[CharonY]

Group selection has been shown to be formally equivalent to kin selection. Hence, with the exception of a few remaining proponents, group selection has been essentially abandoned. And the selfish gene explanation fits nicely under the umbrella of the inclusive fitness theory, which is the basis model to explain altruistic behavior.

[questionposter]

I think I understand "selfish gene theory" and I definitely understand evolution in general, but what about when people are willing to give up their life because they know it will save other people or even for concepts like the truth or liberty, even if they won't really be recognized? And what about free-will? Can't you do things because you freely want to and not because of a mechanism? Sure, a mechanism can cause the release of a chemical which has a bunch of complex stuff going on and causes a feeling of compulsion to do something, but despite all that work, you can just ignore it and do whatever some entity that is your consciousness wants to do.

This post has been edited by questionposter: 4 January 2012 - 07:11 AM

[charles brough]

gib65, on 15 May 2005 - 04:34 PM, said:

Actually, the scientific revolution started roughly around 1550.

That's right. It started with "The Enlightenment" and "The Age of Reason." They began when the Reformation gradually freed people from the confines of the single, Catholic, way of thinking.

questionposter, on 4 January 2012 - 07:05 AM, said:

I think I understand "selfish gene theory" and I definitely understand evolution in general, but what about when people are willing to give up their life because they know it will save other people or even for concepts like the truth or liberty, even if they won't really be recognized? And what about free-will? Can't you do things because you freely want to and not because of a mechanism? Sure, a mechanism can cause the release of a chemical which has a bunch of complex stuff going on and causes a feeling of compulsion to do something, but despite all that work, you can just ignore it and do whatever some entity that is your consciousness wants to do.

Great questions? The "selfish gene" theory may well have some value in dealing with lone organisms, but it is hopeless in answering the questions you raised. The mechanism involved in GROUP organisms (such as we are) is clear over Gould, Dawkins and the other's heads.

Any animal behavioralist will tell you that group animals such as we (who evolved in hunting/gathering size groups roughly forty people) are innately motivated in a social way that became genetic. In other words, we have social instincts.

In us and most other mammal groups, the males compete for status and the winner, the Alpha male impregnates more females as reward for leading the defense of the group and its territory, keeping down the juvenile males (keeping order!), and setting where, when and how to hunt. They lead the "war party" (sports team?) and hunting pack. The females are compansionate and raise the children and gather (shop?) All are motivated to care for the rest of the group to gain status. This is instinctive in all group mammals. Every member benefits by caring for the others at the expense of, if necessary, all outsiders.

In other words, all in an effective group benefit. Groups with members that are socially weak do not survive. Chimps have been seen attacking another, weaker group and killing every member in order to take the other group's territory. (We call it colonialism).

In "The Last Civilization," I show how we use ideology to expand the size of our groups so that we still function as effectively and efficiently in them as in the hunting/gathering size groups we were limited to before the development of language and speech. I also show how natural selection occurs between these expanded groups or "societies."

We have social genes, not selfish ones!

[Halucigenia]

charles brough, on 1 February 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

Great questions? The "selfish gene" theory may well have some value in dealing with lone organisms, but it is hopeless in answering the questions you raised. The mechanism involved in GROUP organisms (such as we are) is clear over Gould, Dawkins and the other's heads.

And you assert this of Gould, Dawkins, and others, why exactly? Would you care to give some examples of what they suggest and how "The mechanism involved in GROUP organisms" is actually "over their heads" ?

charles brough, on 1 February 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

Any animal behavioralist will tell you that group animals such as we (who evolved in hunting/gathering size groups roughly forty people) are innately motivated in a social way that became genetic. In other words, we have social instincts.

Could the fact that we have social instincts then not be explained because it benefits our selfish genes in that they are better able to copy themselves?

charles brough, on 1 February 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

In us and most other mammal groups, the males compete for status and the winner, the Alpha male impregnates more females as reward for leading the defense of the group and its territory, keeping down the juvenile males (keeping order!), and setting where, when and how to hunt. They lead the "war party" (sports team?) and hunting pack. The females are compansionate and raise the children and gather (shop?) All are motivated to care for the rest of the group to gain status. This is instinctive in all group mammals. Every member benefits by caring for the others at the expense of, if necessary, all outsiders.

And, unless you are misrepresenting or simply misunderstanding the selfish gene explaining this does nothing to show how the theory cannot explain this. Are you simply mistaking the word selfis in the theory to apply to individuals or groups of individuals rather than the genes themselves? Common mistake but completely in error.

charles brough, on 1 February 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

In other words, all in an effective group benefit. Groups with members that are socially weak do not survive. Chimps have been seen attacking another, weaker group and killing every member in order to take the other group's territory. (We call it colonialism).

Genes that promote behaviours in groups that survive better, whether it be detrimental to out-groups or not will tend to get passed on, that’s what selfish gene theory actually explains.

charles brough, on 1 February 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

In "The Last Civilization," I show how we use ideology to expand the size of our groups so that we still function as effectively and efficiently in them as in the hunting/gathering size groups we were limited to before the development of language and speech. I also show how natural selection occurs between these expanded groups or "societies."

No doubt you do explain this and there may even be some truth to it. However it does nothing to promote your assertion that “The "selfish gene" theory may well have some value in dealing with lone organisms, but it is hopeless in answering the questions you raised. The mechanism involved in GROUP organisms “.

charles brough, on 1 February 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

We have social genes, not selfish ones!

No, we have selfish genes which can promote social behaviour and promote groups of organisms that contain these genes at the expense of other groups of organisms that do not have these genes. That is simply how evolution operates. Terming it selfish genes is just a metaphorical way of explaining this process. This is all explained in Richard Dawkins’ book if you had read it rather than just the title you would understand this. You could call the theory the co-operative gene, or the social gene and it would not change what the theory actually explains.

[charles brough]

Halucigenia, on 3 February 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

Genes that promote behaviours in groups that survive better, whether it be detrimental to out-groups or not will tend to get passed on, that's what selfish gene theory actually explains.

You could call the theory the co-operative gene, or the social gene and it would not change what the theory actually explains.

Thanks. I was just going by the title as you suggest. I would say the hippish "selfish gene" title is rather appropriate. To me its just natural selecton, biological and group/social.

[Halucigenia]

charles brough, on 3 February 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

Thanks. I was just going by the title as you suggest. I would say the hippish "selfish gene" title is rather appropriate. To me its just natural selecton, biological and group/social.

That's OK, even the author, Richard Dawkins, conceded that the title does often get misconstrued.

[questionposter]

charles brough, on 1 February 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

Great questions? The "selfish gene" theory may well have some value in dealing with lone organisms, but it is hopeless in answering the questions you raised. The mechanism involved in GROUP organisms (such as we are) is clear over Gould, Dawkins and the other's heads.

Any animal behavioralist will tell you that group animals such as we (who evolved in hunting/gathering size groups roughly forty people) are innately motivated in a social way that became genetic. In other words, we have social instincts.

In us and most other mammal groups, the males compete for status and the winner, the Alpha male impregnates more females as reward for leading the defense of the group and its territory, keeping down the juvenile males (keeping order!), and setting where, when and how to hunt. They lead the "war party" (sports team?) and hunting pack. The females are compansionate and raise the children and gather (shop?) All are motivated to care for the rest of the group to gain status. This is instinctive in all group mammals. Every member benefits by caring for the others at the expense of, if necessary, all outsiders.

In other words, all in an effective group benefit. Groups with members that are socially weak do not survive. Chimps have been seen attacking another, weaker group and killing every member in order to take the other group's territory. (We call it colonialism).

In "The Last Civilization," I show how we use ideology to expand the size of our groups so that we still function as effectively and efficiently in them as in the hunting/gathering size groups we were limited to before the development of language and speech. I also show how natural selection occurs between these expanded groups or "societies."

We have social genes, not selfish ones!

I'm not saying selfishness doesn't exist, at this point individuals need both in some amounts to survive or at least reproduce, but I think the same questions can be applied to the group mechanisms. Like what about in a war? People give up their life to save other people from something like a grenade...
I think there are social mechanisms, and you can apply whatever reason you want to them, but really they just exist because they randomly appeared and happened to cause compulsions that are more likely to lead to actions that have a higher probability of surviving.

This post has been edited by questionposter: 6 February 2012 - 03:16 AM

[CharonY]

Quote

Thanks. I was just going by the title as you suggest. I would say the hippish "selfish gene" title is rather appropriate. To me its just natural selecton, biological and group/social.

As suggested, the selfishness of genes actually explains the altruism of organism. Altruism is, by definition, detrimental to the organism, and looking from that level, should not exist at all. However, if it is all about propagation of the genes instead, it makes sense. Check kin selection for details, for example. The suggestion is that (as a thought model) genetic mechanism try to promote their frequency, and this can be achieved by helping others that carry the same genes.

[questionposter]

CharonY, on 28 February 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

As suggested, the selfishness of genes actually explains the altruism of organism. Altruism is, by definition, detrimental to the organism, and looking from that level, should not exist at all. However, if it is all about propagation of the genes instead, it makes sense. Check kin selection for details, for example. The suggestion is that (as a thought model) genetic mechanism try to promote their frequency, and this can be achieved by helping others that carry the same genes.

What about acquired altruism or attributes in that realm?

[JohnStu]

Selfishness or the behaviour of selfish is not a gene itself, but result of many genees. Anything that is personality, it is not didcted by A gene, but rather result of many genes. That's my input

[doG]

JohnStu, on 2 March 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

Selfishness or the behaviour of selfish is not a gene itself, but result of many genees. Anything that is personality, it is not didcted by A gene, but rather result of many genes. That's my input

Is that a fact? Can you support that claim?

[CharonY]

questionposter, on 2 March 2012 - 01:35 AM, said:

What about acquired altruism or attributes in that realm?

Depends, things acquired through an individual are generally not pertaining to evolution. However, in reality things are a bit more tricky, because a) the ability to learn has a genetic basis on some level and b) learned things can also be transmitted to the next generation.
That being said, Dawkin's book is not refer to selfish or altruistic behavior per se, but rather puts forward the gene-view to explain that genes can propagate at the expense of the organism. The possibility of genetically-based altruism (of the organism) is just one of the many consequences (i.e. see kin selection). But it also explains the existence of mobile genetic elements such as plasmids, transposons and viruses.

[questionposter]

CharonY, on 3 March 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

learned things can also be transmitted to the next generation.

What? How could that possibly work? That's news to me...
Unless learning things somehow alters your genes...

This post has been edited by questionposter: 9 March 2012 - 02:01 AM

[CharonY]

It is called teaching/learning and when it survives several generation it is sometimes referred to as tradition. It is not limited to apes, but has also been shown in e.g. crows.
My point was that there are non-genetic factors that can confound analyses.

[questionposter]

CharonY, on 9 March 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

It is called teaching/learning and when it survives several generation it is sometimes referred to as tradition.

And this notion that if someone learns calculus or guitar that their offspring might automatically know how to do those things is proven?

[CharonY]

Who said automatically? We are talking of transmission of abilities over generations.

Quote

It is called teaching/learning

[questionposter]

CharonY, on 9 March 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

Who said automatically? We are talking of transmission of abilities over generations.

So are you saying the aptitude or better ability to learn something can be passed down or that a specific thing or skill you learn would be passed down?

[iNow]

Both can be passed down. Where you seem confused is in the mechanism of transmission.

[questionposter]

iNow, on 10 March 2012 - 03:09 AM, said:

Both can be passed down. Where you seem confused is in the mechanism of transmission.

Well it doesn't really make a lot of sense how if someone learned say... how to play a c-major chord that their offspring could be born automatically knowing how to play it. What about genes would code for a c-major chord? Music is just something we made up.

[iNow]

It probably doesn't make sense because nobody here is saying that... Not even close.