In the Roger Scruton on altruism thread, some commenters have expressed confusion over the evolutionary explanation of altruism in ants. If workers and soldiers leave no offspring, then how does their altruistic behavior get selected for?
The answer is simple but somewhat counterintuitive. The genes for altruistic behavior are present in both the workers/soldiers and in their parents. Self-sacrificing behavior in the workers and soldiers is bad for their copies of these genes, but it promotes the survival and proliferation of the copies contained in the queen and in her store of sperm. As long as there is a net reproductive benefit to the genes, such altruistic behaviors can be maintained in the population.
Selfish genes, altruistic individuals.
Let’s dedicate this thread to a discussion of other counterintuitive evolutionary truths. Here are some of my favorites:
1. The classic example of sickle-cell trait in humans. Why is a disease-causing mutation maintained in a human population? Shouldn’t selection eliminate the mutants? Not in this case, because only the unfortunate folks who have two copies of the allele get the disease. People with one copy of the allele don’t get the disease, but they do receive a benefit: improved resistance to malaria. In effect, the people with the disease are paying for the improved health of the people with only one copy of the mutation.
(Kinda makes you wonder why the Designer did it that way, doesn’t it?)
2. In utero cannibalism in sharks:
Shark embryos cannibalize their littermates in the womb, with the largest embryo eating all but one of its siblings.
Now, researchers know why: It’s part of a struggle for paternity in utero, where babies of different fathers compete to be born.
The researchers, who detailed their findings today (April 30) in the journal Biology Letters, analyzed shark embryos found in sand tiger sharks (Carcharias taurus) at various stages of gestation and found that the later in pregnancy, the more likely the remaining shark embryos had just one father.
(Kinda makes you wonder why the Designer did it that way, doesn’t it?)
3. Genetic conflict between parents and offspring. Here’s a great example from a 1993 paper by David Haig:
Pregnancy has commonly been viewed as a cooperative interaction between a mother and her fetus. The effects of natural selection on genes expressed in fetuses, however, may be opposed by the effects of natural selection on genes expressed in mothers. In this sense, a genetic conflict can be said to exist between maternal and fetal genes. Fetal genes will be selected to increase the transfer of nutrients to their fetus, and maternal genes will be selected to limit transfers in excess of some maternal optimum. Thus a process of evolutionary escalation is predicted in which fetal actions are opposed by maternal countermeasures. The phenomenon of genomic imprinting means that a similar conflict exists within fetal cells between genes that are expressed when maternally derived, and genes that are expressed when paternally derived.
(Kinda makes you wonder why the Designer did it that way, doesn’t it?)
Can readers think of other counterintuitive evolutionary truths?
Addendum
4. Mutant organism loses its innate capacity to reproduce and becomes a great evolutionary success. Can anyone guess which organism(s) I’m thinking of?
With whom? I agree ridicule is a way to silence opposition: and an effective one when you are in the majority. Try making fun of Scottish people in a Glasgow pub on a Friday night and experience the effectiveness! 🙂
It’s what your scroll finger is for. 😉
I am not a fan of the “only if someone complains” rule, for the simple reason that it could encourage whining. My preference would be for *extremely* light moderation. In this vein I would like to note that I do not find phoodoo’s taunts annoying in the least. I find them (including the dick jokes) an amusing demonstration of his inability to engage. I would not wish to grant his apparent desire for suicide-by-cop.
I do however understand that someone with a loved one who has Down’s might disagree.
Ironically, I AM a British gentleman, and usually quite refined, to boot. I do know more biology and math than the fighter pilots I know. Can’t play basketball to save my life.
Phoodoo behaves like a common-or-garden troll, and a not very good one at that. Sorry for all the food I provided.
I couldn’t help it. I can resist everything except temptation
Phoodoo’s link was inappropriate. Not in the Joe Gallien class but still.. Maybe phoodoo will reconsider and request the link be removed.
ETA “Either this wallpaper goes or I do”.
I had not clicked through on phoodoo’s link.
Inappropriate, but uplifting.
Gotta love Oscar. 😉
DNA_Jock,
I envy your ability to distance yourself from the matter at hand. I for one, though, would like for phoodoo to learn something about genetics and population genetics. I know he refuses to, but I’d still like it if he learnt something.
The only thing you can control is your reaction. I, too, would like for all of the intelligent design creationists to learn some science. The vast majority of them are not going to. It is regrettable, because they vote, but not something I can do anything about.
I can either allow myself to wallow in rage or I can breathe, laugh, and devote my energy to something I can affect. Sometimes I still choose the first option, for a brief period of time. I’m not enlightened — bite me. 😉
Yes, but I need some help with that. When I read comments like those of ‘doo, I instinctively feel the need to try and teach him about the subjects he’s commenting on. Since he’s not interested in learning, the only thing remaining to me is to develop a firefox plugin that filters out his comments, so I won’t be annoyed so much.
Or, perhaps, contact his highschool biology teacher to give him some extra lessons.
I’m not a good programmer, and I can’t find the name of the high school phoodoo is attending.
O, well.
Folks,
Could we move the phoodoo moderation discussion to the Moderation Issues thread? I’ve started things off with this comment.
I would be happy to enlighten you. DNA Jock started discussing sickle cell disease, as if to say, see, here is a function which is controlled by only one gene. A ridiculous point by him? In the of course thinking how does evolution happen, sure. So I pointed out to him, how a person with Downs syndrome is less likely to be killed by being in a fighter pilot accident, since someone with down’s syndrome has very little chance of becoming a fighter pilot. Does that mean that Down’s syndrome is one of the precursers we would expect to see as the beginning of a new species, since it has this great advantage that they are less likely to be killed in war?
Jock, is his exhausting style was only here to post post boring, empty ad hominem assertions about how, “you know nothing, blah blah blah”, without saying anything, and then claiming I was the one harming discussion, ..typical evolution fare really. But when he kept going on and on about his elementary school biology questions, like a school teacher stuck in skip mode, I just assumed he likely HAS down’s syndrome, and can only keep repeating the same stupid phrase, which has no relevancy to anything. Or maybe its Aspergers, hard to tell from one repeated phrase over and over.
Perhaps you can ASK HIM what the importance of stating which genes are dominant and which are recessive-I wasn’t interested. I am sure the answers have nothing to do with this discussion, but its hard to stop a challenged person, once they are stuck in one track mind thinking.
You can let me know what the importance was to the discussion once you get an answer from him. If you can tolerate his boredom.
Alan Fox,
I don’t know what is inappropriate about highlighting the achievements of someone with a beneficial gene mutation.
Now can YOU answer why you and others are pretending that I didn’t actually pose relevant problems for evolution in this thread (which you ignored) such as how can you claim a Darwinian evolutionary basis for altruism, when there is no specific gene for altrusitic behavior? Or about calling out all the bluffs about computer programs doing exactly what evolution does. Or about how at any one times there are a thousand factors which determine an animals chance of survival, and by suggesting just because you can think of one, that this supersedes all of the other environmental influences going on at the same time- so that an animal that has one (not really) gene for keeping away from a tiger, it also has another gene which gives it cancer earlier, or is more susceptible to sore throats, but has great kidney function, so which gene is being preserved?
Or about how the term “modern synthesis” is really just a smoke screen for covering up the fact that we now know that evolution doesn’t work in the easy Darwinian way that Dawkins and others tried to promote, and so in light of all the confusing new findings of evolutionary development, you just through out this term “modern synthesis” as a blanket to cover everything without saying how it works.
These are all problems that I brought up, right here on this thread!, that you all ignore and say I am the one who needs to learn something.
When are you going to point out to everyone how it was YOU and others who ignored all these problems I brought up, and then insist its me just being a troll because my points were counter to the message you all like to preach? Is that what a troll is on this site, disagreeing with the worldview on this site.
Is it so hard for an evolutionist to figure out how to use a mirror? Its a simple device, but I can see where it might trip some of you up.
phoodoo, to Alan:
We’re not pretending, phoodoo. The ‘problems’ you pose are not problematic at all for evolution. We’re trying to explain this to you, but you’re covering up your ears and grunting so loudly that you can’t hear us.
Why the fear? What terrible things would happen if an opposing argument penetrated your bubble?
It’s already been explained to you. Nothing in evolutionary theory requires a one-to-one mapping between traits and genes. There are traits that are influenced by more than one gene — this is known as polygeny. And there are genes that influence multiple traits, which is known as pleiotropy. Why not crack a book on genetics or evolution? It’s fascinating stuff, and you would be much more effective as a critic if you actually understood what you are criticizing.
No one claims that simulations of evolution are perfect replicas of nature, and they aren’t intended to be. That would be a useless endeavor because we don’t have the compute power to pull it off, and we don’t need to. Models are useful even when they’re not perfect. Surely you’ve noticed that weather forecasts aren’t always correct, right, phoodoo? Do you think we should throw out the models because they’re not absolutely perfect, or should we do the sensible thing and continue to use them, improving them as we go?
A lot of simulations successfully do the jobs they are intended for. For example, there are many programs that demonstrate the power of random variation plus selection in generating novel solutions to problems. This gives IDers like you the heebie-jeebies, for obvious reasons. Stay tuned. I’ll be doing an OP on one such program in the near future.
Again, you really should crack a book on evolution. No one is saying that one factor “supersedes all of the other environmental influences going on at the same time”.
I understand that this “thousand factor” problem seems insurmountable to you. How could biologists possibly link genes to traits in the midst of all this noise? The thing to remember is that the scientists doing this work are far more resourceful, far smarter, and much better educated than you. They can accomplish things that you couldn’t pull off even with a gun pointed at your head.
Remember, your incompetence isn’t evidence that evolutionary theory is flawed. It’s simply evidence that you’re incompetent.
Are you aware of how many papers are published on evolutionary biology each year? Biologists haven’t shouted “modern synthesis!” and thrown in the towel. You would like to believe that evolutionary theory is stalled, but nothing could be further from the truth. It’s advancing rapidly, and it poses a real threat to your belief system. Hence your fear.
We’re not ignoring them, but you definitely need to learn something. Would you like some book recommendations from us? Many of us can suggest books that would address the specific deficiencies that you’ve demonstrated in this thread. You would have to work harder than most in order to understand these books, but it would be a great learning experience if you were willing to make the effort.
keiths,
Do you have the altruism gene packet Keiths? What about the Parmesan cheese one?
I have one interesting gene packet-its the one that makes me laugh like crazy whenever an evolutionist writes 10 paragraphs devoted to bragging that they have secret evidence and special books they are hiding, but they promise the answers are all there, so there! Do you have that gene too, that, that, one packet right……
Sorry, I couldn’t finish that last sentence, I am laughing too spastically..It was the line about “Do you know how many papers are published about evolutionary biology each year”….that one gets me every time, so predicable and yet so hysterical! I can’t help it. Its like the painful cringing one might get from watching the Big Bang Theory. Why did evolution have to do that to us, Dam!
phoodoo,
How sad to have a “gene packet” that never gets used.
The evidence isn’t secret and the books aren’t hidden. They’re available to anyone with the intelligence and discipline to read and understand them. Oh, wait… that would exclude you, wouldn’t it?
Then perhaps you should start here. It’s for grades 3 through 8.
phoodoo,
Tee hee!
Gralgrathor,
Cough!
Phoodoo == JoeG
OMagain,
He is a bit more articulate, at least.
Ng?
Gralgrathor,
Sorry, just being daft. Alan and I both tried on the 1:1 mapping issue. Alan! Allan!
O, right. I think I broke my head last night.
Phoodoo is not your only reader.
I’ve never thought we were doing this for the benefit of creationists. I participate for my own benefit.
petrushka,
Yep. Exercises in exposition.
But you didn’t do that. Down syndrome is caused when a pair of chromosomes (number 21) fails to separate during meiosis – the process that results in eggs and sperm being haploid and able to fuse into the zygote (fertilized egg) from which we develop. This results in all the cells in a Down syndrome person having 47 chromosomes rather than 46. So it’s not a condition that is caused by a genetic mutation.
And I hope you do know why linking to the achievements of a Down sufferer was inappropriate. If you don’t I’m sorry for you.
Gralgrathor
Zachriel is right. Consider me as a typical onlooker: I am a scientist, but not a biologist. An answer with useful information is in any case appreciated by me. I am also irritated by the childish game of phoodo that appears not interested in any constructive discussion, but nevertheless I enjoy an informative replay from a more educated persons.
Germanicus,
Welcome Germanicus.
Your first comment was held for moderation automatically. Any further comments you wish to add will be visible immediately.
Well, I’m no biologist, so keep in mind that any statements made by me reflect my understanding of genetics and population dynamics. Which is, frankly, quite superficial.
Alan Fox,
First Alan, your summary of Downs syndrome is incomplete and misleading. It is a genetic disorder, which is heritable in some cases. I am not sure what the point of your misinformed statement is.
Secondly, I think it is inappropriate for you to think it is inappropriate to highlight some of the abilities of children with Downs syndrome. Why do you wish to hide it under the carpet like they are lepers or something.
I should think DNA Jock would especially be highly offended by your attitude.
phoodoo, you indicated a day or so today that there is a Lamarckian element to evolution. Why do you say that?
Incomplete, sure. Misleading how? How many babies are born to Down syndrome women? I couldn’t find a statistic. Not enough to ensure a viable population, I think. So inheritance does not in practice arise. Down syndrome occurs spontaneously at a well-documented rate. Heritability is effectively zero.
phoodoo,
Your post certainly came across that you intended to insult your interlocutors by comparison with a Downs kid. As such – by using a Downs kid as an insult – you crossed the line. Now, you may well argue that I am insulting the Downs kid by thinking that. In which case, you could explain why you chose such an individual, if not to intend insult. ‘Highlighting their abilities’ would make it a total non-sequitur, in the context.
Feeble defense, phoodoo. In this comment you plainly suggested DNA_Jock has Asperger’s. You’re plainly a troll and no one is fooled.
And frankly Alan, there is a bigger point that you should be aware of.
Just because I don’t sit back and take the lectures your syncophants think they can dole out, without giving it right back, doesn’t mean I haven’t raised some serious problems with the ideas expressed here, that everyone here just tries to dismiss with a wave of a hand.
One of the most obvious (for which the only response so far has been, its not a problem) is that there are no genes for altruistic behavior! From what we know right now, there are no genes for any behavior. Are there genes that make people like sports, or enjoy painting, or that make people optimistic? To suggest such a thing is not only silly, but where in the world would it be stored? If you want to take every living trait that an organism can express, and claim that it is controlled by a pattern of genes, you will run out of genes pretty fast for all the things you need to account for.
So the entire premise from the outset is flawed.
If Allan says, don’t you think scientists have already thought of this, and professors aren’t thick, so we got it covered, that is not a refutation of the problem. If Keiths says, go read an elementary school text book, that is not a refutation of the problem. If someone says, evolution doesn’t have to be a 1:1 ratio of mutations to effects, that is not a refutation of the problem. One has to be able to explain how mutations that have no effect, or that effect 5 different functions have equal opportunity for being selected and said to be beneficial.
Your side is stuck with a theory that is full of speculation, with these details being impossible to fully explain, other than to say believe it on faith. “Modern Synthesis” is not a answer to anything. It is simply a term that says there is more going on then a selfish gene; whatever that is, is natural, but we don’t know how yet.
Evo-devo is another HUGE problem for Darwinian evolution. How did an evo-devo system arise through gradual random mutations? No one has a fucking clue about this. Its is not in textbooks like Keith promises. There isn’t a consensus like Allan alleges. There is simply the idea that one day we will figure it out, but the answer is still materialistic in nature.
So don’t give me this crap about how your side is posting all this relevant content, while I am just being silly. There aren’t answers to these problems, there aren’t computer models that show how easy it is for this to happen (and Joe just asserting there are isn’t worth a dime to reality) , there aren’t heaps of evidence for this, there is only hope.
Scientists get things wrong, biologists get things wrong, there are plenty of biologist working in the field right now who are forced to admit, they really have no idea how it works. There are entire conferences devoted to resolving all of these unanswerable problems, without giving away the farm. Because ultimately that is the goal of 95 % of the people working in evolutionary biology-how do we maintain an explanation which assures that it only evokes natural random processes that we can account for, so we can keep the farm.
If that is your goal, you are not going to find something outside of your goal-because your life’s work is committed to trying to answer the problem this way, even if you can’t for now.
So if you think your role is to educate me, don’t worry, I am fine. Get a mirror if you really want to get a grasp a few of these problems.
Alan’s summary of Down Syndrome was not misleading. You had described it as a “beneficial gene mutation”. It isn’t a gene mutation.
The total number of recorded cases of inherited Down’s is less than 0.1% of the number of de novo cases in the USA in the past year. So its heritability is effectively zero.
This last sentence makes it clear that you are continuing with your aspersion that I have Down Syndrome, or ASD. That’s why the link was inappropriate. I agree with Alan. To repeat, your taunts amuse me; they may however offend others.
Alan Fox,
Heritably is not effectively zero Alan. If you want to start a separate thread about that, so be it, but you are incorrect. Heritability is anywhere from 2-15 percent depending how you look at it. Some forms of Downs are still not fully understood-there isn’t only one factor.
” So if your future spouse’s family happens to have this form of Down syndrome in the family AND this spouse inherited the DNA for it, then there is a chance your future kids could be at a higher risk than other kids. To be specific, if your spouse is a man, then there is about a 3% chance that your children would be affected. And if she is a future wife, then the risk is 12%.
This is, on average, about 24 or 96 times higher risk than usual (depending on age of course).
I won’t go into too much detail on how the uninherited form of Down syndrome works (click here to learn more if you’re interested.) Instead I will focus on how two chromosomes can get stuck together and how that can make Down syndrome run in families.”
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/inherited-down-syndrome
No, I’m all for the free exchange of ideas but I feel no obligation to contribute to your education. I don’t doubt you have a good level of education purely from the fact you can comment very articulately. The chasm between us would be what some refer to as “world-view”. I think everyone has the right to a view and should be able to express it. Anyone who says something in public should be prepared to back it up with evidence or accept it when errors are pointed out. Everybody wins when everybody learns.
I’m not an expert on Down syndrome but I think the little I did say was largely correct. The point I was making is that Down syndrome is a chromosomal abnormality and not genetic (in the sense that cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anaemia are). You may be right if you are suggesting that there is some heritable element in the chance of a parent (it’s most often the mother) producing gametes with the chromosome abnormality but that’s a different issue. Also it is hard to see why such a gene might persist in humans, other than due to pleiotropy.
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.
It’s your loss, phoodoo. We are lucky to have some real experts here (like Joe Felsenstein). I have learned some interesting things from him, e.g., in the thread on generations count. These things aren’t just about abstract simplified models. For example, it helped me understand who mitochondrial Eve was, even though there was no mention of her in the thread.
You, too, could learn a few things if you tried. But you refuse to. You dismiss everything out of hand, in the process making a complete fool of yourself. That’s your choice.
DNA_Jock,
I don’t know you would be insulted if someone thought you had Downs syndrome. As I pointed out, there could be many cases where Down’s syndrome could be a great break, according to your version of Darwinian theory. If we keep going to war with each other, perhaps one day the only people left on Earth could be those who have down’s syndrome. Its an advantage. Don’t judge about what you think is good, evolution doesn’t care about this.
Just like you feel people who have sickle cell anemia have gotten a good genetic break in life, which shows just how well evolution works. Maybe one day everyone on the planet will have sickle cell anemia, and we will have a whole new species (finally!) They may have to live with chronic fatigue and pain, or priapism, but again, evolution only cares who survives. There is no such thing as good or bad. A constant erection could be very useful in the fight to pass along your genes.
With the Robertsonian, it is not Down syndrome that is heritable, but the ability to give your children Down’s.
For actually *inheriting* Down’s the >> 0.1% number stands.
phoodoo,
pure strawman.
Since you asked, I will try to explain why my question re the S-allele is relevant.
I entered this conversation thus:
In order to get past a “you’re wrong!” – “no, you’re wrong, poopy-face!” exchange, we need to explore the underlying biology together. Starting with simple concepts such as genes and alleles, and moving on to pleiotropy and polygenic traits. Hence my repeated question about the S-allele.
From my perspective this is a win-win situation: the most likely outcome is that you will refuse to even attempt to support your assertions by discussing biology, thereby revealing the emptiness of your position. Alternative outcome: in order to show me up, you learn some biology. The more biology you learn, the more you will realize that you have been lied to; which is from my perspective also a win, albeit of a different kind.
It’s entirely up to you whether you wish to wallow in your own ignorance, or learn something. Works for me either way. I just don’t want you to get away with pretending you know stuff that you don’t (e.g. the meaning of “P-value”).
So, is the S-allele dominant or recessive?
Its a fair question, I will attempt to answer it when I have a bit more time to devote a full response. There have been a lot of discoveries about this recently.
Translation: I have no idea. I’ve read about it on Uncommon Descent. Don’t expect another word from me about it.
Heh, you are poking the wrong ant-hill I think. Rather then waste time here with these know-nothing losers you’d be better off writing your ideas up formally and getting them published, so real scientists with open minds can share in your wisdom.
There’s no point, they’ve all drunk deeply of the Darwin-kool-aid here. There’s no point in highlighting the problems to these people, they’ll never listen!
I’m aware of several organisations that would, most likely, pay you to write such papers. If you are interested in getting your wise words out to a larger audience then please indicate and I’ll collect contact details and post them here for you.
In the end, the truth will out. The only question is what will your role in that process be? Sniping from the sidelines to little effect or kick them where it hurts in the only arena that actually matters?
It should be easy for you to provide some links in the meanwhile as a taster.
DNA_Jock,
Its not a strawman at all Jock, evolutionist use sickle cell as evidence for evolution all the time, including you. You called it a great teaching opportunity.
If that is how poorly contrived their reasoning is, why should thinking people take them seriously? A debilitating, loss of function disease (Yes, its a loss of function, you seem to even struggle with that idea, so save your need to teach me anything), as an example of the great powers of Darwinian evolution. The desperation of such a theory is unprecedented in science. People who believe this don’t even care to take a long hard look at the issues.
No, I take that back, this is not science.
No, I am just thinking of a way to write it so that even someone who studies physics and knows nothing about the world around them can understand it.
Its not easy to dumb it down that much in such a short space of time-but I don’t want to leave you out.
Give it a try, phoodoo. Sniping from the sidelines is easy. Making a positive contribution is much harder.
We will all be holding our breaths. 🙂
P.S. And while you’re at it, come up with a concise way to explain how many deaths there should be per generation. So that even poor old me could understand. 🙂
Come to think of it, it’s a win-win situation. Either phoodoo remains quiet about Lamarkism (and my prediction is fulfilled) or he entertains us with some hilarious misunderstandings of biology.