproductive success, because a society that will go to such lengths to preserve the elderly will probably also be more successful in raising the few infants they have to adulthood as well.

Consider for a moment the importance of family or group bonding to the survival of offspring in the human line. If you are female and realize that everybody needs everybody else to survive, are you going to be more likely to choose a mate who is brutal to the elderly and disabled to help you raise the few children you can see in your future, or even to support you through pregnancy? I think not.

BTW, another time-bomb gene is that for Tay-Sachs. It helped prevent tuberculosis in the ghettos of eastern Europe, but it also interferes with brain development.

 

[Reptiliano]

Here go my 2 cents.

Okay, this would definitely the first time I'm really jumping into a debate, so please be relatively merciful. @.=.@ Anyway, I'm used to seeing the word "altruism" as used in behavior, in a positive light, so I'll play the proverbial devil's advocate.

In the human fossil record, however, it is not the least surprising to find, even in such primitive species as Homo habilis, indivuals who were clearly no longer able to contribute in any way to the group, and yet they were clearly taken care of by their fellows.

I'm not archaeologically well-versed...could I get a source on this please?

This may, at first, seem to threaten the survival of the group. But, the fact that we exist proves that this strategy was successful. So, what value has altruism for survival of the species?

Consider that humans and the early hominins enjoyed a far lower reproductive rate than most critters of similar size. They depended on the efforts of others to protect those few precious children. The ability to think of each individual as having some value simple as another human made it that much more logical, even to a simple mind, to stand and defend the females, the infants and the disabled and elderly. The knowledge that one could expect to also be taken care of should something unfortunate happen would, no doubt, have relieved some of the fears that an individual might experience.

So, yes, altruism is very much an example of how "survival of the fittest" works.[/QUOTE]

"Survival of the Fittest" as an evolutionary concept clearly would not work if there isn't any competition (to use the word loosely) to work against. Individual groups of early humans would have used altruism within the injured members of their own group to compete against the species that threatened them.

As time progresses, groups of humans (early to modern) begin to interact with one another, more often than not in a hostile manner. Although humans are essentially one species, the fact that humans are unique to each other and perhaps within their group has undoubtedly resulted in tension, even before the advent of religion.

Here's where the waters get murky.
One definition of the word altruism goes: "behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species". (Source: Merriam-Webster, because I still don't have enough posts to make links yet)

This might explain why different groups see the altruistic behavior of their own members as a "good" thing while others see it as "bad."

In that sense - and this may be an extreme example - is an insurgent suicide bomber exhibiting altruistic behavior as much as the people who try to stop the bomber?

Perhaps I'm just being picky on the semantics again. >.=.>;

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think the OP basically amounts to one sentence: social life forms are social.

Well of course they are.




with this characterisation of Darwinism in mind I'm wondering whether anyone can cast light on the origination and perpetuation, in humans, of the following phenomena:

homosexuality
choosing a life of celibacy
suicide
couples choosing to remain childless despite having plenty of resources


If you're using Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of human altruism, then you must be similarly able to use Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of these phenomena.

What makes you think that a single one of those behaviors is genetically determined?

We now have a pretty good idea of the biological basis for homosexuality and it is not a single gene entity that is subject to Darwinian selection. Turns out that it is an epiphenomenon that actually might provide some selection advantage to one's siblings.

Drummer and Randfan said the rest very well.

 

[articulett]

Yes... humans evolved as have other social animals to be cooperative and empathic because, as game theory shows... this can be a handy dandy ways of ensuring ones genes live on in those most likely to be related to you. It's a pretty decent algorithm. Female animals must have some degree of altruism towards their young, and it appears many mammal mothers are prepared to risk their lives for their offspring. Male animals often give their lives attempting to sire such offspring. Social animals help their more vulnerable members, and as the vulnerable members grow up they help the new generation of vulnerable. http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=16&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com...-men-and-other-tricky-questions/index.html?hp

 

[Just thinking]

To me, the following seems to be non-sequitur in reasoning ....

"In the human fossil record, however, it is not the least surprising to find, even in such primitive species as Homo habilis, individuals who were clearly no longer able to contribute in any way to the group, and yet they were clearly taken care of by their fellows.

This may, at first, seem to threaten the survival of the group. But, the fact that we exist proves that this strategy was successful.

You're basically saying that Behavior A is good for survival --- I have found evidence of Behavior A in the fossil record, Behavior A continues to exist, hence Behavior A is good for survival. This could apply to any number of non-survival benefiting behaviors that still exist today -- homosexuality (in a purely physiological sense) cannot continue a lineage beyond a generation, yet I'm pretty sure it existed well before written history and continues today.

Plus, as you pointed out, Altruism is not common among other species --- yet they seem to survive quite well. Consider turtles.

 

[Beausoleil]

I think about it this way (bear with me, if you will).

An organism's genome can be thought of as a point in a multidimensional space. Mutation corresponds to a move from one point to another point across a generation. Such moves are not arbitrary - the structure of the genome limits the new points that can be accessed from any existing point.

"Genome space" is mapped to "Organism property space", where we talk about an organism having various characteristics. Allowed moves in "genome space" map to allowed moves in "organism property space" somehow.

"Fitness" is a function defined over the organism property space and (through the mapping) over genome space. The definition of the function changes over time, this is an extra complication.

Evolution is a sort of optimization routine, but one restricted by the allowed moves in the genome space. Talking about evolutiuon of things like "altruism" is a bit misguided since "altruism" is part of the wrong mapping for considering the problem - it's an organism property. That's the case until there is an argument made that allowed "moves" in "genome space" correspond to movements restricted to the "altruism" axis of "organism property" space.

In simple terms, why should we believe that simple mutations would lead only to changes in "altruism"?

 

[articulett]

To me, the following seems to be non-sequitur in reasoning ....


You're basically saying that Behavior A is good for survival --- I have found evidence of Behavior A in the fossil record, Behavior A continues to exist, hence Behavior A is good for survival. This could apply to any number of non-survival benefiting behaviors that still exist today -- homosexuality (in a purely physiological sense) cannot continue a lineage beyond a generation, yet I'm pretty sure it existed well before written history and continues today.

Plus, as you pointed out, Altruism is not common among other species --- yet they seem to survive quite well. Consider turtles.

I think the genetic algorhithm is just to take care of the vulnerable in your group-- the closer they are to you, the more likely you are to be caring for one who shares more of your genes... including the helping ones. Doesn't that explain the hippo trying to save the impala in the link above. As we get stronger we realize that we move into the role of taking care of the weaker with the hope that they return the favor to us or our descendents.

 

[Just thinking]

I think the genetic algorhithm is just to take care of the vulnerable in your group-- the closer they are to you, the more likely you are to be caring for one who shares more of your genes... including the helping ones. Doesn't that explain the hippo trying to save the impala in the link above. As we get stronger we realize that we move into the role of taking care of the weaker with the hope that they return the favor to us or our descendents.

That may be true enough --- but my argument was in how it was determined to be of Darwinian continuance. Merely finding a behavior we see today and then finding evidence of it in the fossil record should not (I believe) automatically conclude that it follows Darwinian evolution. It may very well be that as a species becomes stronger (in keeping its lineage going) it can afford a certain amount of tolerance in other non-related survival behavior. My example of turtles shows that a species can survive quite a long time without virtually any altruistic behavior --- not that altruism (in many forms) doesn't exist in nature, it does. But to think that it has become a need for survival as have other evolved traits is not so clear ... at least to me.

 

[CapelDodger]

Actually, most animals that live in groups tend to do this...

The actual distribution of the food - who gets how much, and in what order - seems to play an important social role. It pretty much defines the hierarchy - and, outside hive societies, there's always a hierarchy if you look closely enough.

It comes through clearly in modern human societies, mostly with money standing-in for food.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think the OP basically amounts to one sentence: social life forms are social.

Well of course they are.




with this characterisation of Darwinism in mind I'm wondering whether anyone can cast light on the origination and perpetuation, in humans, of the following phenomena:

homosexuality
choosing a life of celibacy
suicide
couples choosing to remain childless despite having plenty of resources


If you're using Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of human altruism, then you must be similarly able to use Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of these phenomena.

The choice of remaining child-free is a pretty recent introduction. Natural selection has nothing to do with that choice. It's an individual decision made for personal reasons. We're unique creatures in being able to make that choice. HomSap, like all species, is the result of natural selection, but it's the only one that has figured out what natural selection is. We've broken through to a new level. Selection is no longer natural.

Celibacy and suicide are also choices made for personal reasons. Dynastic considerations don't usually enter into it. In the case of celibacy, it would be bizarre if they did. Celibates are most commonly religious types focused on their own egos, not the long chain of being.

Homosexuality may not be bred in but it's not bred out, so either any harm done (from the dynast's perspective) is inconsequential or there's a compensation. One possibility is that a childless sibling has resources to lavish on their nephews and nieces, so the family produces fewer but better endowed offspring at that generation.

Natural selection isn't really about how many children an organism has, it's about how many viable grandchildren they have. I've chosen to end my line right here with me, but my parents' line continues in my six nepots. Most of their heredity is represented therein (as is most of mine, not that I care particularly). Not having kids of my own I've been able to lavish attention and largesse on them.

 

[articulett]

That may be true enough --- but my argument was in how it was determined to be of Darwinian continuance. Merely finding a behavior we see today and then finding evidence of it in the fossil record should not (I believe) automatically conclude that it follows Darwinian evolution. It may very well be that as a species becomes stronger (in keeping its lineage going) it can afford a certain amount of tolerance in other non-related survival behavior. My example of turtles shows that a species can survive quite a long time without virtually any altruistic behavior --- not that altruism (in many forms) doesn't exist in nature, it does. But to think that it has become a need for survival as have other evolved traits is not so clear ... at least to me.

You seem not to quite understand evolution, so please don't wink at me-- it reminds me of hammy. You are correct in the first sentence. Of course turtles and other animals can survive fine without altruistic behavior. Such traits only develop in animals where a little bit of cooperation or empathy make for a slight survival or reproductive advantage. In mammals, it appears to be a byproduct of hormones related to bonding and mirror neurons--especially in primates. In insects and bacteria and slime mold it seems to be more with having the benefits of a society or group so that various members can take on different roles. And genetics doesn't code for specific traits really... just tendencies and preferences and inclinations-- we evolved to be "programmed" by our culture. Our ancestors who had better social skills survived preferentially--and for obvious reasons. Even in baboons you see this. The males who are jerks and don't make female friends, die young-- the youngsters come into power and drive the nasty old guy out.

We actually understand a lot about the parts of the brain that encode for social behavior and the some of the genes involved. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com...-men-and-other-tricky-questions/index.html?hp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html

Why, do you have evidence for an alternative explanation (other than evolutionary benefit or byproduct) for such a trait? How does any alternative hypothesis fit the above links?

We can "see" where moral decisions are made in the brain... and we can change it via damage and hormones. We know a lot about the evolution of the brain. Reptiles, like turtles don't show the feelings of mammals--they don't even have the part of the brain associated with such feelings.

 

[CapelDodger]

It may very well be that as a species becomes stronger (in keeping its lineage going) it can afford a certain amount of tolerance in other non-related survival behavior.

Lineages are always as weak as the next link in the chain. Most competition occurs within a species, and there's never much slack available.

My example of turtles shows that a species can survive quite a long time without virtually any altruistic behavior --- not that altruism (in many forms) doesn't exist in nature, it does. But to think that it has become a need for survival as have other evolved traits is not so clear ... at least to me.

Considering turtles, as one should from time to time, the co-ordinated hatching of turtle-eggs does have a benefit for the whole ensemble, in that there are only so many predators around and only so many wee turtles each can eat. No altruism involved, but co-operation still emerges. Flocking behaviour in birds is similar.

 

[articulett]

That may be true enough --- but my argument was in how it was determined to be of Darwinian continuance. Merely finding a behavior we see today and then finding evidence of it in the fossil record should not (I believe) automatically conclude that it follows Darwinian evolution. It may very well be that as a species becomes stronger (in keeping its lineage going) it can afford a certain amount of tolerance in other non-related survival behavior. My example of turtles shows that a species can survive quite a long time without virtually any altruistic behavior --- not that altruism (in many forms) doesn't exist in nature, it does. But to think that it has become a need for survival as have other evolved traits is not so clear ... at least to me.

You seem not to quite understand evolution, so please don't wink at me-- it reminds me of hammy. You are correct in the first sentence. Of course turtles and other animals can survive fine without altruistic behavior. Such traits only develop in animals where a little bit of cooperation or empathy make for a slight survival or reproductive advantage. In mammals, it appears to be a byproduct of hormones related to bonding and mirror neurons--especially in primates. In insects and bacteria and slime mold it seems to be more with having the benefits of a society or group so that various members can take on different roles. And genetics doesn't code for specific traits really... just tendencies and preferences and inclinations-- we evolved to be "programmed" by our culture. Our ancestors who had better social skills survived preferentially--and for obvious reasons. Even in baboons you see this. The males who are jerks and don't make female friends, die young-- the youngsters come into power and drive the nasty old guy out.

We actually understand a lot about the parts of the brain that encode for social behavior and the some of the genes involved. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com...-men-and-other-tricky-questions/index.html?hp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html

Why, do you have evidence for an alternative explanation (other than evolutionary benefit or byproduct) for such a trait? How does any alternative hypothesis fit the above links?

We can "see" where moral decisions are made in the brain... and we can change it via damage and hormones. We know a lot about the evolution of the brain. Reptiles, like turtles don't show the feelings of mammals--they don't even have the part of the brain associated with such feelings.