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?
phoodoo,
So what’s difficult about gene expression control, and how does Design Theory get us around that difficulty?
phoodoo,
Sorry, phoodoo, (3) and (4) actually ARE a false dichotomy. They’re almost a paradigm case of one (may even be found in some textbook as a perfect example).
Secondly, switching from Aquinas, who was at least a decent philosopher to Paley, who wasn’t, is really not going to help much. It just begs the question to insist that because clocks have designers so must bacteria. Why add additional fallacies to the mess you’ve already made?
Finally, I’ve made no claims about ‘worlds I don’t exist in.’ Adding (additional) fantasies to your mess of fallacies isn’t likely to help your case either. What you have is a very bad argument. That this can be easily seen from any arm chair is your fault, not mine. Add some science and maybe it will take more than the likes of me to show that you’re wrong, but at this point, even I’m more than sufficient.
“Populations of Escherichia coli grown in the lab quickly evolve tolerance when exposed to repeated treatments with the antibiotic ampicillin, according to a study published today (June 25) in Nature. Specifically, the bacteria evolved to stay in a dormant “lag” phase for just longer than three-, five-, or eight-hour-long treatment courses, before waking up and growing overnight until the next round of treatment began.
“I was very surprised that the bacteria are able to modify their lag time just as much as they need to,” said microbiologist Tom Coenye of the Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Microbiology (LPM) at Gent University in Belgium, who was not involved in the research.”
Virtually every new discovery is a surprise to scientists. But nevermind, Allan can just say yawn, why is it a problem for evolution, we have known this all along, nothing can change our minds…..
Walto,
Do you know what dichotomy means? it means that there are two separate, not overlapping ideas.
So you are claiming that
3. Organization came from something not organized; or
4. Organization came from a designer.
actually mean the exact same thing?
No Walto, they are two different meanings (What makes you assume a designer is not organized? That’s why its not a FALSE Dichotomy!, get it) , thus you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. That’s logic!
Well? Why is this particular finding a problem, ‘doo?
O for heaven’s sakes.
No, phoodoo, saying that two propositions make a false dichotomy is not the same as saying they mean the same thing. Look it up. Better, take an intro to logic class and get back to me. It’s pretty basic stuff.
Really amazing that you come here and preach to people while you have no idea at all what the hell you are talking about.
Edit: you have taught me a lesson here, though. I’ve made fun of some of the posters here for arguing science with you as if it made any sense to do that. I mean, you have neither any obvious capacity for nor any real interest in that sort of thing. But you’ve shown me here that you don’t know any more about basic critical thinking than you do about bio. So, obviously, it’s just as stupid of me to try to discuss those matters with you.
It’s clearly better for me to just go back to pointing out the psychology of the participants. (Which, again, is why the rule about “addressing the poster” should be dropped: often–particularly on sites of this nature–it’s really the only methodology that makes any sense at all.)
What it actually means is that there are two mutually exclusive ideas presented as being mutually exhaustive as well. Only in this case, they’re not actually mutually exhaustive, hence the “false” in “false dichotomy”.
You really have no choice but to go back to the very basics with this one, ey?
If it was not, we’d hardly need to do research would we?
I know that it is the case that all that could be known in your world was already known before you were born and passed onto you, but not everybody is so limited.
I don’t think there’s actually any point, Gral. It’s a waste of life. He’s on a religious mission. No sense arguing with such people. You just shake your head, roll your eyes and hope that maybe, (please maybe), the next generation will be more interested in learning and less fearful about dying.
Gralgrathor,
No kidding joker, for there to be a dichotomy means they are two separate ideas, which they are! For them to be a false dichotomy would mean that they in fact are the same ideas, and don’t need to be separated as two different ideas.
And since they are not in fact the SAME idea, and are actually TWO very different ideas, the dichotomy is in no way FALSE- you great big moron.
Please make a note, I don’t respond much to morons (Walto and Gralgrathor you are on notice).
?No kidding joker, for there to be a dichotomy means they are two separate ideas, which they are! For them to be a false dichotomy would mean that they in fact are the same ideas, and don’t need to be separated as two different ideas.
Sorry but that is completely wrong, stem to stern. As you won’t even bother to look this up, never mind take an intro course (or even think about it for two minutes), I provide the following definition–which you could find yourself in ANY DICTIONARY.
false dichotomy
A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. …
False dilemma – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Wikipedia
What this means, meatball, is that one need not claim that two propositions mean the same thing for one to claim they make a false dichotomy. And if you can’t understand that, I’ll just have to go back to making remarks about Hay Zeus.
Heh.
walto,
Right, you gave the definition for a false DILEMMA when you were talking about false DICHOTOMY. Since it was you who presented the two options as if they were the only ones, and I neither confirmed or denied the existence of either possibilities, it is not me making a false DILEMMA! You made your own false dilemma and then accused me of it. The fact remains that there is indeed a dichotomy between the two ideas you presented. If they were in fact the same idea, that would definitely be a false dichotomy!
That is about par for you Walto. You are now more officially on notice.
No no no no no. A false dilemma IS a false dichotomy. You can call the fallacy you are committing by either name. No one will care. It’s wrong either way.
And as indicated, that’s only one of the handful of fallacies you need in order to make the assertions you proudly pontificate here. But who cares–go on Don Quixote! Go on!!
{Note to self: So pointless…..}
BTW, I consider it a badge of honor to be “on notice” by you, phoodoo. I mean, I feel a little sorry for you because you’re so scared of life and death and are ruled by that fear, but it doesn’t make up for the fact that you’re a complete dope and have no idea at all what you’re talking about.
So it’s a good list to be on. I’m guessing there are a lot of smart people on there. OTOH, I’m guessing your list of people who are not on notice is largely composed of other dopes. Why would I want to stay there?
Pointless perhaps, but entertaining nonetheless. 🙂
That’s a false dichotomy!
Yawn.
Wrong. A dichotomy is when these mutually exclusive ideas are also mutually exhaustive.
Thanks, Gral, but it really is pointless–like yelling into one’s shoe.
Gralgrathor,
No (person who doesn’t deserve an answer, sometimes referred to as a moron) :
1.division into two parts, kinds, etc.; subdivision into halves or pairs.
2.division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups: a dichotomy between thought and action.
Just because one can find other uses for a word, doesn’t mean it is the only way a word can be used. The division of those two concepts fits either of these definitions.
Let me give you an example of a false dichotomy:
“Shut the fuck up, and listen. Two options here, ‘doo. Either answer the question about leg-genes I asked earlier to your best ability, or honestly answer the question above. Anything else, and you’re out of the game.”
Gralgrathor on June 21, 2014 at 8:25 pm
Does that help your understanding?
Ah, looking for an easy way out huh?
phoodoo,
We’ll try again, then.
A dichotomy is when two mutually exclusive options are also mutually exhaustive.
A false dichotomy is when two options are presented as mutually exhaustive, but are actually not.
Gralgrathor,
You mean Walto was saying either something is organized by something not organized or else organized by a designer, and neither of these could be true? Well, if you insist.
Perhaps you should take up his logical problem with him then, since it was his assertion.
I’m not going to be coy about the intended meaning or implications of the very words I use. Usually, in similar contexts, the word “design” means “act of God,” “miracle,” “supernatural creation,” or some such. No?
phoodoo,
No. It means that the following two options:
1. Something organized can emerge from something not organized.
2. Something organized comes only from a designer.
are not mutually exhaustive. If they are presented as being mutually exhaustive, then they represent a false dichotomy.
@ phoodoo
There is also the Holmesian Fallacy” where you jump to an allegedly single remaining conclusion after rejecting other possibilities when there may be possibilities that are unknown to you.. This is classically illustrated with Dembski’s “Explanatory Filter”.
H/T Rich Hughes for link
Alan Fox,
Fine, except that is was Walto who presented these as the only two options to begin with…what a joke. If he felt there were other options, why didn’t he just say what they were. Oh brother.
It is true that words can have a range of meaning. However, “false dichotomy” is a technical term and is unambiguous in that technical use.
No, that’s not an example of a false dichotomy. It is an example of a threat (though probably an empty threat).
Neil Rickert,
A false threat.
Neil Rickert,
You have a problem with meanings too it appears. Gralgrathor was suggesting there were two options, when clearly there were others! THAT’s the false dichotomy.
Who knows what Walto was referring to, was he saying there were more options, or that the two options he listed were in fact the same. Who the heck knows, but either way it was his dilemma that he created, that he then claimed was bogus.
One has to wonder why he created a bogus claim, but that is not my problem.
Actually, no. I was giving you two options. At the same time, I implied that there were more than two options, but that choosing from anything but the two I gave you would have consequences.
Language is not really your thing, is it?
And what, Allan Miller, do you mean by “actual Creationists”?
And, I can’t imagine why anyone actually reading Darwin (Origin, e.g.) would conclude that he is not an “actual Creationist.” Or an “actual” teleologist. I know you are quite familiar with Darwin’s writings, so please explain.
What I find “ironic” is how creationists’ theories about biological evolution have (Somehow!) been transformed into “anti-creationist” theories of evolution.
Ya’ll aren’t closet creationists are you? Come on out! Come out of the closet. Summon the courage to declare yourself!
I will… LOL (No I won’t.)
Rock,
Could you cite some passages from which you conclude that Darwin was a creationist? I know only of the “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one” passage.
Why would they need those then? They already knew, hint, clue is in the name.
Or do you mean the need to explain the Ark story?
Who did you imply it to, yourself? Were you hearing voices?
Thinking something is not the same as implying it, you do realize right?
Rock,
One thing is for sure, Darwin certainly had many more doubts about the power of natural selection than today’s more gullible evolutionists.
phoodoo,
What else can you make of “anything else, and”, phoodoo? Like I said, language isn’t really your thing, is it?
This is incoherent. Do you feel like clarifying yourself, or would you prefer we drop the subject?
Gralgrathor,
No No Gralgrathor, according to you, there were only TWO options which allowed me to still be in the game. There were NO other options which allowed me to still be in the game. Since I am still “in the game” and I didn’t accept either of your options, clearly you were wrong.
That is a classic false dichotomy, Shakespeare.
Nota Bene – phoodoo – that’s a dichotomy. Whether it’s a FAlSE dichotomy depends on whether there are more than those two options I listed. Maybe you can think of a third, fourth, etc … maybe Rock can …
Bingo, ‘doo. Moreover, ‘doo, I never said that you could not elect to abandon the game.
Drop the subject, hotshoe. I’m not going to “clarify” my “incoherence.”
No one knows what you’re talking about any more. Do you even know?
I do assume you actually wish to communicate. Is that true?
If so, you might want to be more careful with your replies. Try including a quoted bit of whatever you’re replying to, so that we can see if you’re following the actual conversation, as opposed to just answering the voices you hear in your head. (Which I a)ways assume is a possibility for anyone I try to converse with, so I’m not picking on you just because you’re you.)
Edit – I see that my opening claim “No one knows” is incorrect, since Gralgrathor thinks they know well enough to answer.
I’m leaving this here because it’s useful for me to be shown to be wrong. Sometimes.
The rest remains correct, though — I do give good advice, phoodoo.
Gralgrathor,
And yet I selected neither of your options and I am still in the game. Isn’t that odd.
It would appear you never really were in the game however. Now why don’t you stop boring people with your drivel? Surely you can allow time for Hotshoe to do that role now, can’t you?
I’ve started a new game, ‘doo, just for you.
Sorry, hotshoe, I should not respond in kind.
What exactly did I write that required clarification? What can I do to eliminate the “incoherence” of the questions I asked?
How do you think you are doing in the game?
I don’t think Darwin had anymore doubts about natural selection then he did doubts about the existence of a Creator God.
This is plain from Darwin’s conclusion to Origin.