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?
And it is a very good illustration of the “niche” concept. The sickle-cell trait in heterozygous form is nearly always asymptomatic and protects against malaria, so if your ethnic background is from such a niche where the chances of catching malaria is high and you have one copy of the gene, you have a survival advantage over someone who lacks it and succumbs to malaria. That sickle-cell is hugely debilitating in homozygous form is not enough for the gene to disappear where malaria is prevalent.
I guess that leaves intelligent design as the only explanation for sickle cell?
See? This:
Is what happens when you
Every once in a while, ‘doo. If you’d actually stopped and read a few of the comments written for you, in stead of trying to find simplistic rhetoric tricks to justify your dismissal of them, you might have learned something about genetics. In stead, you’re forced to again and again display your lack of interest in the subject.
What about that leg-length gene, ‘doo? Did that question spark any cogitation at all? I’ll bet it didn’t, eh?
What’s the function that’s lost? Dying?
keiths, to walto:
Alan:
Alan,
Let it go. You’ve been fighting for three weeks to avoid admitting your mistakes, and it has led you to make increasingly absurd claims, including the following two:
1. Your claim that the phrase “genetic explanation” is somehow problematic. It isn’t. Biologists and geneticists understand what it means and use it without confusion.
The “problem” is fictional. You invented it because you needed an excuse for disagreeing with an obvious and straightforward claim: that soldier ant behavior requires a genetic explanation.
2. Your claim that “Well, no” doesn’t express disagreement and is merely a “stylistic irrelevance”. Seriously, Alan? Someone makes a statement, you respond with “Well, no”, and you claim that you aren’t disagreeing?
Neil chimed in with this bizarre comment:
Needless to say, no explanation of the “subtlety” was forthcoming.
(Watching Neil wield Dunning-Kruger is like watching a hemophiliac play with razor blades.)
What’s with you guys? When your fear of admitting mistakes leads you to make ridiculous claims such as those, isn’t it time to reconsider?
phoodoo,
No indeed. In the very same post that you took such exception to as an ‘argument from authority’, I said what the answer is on the gene-trait mapping issue. You missed that, didn’t you? I didn’t just tell you it had been thought of (ie, you are not raising novel challenges), I said what the answer was.
Where do I allege there is a consensus on evo-devo? Certainly there’s nothing particularly challenging about it – developmental genes are still genes. But we don’t have a mutation-by-mutation account, and I don’t think I said we do.
I replied “strawman”
Wrong, phoodoo, it is a complete and utter strawman. Let’s review the context:
I gave you malaria resistance as an example of a single gene trait.
You responded
To which I replied:
Note that I said “Biologists”, not “Evolutionists”. It is a great teaching example of genetic dominance.
I did not say that its a good example of evolution. I did not say that I think people who have sickle cell anemia have “gotten a good genetic break in life”.
So phoodoo, is the S-allele dominant or recessive?
I probably can’t dumb it down enough for people here to understand, especially if they think sickle cell is a good case for evolution, so read it yourself:
“The results are extremely surprising and unexpected,” says Li-Huei Tsai, a neuroscientist at MIT who was not involved in the research. Indeed, one of the studies found that a boost in the brain’s ability to rewire itself and a corresponding improvement in memory could be passed on. “This study is probably the first study to show there are transgenerational effects not only on behavior but on brain plasticity.”
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/411880/a-comeback-for-lamarckian-evolution/
After two decades of research my colleagues and I now have good evidence that the tell-tale signs of “soma-to-germline genetic impact events” have been etched into the very fabric of our chromosomes. This conclusion is quite the opposite to that expected under the ruling neo-Darwinian genetic paradigm based on Weismann’s Doctrine.
” In at least one species, evolution by acquired traits really does exist, according to researchers at Columbia University.”
http://io9.com/5866001/lamarcks-bizarre-theory-of-evolution-may-turn-out-to-be-right-after-all
“In our study, roundworms that developed resistance to a virus were able to pass along that immunity to their progeny for many consecutive generations. The immunity was transferred in the form of small viral-silencing agents called viRNAs, working independently of the organism’s genome.”
“This isn’t the first time scientists have found latter-day evidence for Lamarckism, but all previous findings have been deeply controversial in part because nobody could figure out a clear biological mechanism to explain them.”
“The classic example is the Dutch famine of World War II. Starving mothers who gave birth during the famine had children who were more susceptible to obesity and other metabolic disorders — and so were their grandchildren.”
“Now, thanks to these roundworms, the researchers have found a biological mechanism for Lamarckian evolution: RNA interference, or RNAi”
“Epigenetics: 100 Reasons To Change The Way We Think About Genetics”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090518111723.htm
“Increasingly, biologists are finding that non-genetic variation acquired during the life of an organism can sometimes be passed on to offspring — a phenomenon known as epigenetic inheritance. A new article lists over 100 well-documented cases of epigenetic inheritance between generations of organisms, and suggests that non-DNA inheritance happens much more often than scientists previously thought.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029461.700-mouse-memory-inheritance-may-revitalise-lamarckism.html#.U6gbbVciRK8
“Yet now, more than 180 years after his death, Lamarck’s hypotheses may finally be gaining some popular support. Cutting-edge studies in biology and genetics seem to be finding controversial new evidence in favor of his ideas. ”
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/180963-lamarcks-revenge-the-epigenetics-revolution-may-redeem-one-of-darwins-oldest-rivals
http://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_scientific_position_on_the_inheritance_of_acquired_characteristics_Lamarckism
“In a recent paper on the changes in evolutionary biology (Noble, 2013) has listed case studies supportive of the inheritance of acquired characteristics in multicellular organisms, including mammals and has written there is no longer any reason for the neo-Darwinism synthesis should ignore these studies”
http://biginscience.com/big-in-science-articles/2013/1/22/lamarcks-last-laugh.html
http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/soft1.pdf
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/411880/a-comeback-for-lamarckian-evolution/
http://www.healio.com/orthopedics/biologics/news/print/orthopedics-today/%7BCE137C67-1E1D-41A9-9892-2734F1B9B4C7%7D/Science-of-Epigenetics-Lamarck-was-right-after-all…
and…….
Kindly kiss my ass Olegt.
This isn’t news, phoodoo. Even in 2009, it was already accepted that epigenetic effects may be transferable through inheritance, and may affect genes and therefore evolution. Lamarck proposed that generational changes were entirely due to experiences of the parents somehow transmitted to offspring, rather than differential reproductive success, and this is obviously still wrong.
The original model as proposed by Darwin did not take into account many peculiar effects of molecular genetics (as the nature and the mechanisms of genes were not known in that time). The Modern Synthesis fixed that. This new knowledge does not contradict the Modern Synthesis, but does mean that we’ll have to take such phenomena into account when we’re doing population genetics. If it is shown that experiences during its life cycle can affect the germ-plasm of an organism, then there is no objection from evolutionary theory to taking that into account. Evolutionary theory is merely a framework for the effects, phenomena and principles that change the molecular, genetic, morphological and behavioural makeup of lifeforms over consecutive generations. If new demonstrable effects are found influencing these things, then they can and must be incorporated into the model, lest the model be incomplete.
Therefore this does not affect the basic validity of common descent and natural selection, nor does it do anything for whatever positive claim you care to make, ‘doo.
Modern synthesis? You think that is your get of jail free card which covers everything you never predicted, and which says nothing? Ha.
Try putting the term modern thesis into a short paragraph using your own words, and explain how that makes up for Lamarckism.
I wonder why so many biologists disagree with you Grathgaltor. if this wasn’t news, why would so many science journals write about it.
You all are nothing but a bunch of apologist for evolution, so no response surprises me.
phoodoo,
What obliges us to accept one or a few studies as compelling evidence that Darwin-Was-Wrong-and-Lamarck-Was-Right? This does not have the significance you think it does.
Darwin was, incidentally, sympathetic to Lamarckism. Much more so than people today, because in Lamarck’s version it goes against fundamental principles of molecular biology, not of evolutionary theory. Some epigenetic changes can be transitorily heritable. Yawn.
Why are the Jew’s still circumcising their children? Given how long they’ve been doing it, if Lamarckism was indeed operating at that level would we not have seen changes by now?
Phoodoo, before you can “dumb something down,” you need to first understand it yourself. All you did here is copy and paste a bunch of quotes. How about summarizing them in a couple of paragraphs? Dazzle us with your brilliance, kid.
phoodoo, you might care to consider the difference between base methylation and base substitution. One is a mutation, one is not. One is readily reversible, one is not. These are key distinctions you’d need to be aware of in discussing epigenetic vs genetic inheritance.
Lets parse out your rebuttal Allan:
1. Why should we believe these studies (Good first dodge Allan. Why should we believe studies which you say support Darwinism?).
2. Darwin believed in Lamarckism so its fine (Darwin didn’t even think of Natural Selection, Wallace did and Darwin plagiarized it, so this statement becomes even more ridiculous).
3. If Lamarckism really is true, it doesn’t effect our theory anyway (haha).
Gee, Allan, if you believe all this, why didn’t you just state that of course Lamarkism is true long ago, we already believe that, so then I wouldn’t have to prove it for you like you all claimed I couldn’t. Or is it not true because the studies are questionable according to you? Or is it but Darwin believed it so it doesn’t matter. Or is it- true or not it makes no difference, I mean….?
You should have just said, “Nothing can change an evolutionists mind” and kept it at that Allan, it would be simpler for you.
You wouldn’t sound so much like a lying politician.
Still couldn’t understand it?
Well, nevermind Olegt, I am sure plenty of others can, even if they try to wiggle out of it.
Can’t summarize what you’ve read, phoodoo? Here are a few of questions to help you.
1. What was Lamarck’s theory?
2. What does epigenetics mean?
3. If Lamarck was right, why are Jewish boys still born with foreskin intact?
And, indeed, what’s your prediction phoodoo for how long until they are born without foreskins?
Let me summarize for you Olegt:
“True, not true, studies are valid, studies are invalid, we can explain it, we can’t explain it..no matter what, it can’t change our theory…evolutionists minds are made up, it doesn’t matter. ”
Allan Miller… 6/23/2014
You need a hint what a summary is, phoodoo?
You need a hint what an ass is?
I think you should probably be over at the thread called “Admitting mistakes.”
Trolling troll is trolling.
So how about them Jewish boys, phoodoo? Why isn’t Lamarkism working for them?
If I made such a claim I withdraw it unreservedly. My mistake. I thought I said “genetic explanation” carried not much more information than “explanation”.
Guys, let’s lighten up on phoodoo. He’s in the minority here. Focus on the content like the Kennedys picked out the best bits of Krushchev’s telegram! 😉
The work on viRNA’s in C. elegans is cool. Thanks for the tip, Phoodoo, although you should probably cite the original literature rather than some journalist’s precis, which are often wrong.
Interestingly, the viRNA is derived from the viral RNA, so the nematode is taking a piece of the viral genome, and preserving it (via RNA replication) through multiple generations in order to protect against future attacks.
Definitely a poke in the eye for Mendel.
Darwin, not so much.
ET fix link
Alan Fox,
I wouldn’t roll over so easy, Alan. keit’s use of “mainly” makes the concept as he has defined it above basically useless. E.g., is there a genetic explanation for his obno behavior on this site? (I personally favor environmental causes rather than putting it on his progenitors, but I leave the answer to him.) The point is, there’s no way to determine whether ant altruism is “mainly” a result of post genetic chemical processes, or is “mainly” a result of genetics. The question makes no sense whatever. That’s the result of using keitian definitions. It just makes phoodooian arguments more plausible.
Not so much that, more how it demonstrates that “beneficial” depends on the niche environment. The benefit in resistance to malaria outweighs the debilitating effect for homozygous individuals if the chance of catching malaria is high enough.
I would really like to settle things with Keith, assuming that’s possible. I’m happy with what I wrote. Let’s see if Keith is because I’d like to broaden the issue. If I have time, I might put up an OP.
DNA_Jock,
Is that the right link, DNA_Jock? Here’s the link to the Hobert lab.
Alan Fox,
Wasn’t right.
Now fixed, I believe..
Right, and the same can be said for Down’s syndrome, CF, achondroplasia, Marfan syndrome, Wilson disease, Prader–Willi syndrome, Muscular Dystrophy….
But I am not so sure I would want to be relying on these as explanatory gems for Darwinain evolution.
Just to be clear, phoodoo. Are you offering Lamarckism as a fully-functioning theory to rival the current group of evolutionary theories? You think Lamarckism explains what we observe more accurately?
phoodoo,
Your answer was short on substance. What persuades you that these studies are troublesome for the theory of evolution?
Well, I could speculate about a hypothetical niche that might be more suitable for people with achondroplasia than for those without.
For CF, yes, but the same CANNOT be said for Down’s*, achondroplasia*, Marfan*, Wilson, PWS* or DMD.
* if you answer my question re the S-allele, or CFTR-Phe508del then you will understand why offering any of these examples is yet another display of your ignorance.
I know I would never…
🙂
What is the theory of evolution? This days there is no such thing. It means whatever one wants it to mean on any given day.
““True, not true, studies are valid, studies are invalid, we can explain it, we can’t explain it..no matter what, it can’t change our theory…evolutionists minds are made up, it doesn’t matter. Whatever the explanation is, nature can explain it”
I think becoming the fittest to survive explains the origin of life much more accurately than survival of the fittest.
Lamarck proposed that generational changes were entirely due to experiences of the parents somehow transmitted to offspring, rather than differential reproductive success.
Why do you say that, gralgrathor? I don’t think that’s the impression I got from Butler.
Darwin was, incidentally, sympathetic to Lamarckism. Much more so than people today, because in Lamarck’s version it goes against fundamental principles of molecular biology, not of evolutionary theory.
IMO, the real reason that people today don’t realize that there were Lamarckian elements in Darwin is that he and his posse (especially Huxley) revised his works to take them out, and refused to admit this when they were called on it. As I’ve mentioned before–while Butler may have ultimately been wrong, the Darwin gang treated him terribly. I don’t like that kind of crap. It’s akin to what political parties do–as well as various people here.
I tend to consequentialism, and obviously a lot may hinge one whether Dick Cheney types convince people with their style of “argumentation,” but I think there are long-term benefits to the world in resisting the desire win “arguments” at all costs.
Life’s relatedness across all living species is hard to deny at the cellular level. Are you convinced by common descent at least?
walto,
The question is whether altruistic ant behavior requires a genetic explanation. Biologists agree that it does.
If you and Alan think the biologists are wrong, it is up to you to provide an argument. Here is a template:
Good luck, walto.
Alan,
You denied that soldier ant behavior requires a genetic explanation. Everyone, including you, knows that you were wrong, and that soldier ant behavior does require a genetic explanation.
The mistake itself wasn’t a big deal. You got confused by the fact that the soldiers are sterile, and your confusion led you to an incorrect conclusion.
What’s pitiful is not the mistake itself, but your increasingly desperate attempts to avoid acknowledging it.
If you aren’t secure enough to admit your errors, then by all means drop it. Let’s move on.
What’s an “explanation” keit? Does it require that if the explanans is true the explanandum must be true?
Oh, and good luck to you too!
What’s really really pitiful, is keit’s behavior on this site. But does it “require a genetic explanation”? Curious denizens here want to know what he thinks about this!
Alan Fox,
I have no problem with common descent.
That still leaves a giant canyon of explanations to fill.
keiths,
It requires a genetic explanation for Darwinian evolution to be true. And you have no genetic explanation for it.
Excellent.
I don’t doubt it. But eliminating the areas where there is no disagreement must save a lot of time.
keiths,
I’m not really feeling the love here, Keith.
Regarding heritability? The fact that DNA seems to be central to the observation? Is the Lamarckism an adjunct, rather like Behe’s idea that evolution needs a little help now and again?
phoodoo,
Another total non-response. You posted a bunch of stuff on epigenetics, a subject you don’t seem to know much about (what’s the answer to that distinction between methylation and mutation, again?), and have done nothing but flail ever since. It’s entertaining, though not enlightening. If you think there is a problem for the-thing-you-are-attacking, YOU define that thing as YOU see fit, and YOU say what the problem is. I know a little of genetics, molecular biology and evolutionary theory, so no need to dumb it down. You have the floor, big fella.