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?
olegt,
And 4 deaths can equal 10000 generations, or 6 billion deaths can equal one generation, as long as you get to make up any definition you want and then proclaim it to be truth.
But four still doesn’t equal one, and studying physics doesn’t entitle you to say you are a scientist, so you understand evolution.
Just because Joe tells you something is true, that doesn’t make it so.
How does your brain work, ‘doo?
Queen monogamy is an important point that Coyne emphasizes, too.
An analogy that hasn’t lost relevance, despite D. S. Wilson’s efforts to revive “group selection”.
Unless you follow the gene!
Exactly! Germ-line vs soma.
Not in the M&M model we have discussed. There a generation can be defined quite unequivocally. At the beginning of that thread I listed three recipes for counting generations. All quite sensible and understandable, each from a slightly different standpoint. Crucially, all three yield the same answers if you consider a large bag of M&Ms.
What was your response to that thread? You couldn’t figure out how to define what a generation is.
Leaping back into the semantic fray. Labels are useful for organising bits of reality. It is most useful when labels refer to coherent categories.
Biology is a general term for the study of living organisms. Are viruses living organisms? Is it important for our labelling system? No. Biologists study viruses to better understand them, not to settle the issue of whether viruses are living organisms.
Similarly, genetics is a label, for aspects of biology that look at heredity. The Modern evolutionary synthesis was a result of trying to overcome the compartmentalisation of ideas and over-specialisation.
Alan,
How much longer before science finds the friendly gene do you reckon? And the gene for a preference for Romano cheese over Parmesan?
Are we close to those break-throughs do you think?
Parmesan is all very well for grating over pasta (for God’s sake don’t buy ready-grated) but the delights of Roquefort, Reblochon and Morbier demand a genetic explanation. 🙂 [ETA: Pecorino Romano vs Parmigiano Reggiano is a whole other question]
There a basic misconception here, very close to the homunculus concept. There is not a gene for this or that. How, say, a human being ends up from a single fertilized egg is not a question of individual genes for fingers, toes, etc being unpacked. Evo-devo has started to show the amazing and subtle complexities such as the Homeobox gene set for instance.
Alan Fox,
“The modern evolutionary synthesis! Is there a more vague concept in all of science? What does it mean, no one knows, not even wikipedia! :
“All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.”
(by virtue of simply saying so)
“Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods.”
(unless its not gradual, which is often the case, that’s fine too!)
“The synthesis as it exists now has extended the scope of the Darwinian idea of natural selection to include subsequent scientific discoveries and concepts unknown to Darwin, such as DNA and genetics, which allow rigorous, in many cases mathematical, analyses of phenomena such as kin selection, altruism, and speciation. ”
(translate: whatever new discoveries are made, they are consistent with the “modern thesis” by definition!)
“The traditional view is that developmental biology (‘evo-devo’) played little part in the synthesis,[7] but an account of Gavin de Beer’s work by Stephen J. Gould suggests he may be an exception.”
(evo-devo plays little role in evolution {because that really fucks up our theory} , or NOT, whatever!)
“In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.”
(translation: This paragraph has no meaning)
“As these recent discoveries suggest, the synthesis continues to undergo regular review, drawing on insights offered by both new biotechnologies and new paleontological discoveries.”
(translation: we reserve the right to change our minds without being called wrong).
In other words, it means whatever the heck we need it to mean at any particular time, without meaning anything. Perfect, let’s trademark this and use it in lieu of saying anything! It can be a great way of using subterfuge for a debate!!!
Exactly Alan, there is not really a gene for anything! But that is completely inconvenient for your theory, because how in the world does your theory work when genes are tied to a giant complexity of outcomes. And how can you propose a gradual mutative explanation for the construction of a homeobox gene set that couldn’t possibly arise through random simple mutations? You can’t.
So what the heck can you do. Just through out a vague term like the modern synthesis which basically just says, “a bunch of things are happening, most of which we can’t understand, but whatever it is, its natural, ok?”
And when the “modern synthesis tries to say “evo-devo” plays little role in the synthesis, its an attempt to get out from underneath this problem without saying how.
phoodoo,
Evolutionary theory is complelely untroubled by the lack of a 1:1 mapping between genetic sequence and selectable trait. This is not something you have just discovered, and it has never perturbed people who know evolution, genetics and development in significant detail. The reason is that inheritance is digital. Phenotypic expression if not. But if, in a wide range of contexts, a gene exerts a positive influence on its own persistence in the population, it really does not matter how subtle and integrative that influence is in expression.
The resultant of all the complexities is what counts. Taking the net of all its complex interactions, is this gene better, worse or the same, compared to other alleles, in the series of contexts in which it is found,as adjudicated by net survival and reproduction? That’s all that really matters.
Let’s not get too excited, phoodoo. Eye color, for instance, is determined primarily by two genes, OCA2 and HERC2.
phoodoo,
“Evolutionary synthesis” is obviously one of your trigger phrases.
Allan Miller,
That only reason that evolutionary biologists (say) are not troubled by the discoveries that genes are part of a network and not an expression of a trait, is because they have no choice.
You have no way of explaining in your theory how such a system could develop gradually, step by step. its all whitewashing bullshit, plain as day. How does an evo-deo system develop through random mutations? Its not only not possible, but we don’t even know where the information for the chemical signaling is even stored. Your theory has ZERO explanation for this, thus biologists try to downplay its role or ignore it as best as their camouflage will allow.
The fact that you always revert to this appeal to authority (you constantly remark that people in the know have already thought of this problem) tells me you are not a very deep thinker of these problems, but rather simply preferred to be told what is real without having to worry about the details yourself. I suppose a sheep doesn’t really know that its a sheep.
And yet there exist thousands of papers, entire books, filled with explanations for just that. How curious.
Why did you use the term primarily Olegt? Is eye color determined by one gene or not? It either is or isn’t.
Furthermore, as eye color is simply an expression of an existing allele and not some new form, it is very uninformative in regards to how new novel functions arise. No one worries about the irreducible complexity of eye color. How a nervous systems develops for instance, is quite a different story.
A story which guys like you and Alan simply say, college professors have thought of that, so don’t worry. Jerry Coyne assures us its not a problem, and his cats never lie! Pure horseshit.
Did you not understand the part where it isn’t necessary for there to be a 1:1 mapping between gene and feature?
Gralgrathor,
I guess Jerry Coyne keeps all those thousands of papers locked up in his litterbox room, so you can’t actually quote them.
Except of course for the fact that at one time the alleles coding for one colour or the other must have been new, variant from the alleles already existing.
They’re called scientific journals and books, ‘doo. You might want to look into that some day.
Eye color is not determined by one gene. Two genes are involved in its determination. Why would that be a problem?
I hear the sound of goal posts moving by. First phoodoo says there is not really a gene for anything! And when I point out a trait that is known to be genetically determined, somehow this doesn’t count. It is not a new allele, you see!
So what point do you think Olegt was trying to make then, that it is controlled by one gene, or he was simply pointing out yet another example where its not controlled by one gene?
Or was he just riding the fence of evolutionary non-committal that you all are so famous for?
Did you not understand the part where it isn’t necessary for there to be a 1:1 mapping between gene and feature?
If two or three or a hundred different genes combine to produce one phenotypic feature, then those hundred different genes will still be subject to selection because of that feature.
Why are you so opposed to thinking?
I said there is not really a gene for anything, and you come along and say, that’s not true, there are at least TWO genes for eye color!, and then you claim its me moving the goalpost? Funny
Maybe you should stick to physics, where there are no goalposts, or where you get to decide what the definition of a goalpost is.
phoodoo,
Eye color is determined by two genes instead of one. Why is that a problem for theory of evolution, again? You haven’t explained that, phoodoo. It’s a trait that is genetically determined.
Actually, it’s olegt who tried to explain that to you.
Phenotypes are the product of a complicated interaction between genes. There is no 1:1 mapping between phenotypic feature and genes. None is needed for evolution to work.
Do you understand what moving the goalposts means? Do they teach that in physics school? I don’t know, because I am just a dumb farmer.
But even as a dumb farmer I do know that if I say there isn’t one gene for anything, and you attempt to contradict me by saying of course there is, there are at least two genes for eye color- you are the one who has the understanding problem, not me.
I’m sorry: it wasn’t olegt who tried to explain to you that there isn’t a 1:1 mapping between genes and features; it was Alan Fox.
No fucking kidding?
phoodoo,
Let’s see if you understand a simple example.
A room has two electrical switches. The light is on when both switches are up or when both switches are down. Is the light controlled by a single switch? No. But it is still controlled by the switches.
It’s similar with genes. A trait may not be controlled by a single gene. Nonetheless, traits are often determined by two or more genes.
That’s perfectly OK for theory of evolution. Why you purport this to be a problem no one knows.
You needed to be told, apparently.
For some meanings of “accurate”.
A simulation is not identical to what is being simulated. It needs to be accurate about what the designer of the simulation is attempting to test. It does not need to be accurate about whatever phoodoo feels like picking on.
olegt,
Lets see if you understand a simple example:
I said there isn’t a single gene for anything. You said , sure there is, there are at least two genes for eye color.
You should continue studying physics, boy genius. Two also doesn’t equal one.
Do you want to partake in a discussion about biology, ‘doo, or do you just want to make lots of remarks that appear glib to you but actually demonstrate how woefully undereducated you are regarding this topic?
phoodoo,
Why should there be a single gene for a trait? If two genes determine a trait, would it mean that a trait is not genetically determined? Would it mean that natural selection cannot affect that trait? What exactly is your problem with that?
Do you mean like trying to explain how altruism is explained by genetic mutations in ants Neil? The computer algorithim can demonstrate this, even without being random and unguided?
I wonder what happens to the ants that don’t get this genetic mutation. Oh wait, I forgot, its not ONE genetic mutation, its the “mutation packet” for altrusim. I hope we can find where this little packet is stored one day. Must be close to the packet for wanting to urinate. I know that ants that don’t get that packet end up dying off, because they forget to pee, and end up exploding like mini water balloons. The cleverness of selection!
I will leave that part for you.
Evolution is not random, ‘doo. If a variation pops up that increases the tendency for an organism to display certain behaviour, and that behaviour cases the genes responsible for the behaviour to be more often replicated into offspring, then the variation will spread through the population.
Not that complicated, is it?
No, phoodoo. It’s one mutation that, all else being the same, causes individual ants to have an increased tendency towards certain behaviour. And then another mutation that, all else being the same… etc.
You really need to let go of that black-and-white thinking habit and start thinking in three dimensions, ‘doo.
I already know the answer, ‘doo. But unfortunately I feel obligated to try and explain things to you anyway. Not that I have the slightest hope that you’ll even try to listen.
olegt,
If there are four genes that determine handedness, and I get one mutation in one for left handedness and another in another gene for right handedness, and another mutation in the third gene for ambidexterity, and in the fourth I get a mutation for purple hair, does that mean I will be born with a violet tail that can play ping pong?
Still trying to demonstrate how little you understand, ‘doo? Do you honestly think such “glib” remarks will get you anywhere in this discussion?
I’m going to dismiss my sense of obligation, ‘doo: you’re done for now. Come back when you’ve read up on regulatory genes, hox genes and polygenetic traits. Bye now.
This passage illustrates that you don’t understand a thing after all of this discussion.
Let’s get back to my simple example with two switches. If I turn the first switch up, does it mean “Light on?” No, it doesn’t.
Rethink your silly passage in light of this.
You haven’t really thought that much about this, now have you? Is it because you are afraid it will effect your religious belief if you do?
Do you possess the genes for altruism? If someone doesn’t posses this gene pack, should we make laws which allow them to be selfish, since they can’t help it?
olegt,
If I make fun of you for failing to understand the deeper meaning of a semi-complex joke, will you forgive me since I only possess part of the altruistic gene packet?
olegt,
If I keep trying to explain things to him, and he keeps shrugging it off with stupid remarks, then sooner or later I’m going to lose my temper. So he’s done for now. Have fun.
First you are going to need someone to explain it to you.
Allan and Olegt will just tell you not to worry about it however, because Joe and Jerry Coyne have already thought about it for him, and they have assured them its fine.
You didn’t answer however, do you possess the altruistic gene pack? I am starting to lose my temper with you. Yes or no?
Okay, one last try. Because I’m really hoping you make these dumb remarks because you really don’t understand, and not because you’re simply trying to evade understanding.
‘doo, do you possess the genes that determine the length of human legs?
I am really starting to lose my temper with you. This is not my fault however, because I don’t possess the genes that say don’t get mad at Gralgrathor when he continues to dodge the question.
So do you possess the altrusitc genes packet or not?
phoodoo,
Shut the fuck up and listen.
Do you possess the gene for determining leg length, ‘doo?
Do you think there are distinct sets of genes for building the femurs, building the knees, and determining the length of the leg? Or do you think that it just might not be that simple?
On another point related to “Counterintuitive evolutionary truths” I wonder what percent of the atheist evolutionists here would be willing to sleep alone in a house that was said to be haunted and had strange events occurring inside it or buy a house that had some grisly murders committed in it. .
I am willing to bet there would be a fair amount of people here who wouldn’t want to do it.
I asked you first, do you possess the altruism packet, yes or no!?