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?
Rock,
Kinda ironic then that actual Creationists have such a hard time with it.
Allan Miller,
Its not ironic, if the definition of a creationist is anyone who doesn’t believe in Darwinian evolution.
That would be the opposite of ironic Allan.
I don’t believe in it. I accept it as the best supported of all the proposed explanations.
If you could support an alternative, I’d “believe” that instead!
OMagain,
An explanation can be stupid in its own right, without needing another explanation to replace it. Believing that accidental dust swirls, poorly doubling themselves, created all the life systems we see is preposterous all by itself-it needs no alternative to make it even more dumb.
Right, I’m guessing it was more likely Hay Zeus.
phoodoo,
You weren’t following along were you? Rock claimed that Darwin and Lamarck were Creationists. Of course you can define it such that his ‘irony’ doesn’t apply, in which case my follow-on irony doesn’t either (although ‘non-believer in Darwinian evolution’ is a pretty poor definition of ‘Creationist’).
I was being ironic about his sense of irony.
And the opposite of ironic is, indeed, not ironic, as you rightly say. Every day an education.
phoodoo,
And that’s what people think is it? Righto.
Not me, Allan, I’m going with Hay Zeus–who did it just this way on a whim. Planaria almost stumped Him for a couple hours, but after that it was pretty smooth sailing.
Agreed. It’s stupid.
Now what?
Allan Miller,
Its not only what people think it is, it is what it absolutely must be, if one is to insist on an unguided, completely natural explanation to life. There really is no other option. Your atheism demands it, even whilst you try to disguise it, because of the absurdity of the premise.
phoodoo,
Bollocks. Accidental dust swirls poorly doubling themselves? You can’t even construct a half decent straw man.
Agreed, it’s stupid.
We’re in alignment.
Now what? Let’s not waste any more time talking about what we all agree is not only stupid but absurd.
So, let’s build a better explanation? Where do you suggest we start?
OMagain,
Where do you want to start, since you now are running from the very theory you endorse?
Allan Miller,
Then what causes life if not accidental swirls of dust?
I personally prefer a guided, completely supernatural and nonsensical explanation myself. It makes me feel better. Plus I was told all about it when I was seven. Nobody told me about evolution when I was seven, so I don’t see how it could be nearly as good.
phoodoo,
Have you seen any organisms made of dust? Apart from Adam, I suppose, who kind of had life ‘breathed ‘ into him by some magic problem-solving entity.
If you want to start a thread on the origin of life (where, in discussions with Creationists, we invariably end up), be my guest. This one’s about counterintuitive evolutionary truths.
That evolution claims life is only about accidental swirls of cosmic dust is not a counter-intuitive truth? Is it an intuitive truth. We must get to the bottom of your alternative theory, because this is what your side believes. Haven’t you ever read Dawkins?
You know what’s an intuitive truth? “To them that hath shall be given and they shall have abundance.” Also Ganesha’s elephant head: that’s always made a lot of intuitive sense to me.
OTOH, you know what DOESN’T make any intuitive sense to me? The offer here by (I think) DNA Jock to study an evolution text with phoodoo. Why in the world would he be interested in any book which has any goal which is not to disprove evolution? I mean, the intuitions are obviously on the side of the world being on the back of tortoises–so why should anybody read a (non-intuitive) book suggesting that there weren’t always tortoises?
Anyhow, that offer seemed really dumb to me.
Indeed. At this point I am a blank slate, a tabula rasa if you will.
I am empty. Fill me up with your wisdom! Where to start? I don’t know!
What’s the point? It’s just a waste of time, you obviously know about something that makes this “theory” a waste of time.
Please enlighten me! Let’s not waste another second discussing Darwinism, it’s DEAD!
I know you didn’t ask me OMagain, but my two cents are that it’s too soon for you to be asking for this kind of arcane knowledge. First you have to:
1. Repent your sins.
2. Douse yourself with something aromatic
3. Spend significant time somewhere with uncomfortable seats and pretty windows
4. Repeat magic words many times until they seem to make sense
5. Hate science and be sufficiently derisive of those who practice it
6. Undergo both feast and fast days (as appropriate).
When you’ve done all that report back. There may be more preparatory projects. We can let you know at that time.
ETA: Oh, also, get a nice Hay Zeus to carry around with you. The cheap ones are scratchy, so it might make sense to pick up a better one.
phoodoo,
I have read Dawkins, and many more besides. Had you actually done so, you might be in a better position to argue. And in particular, you might stop committing this tiresome error that Creationists, to a man and woman, commit: that evolution boils down to a question of Origin.
It is a logical possibility that the first cell on earth came off a space alien’s boot, or was an intelligent entity’s science project, or is to Creation as a fungal spore is to a slice of bread, or just popped up uncaused. All thoroughly irrelevant on a thread about evolution. Evolution is about what happens when you have replication. That’s it. How you get to replication is another subject entirely.
Start an OoL thread, if you want to get into abiogenesis. God grant the world a Creationist that can stay on one subject for more than 20 seconds!
I have read all his popular books on biology (not his religious critique – The God Delusion as that is not of interest to me) and his seminal work The Extended Phenotype and I’m pretty sure the subject of cosmic dust does not get a passing mention.
Oops I see Allan Miller has covered this.
Really phoodoo, if you want to author an OP on “OOL”, I can grant you that superpower. I have often wondered why Behe wasted all that time talking about the irreducible complexity of bacterial flagella only to be debunked by the masterly Nick Matzke when he could have picked an easy target with life’s origin. Nobody has a handle on this yet.
FWIW, I understand that Carol Cleland, who was a year behind me in grad school, has written quite a bit about the definition of “life” and it’s origin:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life%27s_working_definition.html
walto,
Following you link, I quote
So true! 😉
Alan Fox,
Nonetheless, I will stick my neck out and say the the single, definitive, sine qua non definition of Life is ‘that which replicates’. Do so with an exponent greater than 1, and you will fill the world with your progeny.
Allan Miller,
What the hell, now you want to jump all the way to the first cell! And you are claiming its me who needs to read more. How far does one have to go from the first replicator to the first cell? Hell, why not just disregard everything until you get to the first tetrapod, and then go from there, if you want to just ignore all of the complexity before that? You don’t think the very first replicator was a cell do you? Maybe the very first replicator was a Tyrannosaurus Rex? Maybe an Alien sent that?
I get it that you have read Dawkins, I assume just to get that badge for your evo collection, but did you understand it? I am not just talking about the original origin of life, I am talking about the original origin of copying. You don’t start with life, and then begin copying it. I realize that it bores you to consider such details, but perhaps that point is a little important. I see why you quit your PHD studies, who can be be bothered with such minutia as considered how the hell it all happens-or even how complex one cell is. We got animals running around all over the place with lungs, now let’s just go from there to save time!!
Now epigentics isn’t a problem at all for evolution, because it already exists, who needs to worry about how the hell it got here. Your simplistic nature is kind of cute in its childlike dismissal of all details which are troublesome.
Alan Fox,
Nick Matzke debunked irreducible complexity? Should I just dismiss this outlandish statement as World Cup commiserating drunkenness, and wait for you to sober up before continuing?
People can sure be hilarious when they are drunk though, debunked irreducible complexity!, Ha good one Alan, a toast!! At least you didn’t go too outrageous and say he debunked the fine tuning of the universe or consciousness, you kept it just at the extremes of the absurd for maximum effect -oh the power of grog!
walto,
There is a little clue for the two Alans (Allans) in your link to Cleland, the interviewer asks her: Q: What is your favored theory for how life could have arisen on Earth -clay crystals, RNA world, membranes, or some other option?
Clay crystals, hm what a curious thing. I wonder why the interviewer asked her about clay crystals? Where did he get some idea about clay crystals being the first starting of life?
Wait wait, I think I got it!!! Maybe the interviewer was reading Dawkins and actually understood Dawkins (as opposed to the Alans just reading Dawkins!) Because that is exactly what Dawkins says if you could be bothered to understand the importance of meaning! Clay crystals! Just like Dawkins talks about in his books, what a fucking coincidence.
Replicating bits of swirling cosmic dust. Read it (and understand it, don’t just stare at the words because thinking is too tiring) and weep suckers.
I think I’ve got it!
Life from swirling dust: Stupid
Life from nothing whatever: Brilliant
No wait, that’s not fair; it’s not nothing whatever, it’s nothing whatever plus Hay Zeus. How could anyone suggest that that doesn’t trump all that the sciences can provide? What a bunch of idiots these half-readers of Dawkins are!
@ phoodoo
Do you have a specific passage from Dawkins? Perhaps you’d like to give the reference.
phoodoo,
Money quote from phoodoo: “This is what your side believes – haven’t you read Dawkins?”
Tee hee – it’s your side that has Holy Writ and prophets, sunshine.
It was you who leapt to origins, with your ‘swirling clouds of dust’, and further with your reference to Dawkins’s depiction of Cairns-Smith’s hypothesis. Since I don’t subscribe to that theory, and Dawkins is not my guru, I am not obliged to defend ‘dust hypotheses’.
There is nothing else in your unfocussed rants worth responding to. Stop baiting me and try having an adult discussion.
Alan Fox,
He’ll be talking of Chapter 6 in the Blind Watchmaker.
Heh, yes, indeed! I suppose you should be commended really. You are doing a great job distracting from the fact that you have nothing by being on the attack constantly.
All ideas are stupid. Then we refine them, and they become less stupid or are replaced by other less stupid ideas. You don’t seem to want to take part in that endeavour. Perhaps you are just not capable. That’s nothing to be ashamed of! Some of us are born to be foot soldiers, not generals!
Allan, You are now accusing me of not having an adult discussion, when you suggested that no evolutionists believe that life is all about swirling clouds of dust sticking together, and now when I have shown you that is EXACTLY what many leading voices in evolution claim, including Dawkins, you immediately jump back to the Allan defense:
1. Nobody says that.
2. What evidence do you have to prove it.
3. Why should we believe you.
4. What does it matter if that is what someone believes
5. I have known all along that is what people believe, it makes no difference to our theory, yawn.
So now that you think Dawkins ideas are stupid, perhaps you can elucidate your own, what is the driving force behind life. Its either swirling clouds of dust accidentally sticking together (now that you admit without admitting that is exactly what prominent evolutionists believe) , or it is organized structure, why can’t you choose one?
Not cosmic dust, then, but clay crystals as an inorganic substrate. Why not try an OP on OOL, phoodoo?
I think OOL theories will continue to be speculative unless evidence turns up indicating living organisms existing or having existed elsewhere than on Earth.
And this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
Phoodoo–I get this “argument” of yours. There are, I take it, only two possibilities with respect to the origin of life. Either
1. Life came from something not organized; or
2. Life came from something which already was organized.
Then you move on as follows:
(1) is impossible.
Therefore, (2) must be true. But (2) also has only the two associated possibilities
3. Organization came from something not organized; or
4. Organization came from a designer.
And again you assert that (3) is impossible (for the same reasons–whatever they may be) that you insisted (1) was impossible.
So you conclude that (4) must be true.
Now I will tell you what is wrong with this argument. First, you provide no reasons for the claim that (1) is impossible. You either simply assert it or claim that to deny it is the burden of those who believe that (1) is possible. That’s wrong. It is simply an open question, and remarks about whether or not Dawkins believes that in the beginning there was (unorganized) swirling dust is not actually relevant to the truth of the claim of (1)’s impossibility, one way or the other. It’s a red herring.
Moving on, (3) and (4) are a false dichotomy. It is your burden to show that if (3) were actually impossible (and again, you have no support whatever for that claim) that a designer would be required. This is the case because there is no better footing for the claim that there must have always been a designer than the claim that the universe has always been organized. So (3) and (4) suffer from TWO problems that you absolutely cannot fix, rather than just the one involved with getting to (3) and (4) from (1) and (2).
I point out also here, for anybody who cares, there is nothing in such bad arguments as yours that cannot be found in Aquinas, who also spent a bunch of times on “arguments” regarding how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. That is your source here–your leading light. Dawkins may not always be right, but he knows a bit of the science, at least. Aquinas (through no fault of his own), knew none. Absolutely none.
That’s where things stand with this origin of life argument of yours.
Alan Fox,
No Alan, you are not understanding the issue. Its not just about what the OOL is, its much deeper than that. Its a fundamental belief about what one thinks the meaning of existence is.
Some people believe that simple random events of clay particles sticking together and then replicating is enough to explain all of the existence of life. They think anything that can replicate (it doesn’t even matter what it is) , through enough repetitions can produce meaningful, highly organized things. That is the whole point of my debate, not simply asking what the first one was.
Allan seems to feel that one can easily dismiss things like how an epigenetic system could ever come to be, by simply saying, well, its here now, who cares how it got there. Its the same Darwinian problem of accidents causing order, only it is now multiplied even more, because now that explanation must not just account for DNA and genes, now it also has to cover the formation of a system which tells those genes what to do and when. The more layers of complexity required to make an organism exist, the harder it is to justify a series of fortunate accidents.
Its not a good argument to keep just saying whatever new information we find, lets forget about how hard it would be for that to arise, lets just start with what we have now, and not be distracted by wondering how in the world that could be. He is perfectly happy to start with a fully formed tetrapod, and just say, well, clearly we know tetrapods are evolving, so what’s the problem. Can’t you see that tetrapods exist, how is that a problem for evolution. He wants to also do the same thing with Lamarckism, he wants to say, well, so what if some traits evolve through a Lamarckian type of process, without having to consider how it could be that swirls of dust could eventually make organisms that evolve through Lamarckian acquired traits. To him those are just unimportant details because he wants to skip the steps of how it got there.
That’s just denial.
phoodoo,
You appear to have a fundamental difficulty in distinguishing ‘some’ and ‘all’, and the finer points of the Cairns-Smith hypothesis. You certainly didn’t start with a ‘some’ or a ‘few’. As your scroll wheel is evidently broken, here is the relevant exchange:
phoodoo:
Allan:
phoodoo:
You’ve got the Cairns-Smith theory wrong. Swirling clouds of dust my grandma’s arse. You are now back-pedalling furiously. “I only meant Dawkins. You said NOBODY did and I showed ya!”. But Dawkins does not talk of swirling dust. I happen to disagree with the hypothesis he does present, but it’s not a big deal to me that St Richard of Dawkins says it. He’s a good writer, but I don’t have to agree with everything he says. You seem, once again, hung up on authority. Is it a religious thing?
OK, I’ll give you it, if I allow ‘swirling clouds of dust’ to be an accurate representation of clay mineral surface effects in an aqueous environment, there is at least one evolutionist who thinks that plausible. Give yourself a round of applause.
Anyway, start an OoL thread.
phoodoo,
Wrong. I simply don’t see the evolution of gene control to be a difficult problem in its fundamentals. Transcription is initiated at a particular site. It can be blocked from accessing that site by numerous mechanisms – binding proteins or RNAs, methylation, histone modification. This allows control of gene expression. None of these is biochemically challenging.
As far as developmental switching is concerned, differential expression of the same gene in different cells is easily mediated. What’s evolution failing to give you here? The actual differential-expression control mechanism for the first organism that had more than one cell? Obviously not available.
So this is where you tell us how Design advances theory, with the incredible level of detail to which its explanations go.
No, it isn’t. This is about organic chemistry and biology, not The Meaning of Life.
No, they don’t. Well, some may, but not the people researching OOL models.
No, he doesn’t. He accepts that it is a valid question – one that can be answered – but that the existence of the phenomenon can be used as a given in further models.
There’s no such claim in Darwinism.
MES already did, in general terms. Just not in specific biochemical detail.
walto,
No Walto, I am not buying your armchair philosophy course. First, 3 and 4 are not false dichotomies, there is no justification for saying that.
Secondly, your whole round about way of saying, if design requires a designer, who designed the God argument I find very silly. We simply know that in THIS world, designed things need to be designed by something-that doesn’t mean those are the parameters of other worlds.
We know nothing about a world we don’t exist in, and its not necessary to know about that world, to make observations about the one we do exist in. What’s not possible in this world, could very well be possible in some other world.
Allan Miller,
Of course you don’t Allan, incredulity is not a problem you are likely to suffer from. The formation of the first cell is a piece of cake to you.
By the way you tell it, its a wonder there aren’t new cells pooffing up all the time.
It’s even easier for you!
It was designed!
You can go home now, with the satisfaction of a hard days work well done.
Yes, they are. It’s only your claim that organization necessitates a Designer. Without actual proof for this assertion, it cannot be used as a premise.
Is all of biology designed, or just some of it?
Which parts are which, have you made a start on that yet?
phoodoo,
Wrong again. I wasn’t talking of the first cell, but of the earliest multicellular organisms.