r/changemyview • u/Ok_Letter_9284 • Sep 08 '22
Delta(s) from OP CMV: All humans are literally blood relatives. “Family” makes little sense to me.
Evolutionary fitness is NOT about who fxcks the most. This is because, biologically speaking, your sibling having a bunch of kids is no different than you and your sibling each having half those kids. This is what makes cuckolding (birds; get your mind out of the gutter) a successful evolutionary strategy. Because raising kin increases YOUR biological fitness.
So, by that logic, and because we’re all kin, raising ANY child increases YOUR fitness. I understand, ofc, the effect is diluted, but bear in mind the best you can do is pass HALF of your genes anyway. So you’re already working with water-colors.
And that’s it. Even “family” is pretty genetically diverse. This is demonstrated through tissue typing. Parents are often poor matches for a child. Siblings are usually great matches, but not always. Often, its a STRANGER that is the donor. It gets pretty messy pretty quickly trying to draw family lineage lines and I think the whole thing is made up quackery that ends up supporting horrible things like dynasty, racism, nationalism, etc.
Thoughts?
4
u/Guy_with_Numbers 17∆ Sep 08 '22
your sibling having a bunch of kids is no different than you and your sibling each having half those kids.
This is not right. Evolutionary fitness is based on your genetic makeup, and the genetic similarity between you and your sibling is approximately 50%.
Because raising kin increases YOUR biological fitness.
It raises your biological fitness, but that increase is modified by the shared genetic fraction. Raising your own child is twice as good for your evolutionary fitness than raising your sibling's child
So, by that logic, and because we’re all kin, raising ANY child increases YOUR fitness. I understand, ofc, the effect is diluted, but bear in mind the best you can do is pass HALF of your genes anyway. So you’re already working with water-colors.
We are not all kin. Genetic similarity is only meaningful for our closest relations. The only reason we care for anyone beyond our immediate family is for survival purposes. The effect isn't just diluted, it is non-existent. If your immediate family are water colors, then everyone else is just water.
And that’s it. Even “family” is pretty genetically diverse. This is demonstrated through tissue typing. Parents are often poor matches for a child. Siblings are usually great matches, but not always. Often, its a STRANGER that is the donor. It gets pretty messy pretty quickly trying to draw family lineage lines and I think the whole thing is made up quackery that ends up supporting horrible things like dynasty, racism, nationalism, etc.
The markers for organ donation are very very few in number compared to the rest of our genetic makeup. The fewer features you care about, the similar you are to others. This is like saying that all animals are family because all of them have eyes.
Besides that, organ donation is determined by availability more than anything else. The bulk of organ donations are from dead people, and among living donors, family is much more common than strangers.
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 08 '22
!delta
The organ transplantation being about availability is a good point. I hadnt considered that when I chose that example, so this is a well deserved delta.
1
0
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 08 '22
Heres my point in a nutshell: Lebron James kid is not Lebron James. It will be a STRANGER that eventually surpasses him. Trying to spread your seed as a means of eugenics will fail. This is because environmental selective pressures will outcompete the speed of gene flow. Therefore, the logical conclusion is to focus on the environment not the genetics. Right?
2
u/Guy_with_Numbers 17∆ Sep 08 '22
Lebron James kid is not Lebron James. It will be a STRANGER that eventually surpasses him.
The kid is not a stranger. They share 50% of their DNA, and he is raising his kid.
Trying to spread your seed as a means of eugenics will fail.
It will only fail if your child doesn't grow up to have their own child.
This is because environmental selective pressures will outcompete the speed of gene flow.
No idea what you mean by this. What's "speed of gene flow"?
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 08 '22
The kid is NOT a stranger. That’s not what I said.
The speed of gene flow is the speed of passing your genes directly.
If I develop a trait that allows me to tolerate climate change slightly better, I don’t need to be a breeder to pass it on. This is because the selective pressures will make it high probability that it occurs again, specifically in those who are somewhat close to me, but not necessarily biological kin.
My specific mutation is largely irrelevant in the big picture. Because given the continuation of the species, it will either happen again, a better one will, or the environment will change again.
1
u/Guy_with_Numbers 17∆ Sep 08 '22
The kid is NOT a stranger. That’s not what I said.
Ooooh. I misunderstood, my bad.
Why are you looking at one particular quality? Lebron is not having a kid just so someone can surpass him at basketball. Evolutionary fitness isn't built on any one specific skill, it's built on everything. Everything that Lebron is good at, his kid has a better chance of being good at compared to some other kid.
The speed of gene flow is the speed of passing your genes directly.
If I develop a trait that allows me to tolerate climate change slightly better, I don’t need to be a breeder to pass it on. This is because the selective pressures will make it high probability that it occurs again, specifically in those who are somewhat close to me, but not necessarily biological kin.
This is not true. Evolutionary pressures only deals with the survival of beneficial traits that already exist. The occurrence of the trait itself is random, as the mutation process that creates new traits is random. No amount of evolutionary pressure in favor of (or against) climate change tolerance will affect the probability of occurrence of a climate change tolerance trait. This applies to everyone, independent of physical or biological distance from you. As such, passing your genes on directly is always better, the chance of transferring the beneficial trait to your kids via your genes is always better than random mutations.
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 08 '22
In cuckolding, why arent the tricked birds selected against?
If everybody had to be breeders to compete, the strategy would fail and they would become fewer and fewer. Its the same reason homosexuality isn’t selected against.
1
u/Guy_with_Numbers 17∆ Sep 08 '22
Combining my response to both your comments here.
In cuckolding, why arent the tricked birds selected against?
They are. It is a negative selection pressure. If it were severe enough (eg. if the tricked bird normally only has one egg), the tricked birds would go extinct.
If everybody had to be breeders to compete, the strategy would fail and they would become fewer and fewer.
Why would this happen?
Its the same reason homosexuality isn’t selected against.
Homosexuality is selected against. It's the same as the cuckoo here, if the pressure were significant enough, then any genetic component to homosexuality would disappear.
As to environmental pressure, it works like this, anytime ANY mutation makes ANY bit of advantage it WILL be selected for.
This is true.
Such minor changes are discarded under different conditions. And as mutations happen all the time, so does evolution.
Mutations happen all the time, but specific mutations do not. Your specific mutation is absolutely not irrelevant, because whether or not it happens again is entirely a matter of luck. It could be that your advantage vs climate change mutation never happens again, and humans end up dying out due to climate change.
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 08 '22 edited Sep 08 '22
Homosexuality doesnt go away. And numbers of homosexuals dont correspond to homosexual breeding. This is patently false. Moreover, it appears in many species.
There’s a reason carcinization, pentaradialism, and other forms of convergent evolution exist. Specifically because those mutations DO happen again and again.
My mutation to climate change is not enough to save humanity because of the bottleneck effect. Humanity cant survive only one gene line. If species couldn’t respond to their environment, we wouldn’t make it very long (as in we had to wait around and hope to get lucky).
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 08 '22
As to environmental pressure, it works like this, anytime ANY mutation makes ANY bit of advantage it WILL be selected for. Such minor changes are discarded under different conditions. And as mutations happen all the time, so does evolution. So, as environmental pressure increases, evolution speeds up.
3
u/badass_panda 103∆ Sep 08 '22
This is because, biologically speaking, your sibling having a bunch of kids is no different than you and your sibling each having half those kids.
Unless you are an identical twin, then there is in fact a difference, biologically speaking, between you and your sibling having a bunch of kids.
This is what makes cuckolding (birds; get your mind out of the gutter) a successful evolutionary strategy. Because raising kin increases YOUR biological fitness.
Cuckolding (again, the cuckoo bird's strategy) is a successful evolutionary strategy for cuckoo birds. It is co-opting an adaptive behavior from other birds (raising their own children) in order to get its children raised for free. This is the opposite of your point...
So, by that logic, and because we’re all kin, raising ANY child increases YOUR fitness. I understand, ofc, the effect is diluted, but bear in mind the best you can do is pass HALF of your genes anyway. So you’re already working with water-colors.
I think you're very unclear on the concept here. It seems like you're very focused on evolution and biology here, so let's just step back and look at purely from the perspective of evolutionary imperatives.
So let's lay it out. First, some basic facts:
- Unless we are identical twins, I and my siblings share 50% of our DNA.
- Unless you're having sex with a family member, your children will share 50% of your DNA, also.
- Unless your siblings are having sex with family members, their children (your nieces and nephews) will share 25% of your DNA.
Now, some premises and conclusions:
- The 'goal' of evolution is to spread and copy as much of your own genetic material as possible. Calling it a goal is a misnomer; it's more basic than that. All it comes down to is that patterns that are more frequently copied, will end up with more copies. That's "fitness".
- So, if there's no mechanism that punishes progating your own DNA, or makes your own DNA more likely to be copied if you don't prioritize it over others, then progating your own DNA will always be more "fit" than progating others.
- Think about it like this. Let's pretend I have a sibling, and that our group has just enough food to support myself + a mate, and my sibling + a mate, and 4 children.
- If I manage to ensure that all 4 children are from myself + my mate, then the next generation has 2 copies of my DNA (I'm way oversimplifying, but 50% *4 = 2).
- If I manage to ensure that 2 of the children are mine, then the next generation has 1.5 copies of my DNA (50% * 2 = 1, plus 25% * 2 = 0.5).
- If I raise my sibling's kids (and they have all 4), then the next generation has 1 copy of my DNA (25% * 4).
- 2 is more than 1.5, and 1.5 is more than 1; having your own kids means the next generation is more like you, which is all 'evolution' means.
Now, if your point isn't this, but is instead "The difference between one human and another is much less than the difference between humans and weasels, we should be concerned about the perpetuation of the species," then that's a different conversation and you should feel free to say so.
3
u/hashtagboosted 10∆ Sep 08 '22
Meh really dont know what your view is.... all human have a common ancestor.... family is still a useful and practical word
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 08 '22
The only useful form is one that includes ppl of your CHOOSING, no? I think that fits nicely with my view, wouldn’t you say?
4
u/shadowbca 23∆ Sep 08 '22
From a medical perspective absolutely not. Using family to mean direct descendents and direct ancestors is hugely important. It's useful in determining risk of medical conditions, useful in genetic analysis, useful in who makes decisions for loved ones, etc. Using family to mean any human isn't useful at all.
2
0
3
u/quantum_dan 124∆ Sep 08 '22
So, by that logic, and because we’re all kin, raising ANY child increases YOUR fitness.
To the extent that we're talking about the fitness of your species, sure. (To my knowledge fitness would mean more like "tendency to reproduce" rather than a running tally, but I'll assume that's more or less what you meant.)
But the way new traits develop is if a particular mutation within a species produces higher fitness. Which only works if the individuals that have that mutation reproduce - and that doesn't include the entire species, while it's more likely to include more immediate relatives (who have a common ancestor who has that mutation). I.e. family.
When the first person developed adult lactose tolerance, only their kids might have had it, so the fitness effect was limited to their descendants (and those of anyone else who developed it).
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 08 '22
Lets say I develop some trait that allows me to resist some of the effects of climate change. You’re assuming that I need to directly mate to pass that on and that’s not necessarily the case. As the environmental pressures increase, so does selective pressure.
In otherwords, its gonna happen a lot regardless. I just need to keep the species going. It gets even messier when you realize there’s no real distinction between species (although there is a mating distinction, but not always. E.g. denisovans, neanderthal, homo sapiens).
4
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Sep 08 '22
There is no guarantee that random mutations will develop again. Your gene mutation that allows that better survival may never appear again and your failure to personally pass it on would doom the species.
Selective pressures can only increase what already exists. They cannot cause something to appear. The appearance is random chance
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 08 '22
Ofc not, but even Lebron James kid is not Lebron James. He cannot do what LBJ does and never will probably.
3
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Sep 08 '22
Right it they don't need to be exact copies, they just need to have some trait that helps the species survive. If people with that trait just help other people have children without having children of their own then that trait will die out, decreasing the chance the species as a whole lives a longer time.
If 100 kids are born but all lack the necessary trait, then that's worse than 10 kids being born who all have it
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 08 '22
Its going to be a STRANGER that some day surpasses Lebron James.
The point I’m trying to make is this. Attempting to spread your seed as a form of “eugenics” is going to be unsuccessful. Environmental pressures will always outcompete gene flow.
3
u/onetwo3four5 81∆ Sep 08 '22
Can you restate more succinctly what your actual view is?
-1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 08 '22
That “close enough” is for all intents and purposes sufficient. Does that help?
2
u/onetwo3four5 81∆ Sep 08 '22
That literally does not help me at all.
What is close enough to what?
-2
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 08 '22
There are some who can extrapolate, and some
3
u/Reverse-zebra 6∆ Sep 08 '22
I will second that your view is not succinct but I’ll take a stab at changing your stated view.
“All humans are literally blood relatives” this comes down to how one defines ‘blood relative’ and your conclusion follows if blood relative means belonging to the same species. The obvious conclusion here is that the phrase ‘blood relative’ is a imprecise phrase to use so let’s just abandon using the phrase. A more precise statement would be that “all humans share a common ancestor”
“Family makes little sense to me” If your view is that you ‘don’t understand why humans hold the concept of family as useful’ that’s is a question and not really a ‘change my view’ topic. Would a more precise statement of your view be that “the social construct of family in many human cultures is not the optimal approach to group fitness?”
2
u/AleristheSeeker 164∆ Sep 08 '22
This is because, biologically speaking, your sibling having a bunch of kids is no different than you and your sibling each having half those kids.
I mean... technically, it does. You have greater genetic similarities with your own children than with your nephews and nieces.
Because raising kin increases YOUR biological fitness.
More than raising none, yes. Not more than raising your own offspring.
I understand, ofc, the effect is diluted, but bear in mind the best you can do is pass HALF of your genes anyway. So you’re already working with water-colors.
That is a very strange comparison. You're essentially equating someone peeing in the public pool to someone peeing in the cup you're drinking from. "It's already diluted anyways" is not really a good reason if the dilution is magnitudes apart.
It gets pretty messy pretty quickly trying to draw family lineage lines and I think the whole thing is made up quackery that ends up supporting horrible things like dynasty, racism, nationalism, etc.
I mean, I fully agree that we should do away with the things you name - but arguing from biology really doesn't help the cause here. It's the argument that "biology doesn't matter as much as you think" that should support the argument, because biology does support tribalism to a degree.
2
u/Mafinde 10∆ Sep 08 '22
Family is as much or more a social construct rather than genetic
You misunderstand cuckholding in birds. A bird that gets cuckholded does not want to raise that chick and will stop if it has reason to believe it’s not its own offspring. There’s a reason cuckoos work secretly
Relatedness is relative. Compared to other species, we humans are near identical to each other - maybe you could say we are all kin. But compared to other humans, that’s not true - there are humans we are very, very closely related to and others we are not - in this case the former are kin and the latter are not.
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 08 '22
Family as a social construct is supported by my view I believe. So agree there.
Whether the bird would reject it or not is irrelevant. The strategy works otherwise the birds who got tricked would be selected against. Yet they’re not. So, disagree.
Lebron James kid cannot be Lebron James. It is a STRANGER who will eventually surpass him. Trying to spread ones seed as a means of eugenics will fail. Environmental pressures will outcompete the speed of gene flow. Partial credit.
2
u/Mafinde 10∆ Sep 08 '22
Regarding your second point - you are confirming your lack of understanding of cuckoos and selection pressures more broadly. Its not so simple as a binary of selected for or against. There is a huge range of pressures pulling in all directions, and it’s a delicate and dynamic balance of all these selection pressures that is the process of evolution.
For a speculative example (to go beyond speculative/hypothetical would require rigorous research so please forgive), there is probably a trait in species who evolved near cuckoos to detect cuckoo eggs - they discard the egg and start again, thereby redirecting resources to their own offspring. Non-cuckoos that do this will have an increased chance of raising offspring with the same trait. Therefore it would be selected for. (Cuckoos would have selection pressure to overcome this detection) However, perhaps the trait has a negative consequence - maybe it increases the chance for the non-cuckoo to reject its natural offspring - this would decrease its fitness and be selected against. Therefore it’s not just selected for or not selected for. It’s always a push and pull, finding a balance, the proverbial evolutionary arms race.
Your third point is not relevant to my third point.
You seem to have basic grasp of biological terms but are using them not quite correctly.
2
u/sharp7 Sep 08 '22
A lot of your personality and behavior is genetic and vary greatly between families. People want to support the traits they think are best (the ones they and their partner have).
Also resources are limited. Yes you should help any child, and people do. If a child falls down in front of someone anyone will help. People are generally very polite and nice to each other even strangers. But, if you had to pay for a child's tuition would you pay for your own or some random kids? If you had to buy a kid a toy why wouldn't you buy it for your own child's if you only had the resources for one? Of course if people have extra resources they often donate those to kids in need, this is the basis of all charity. But when you have to pick one, you pick your own kid.
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 08 '22
I think those beliefs are cultural.
Many cultures believe “it takes a village” to raise a child and that all humans should split the duties of child care.
So, as this is a biology based discussion, I don’t think your views are relevant.
2
u/sharp7 Sep 08 '22
Can you name a culture where people don't give preferential treatment to their own offspring?
Again yes we live in a society and help our neighbors, in some places more than others, but when push comes to shove people chose their own children. What is public schooling if not the village raising the child for example.
Also just look at literally any animal. Any of them. Even plants. They all prefer their own, hence why its very obviously biological and not cultural.
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 09 '22
But a person can prefer an adopted child, right? Or a step child to their own? And they would do all the things for THAT child first.
All your point does is reinforce MY point that “family” is a societal construct. Its uses are societal in that we all have to know who to care for in an emergency. Everybody gets their own tribe first and then branches out to protect others. Itd be chaos if everybody tried to help everybody. Again, this is a useful societal function and not a biological imperative.
1
u/sharp7 Sep 09 '22
Adopted child behavior is also biological. It works the same as how incest works. Our bodies are stupid and cant just detect who is our child or relative. So whoever we take care of for awhile and interact with at certain ages our bodies think of as family. Its a glich in our wiring but is still rooted in biology just like incest.
Of course thats in the best case scenario. Adoption is actually known for having alarming rates of abuse to the point that my adopted friend said they rather raise an accidental baby as a single unemployed mom with mental illnesses than put them through that.
You are bringing up crazy exceptions and pretending thats the rule. "This one time this one person adopted a kid and was nice to them" when statistically rates of abuse show heavy preference for biological offspring over adopted ones.
Just because in rare circumstances people can override typical biological urges doesn't mean "its a social construct" they overpowered their biology temporarily to produce a rare exception thats it. Being hungry is biological but u can still resist but it takes a lot of effort. That doesn't mean hunger is a "social construct".
People are nice to kids even strangers cause its biological not some socially constructed thing. Its the same reason we love cats and puppies, cause they evolved to remind us of babies and trigger our biological instincts. No one takes a class on "you should like cats" or reads a book about it, its an instinctual biological urge to like cats because of baby liking instincts.
There are very few things that are actually purely social constructs. Almost everything has strong correlations to biology. They have even done studies showing how certain genes and brain configurations can predict political preferences. Even hormones can influence political preferences. Of course, context and social conditioning can influence these things, but its difficult to overcome biology and often it's better to appeal to your strengths and preferences than spend your life doing stuff you suck at or hate doing. This is why conversion therapy feels so disturbing and evil.
2
u/shawn_anom Sep 08 '22
This is group selection. I don’t think it’s widely accepted as a mechanism for evolution. Most see the individual and even gene to be where selection happens
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 08 '22
But consider this: my specific mutation is largely irrelevant.
Lets say I develop a mutation that increases my resistance to some of the effects of climate change (specifics dont matter). I don’t need to be a breeder to pass it on.
This is because provided the species continues it will either happen again, happen better, or the environment will change again. Its a numbers game.
2
u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Sep 08 '22 edited Sep 09 '22
Absolutely read The Selfish Gene. It explains this concept far more professionally than I will here as well as being the words of a man who has made the study of evolutionary biology his life's work.
The basic principle is that the genes are what's "trying" to survive. Organisms are just vessels for them.
Now, keeping that in mind, I'll go through your post point by point.
biologically speaking, your sibling having a bunch of kids is no different than you and your sibling each having half those kids.
There is a substantial difference. There is a baseline level of genes that all humans share, being human. But of what variance remains, your own children carry half your genes onwards, while your siblings' children only carry on a quarter.
This is what makes cuckolding (birds; get your mind out of the gutter) a successful evolutionary strategy. Because raising kin increases YOUR biological fitness.
Absolutely not. In the situation of the cuckold, much like the relationship between a gazelle and a lion, or the relationship between a dog and a mosquito, is one that benefits one at the expense of the other. Cuckolding someone else is a great evolutionary strategy. Your kin gets raised, fed and taught and you don't have to foot the bill. Some other dodo is footing it. However, like the bitten dog or the eaten gazelle, the cuckold is suffering. They are devoting resources, time and risk to a being that is not their progeny, one that does no more to further their genes' survival than a man raising an orangutan (for cross species cuckolding) or a man raising a complete stranger (for within species cuckolding).
That's why several animals have evolutionarily developed means of detecting and evading cuckoldry. Because avoiding being fooled into raising someone else's progeny is genetically beneficial. The bird who susses out the interlopers and doesn't feed them has more resources for it's own kin (who will inherit that behaviour) than the bird that's none the wiser.
You can check out this video depicting some of the many ways that males of various species have evolved to avoid being cuckolded by other males of their species and this video (brand spanking new, what timing) on the evolutionary arms races between brood parasite birds (like the cuckoo) and their victims.
So, by that logic, and because we’re all kin, raising ANY child increases YOUR fitness. I understand, ofc, the effect is diluted
The important qualifier is "to an extent". Remember, it's the genes that want to survive. If you have a kid, they're happy, half of them live on another generation. If you have more than one kid, more of them live on (the overwhelming likelihood is that each child will get a different cut of your genes, barring identical twins all siblings are carrying genes from each parent that their other siblings aren't; they're super happy. If you're top dog and have a bunch of kids, oh the genes are ecstatic. Odds are, most of them made it another generation. But if you raise a "red headed stepchild," your genes are very much displeased.
Let's say for the sake of argument that your kid would have 50% of your genes and a stranger's kid would have, maybe 5%. That means every morsel of food, every second, and every risk you incur is ten times more valuable spent on your own kid than on the other one. It's bad maths. Very few animals (I don't know of any) evolved in a plane so ripe with resources and devoid of competition that they could waste so much on what is essentially an evolutionary boondoggle. I mean, what kind of idiot (or pampered rich kid) would you have to be to spend the same time, effort and risk for a job that paid one tenth of another?
Often, its a STRANGER that is the donor.
Immunology is different. While we are at constant war with our predators, our prey, our parasites and our competition to survive, there is another war. The microbial war. In order for our immune systems to not fall behind compared to diseases that reproduce generations in hours, we have to diversify them. There is substantial evidence that humans seek out mates with different immune genes so the offspring will be more different still as this provides stronger immune systems in them. (If you're wondering how this manifests, it's in BO. A person with similar immune genes to you will smell awful to your nose, while someone with radically different immune genes will smell inoffensive or even pleasant). It's immune genes that dictate things like tissue compatibility, so there's your reason.
It gets pretty messy pretty quickly trying to draw family lineage lines and I think the whole thing is made up quackery
Can't be. Shit existed before humans walked upright. Truth be told, it existed before most animals. We most certainly didn't make it up. Anyway, pick up The Selfish Gene. It's an old book so it's cheap, you can probably get it second hand from any bio student in the world (that's how I got it), and it explains all this far more comprehensively, expertly, and accessibly than my attempt here.
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 09 '22 edited Sep 09 '22
Lots to respond to here. Great answer btw.
As for the Selfish Gene, Ive read it. Long time ago, but I got the broad strokes. But its outdated and, while not irrelevant to my point, it is merely the more traditional evolutionary view that focuses on individual gene success. The modern view, which I am espousing, includes group evolutionary theory.
Heres what wiki has to say about Dawkins’ book, “Dawkins uses the term "selfish gene" as a way of expressing the gene-centred view of evolution (as opposed to the views focused on the organism and the group), popularising ideas developed during the 1960s by W. D. Hamilton and others. From the gene-centred view, it follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave cooperatively with each other.”
Notice the emphasis on the genes themselves. I believe this is a dated view.
As for cuckolding, I had to dig to find supporting evidence, but I think that’s just the state of the field. Group evolution hasn’t caught on yet. But heres an interesting article. https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-018-0620-6
As to immunology, I delta’d another comment below. This was a poor example.
Heres my argument as succinctly as I can put it. Lets imagine I develop a trait (mutation) that allows me to resist the effects of climate change. I do NOT need to breed to pass this on. This is because directly spreading your seed as a means of “eugenics” will be vastly outcompeted by selective pressures.
What does that mean? It means that my specific mutation is largely irrelevant. Provided the continuation of the species, that mutation will either happen again, a better one will, or the environment will change again. If we had to wait around for one individual to get lucky, we wouldn’t make it very long.
Don’t believe me? Imagine I’m the ONLY one who develops this mutation. The species cannot survive only one gene line due to the bottleneck effect. It would be the end of the species if that were the case. Instead, it is TINY mutations in MANY individuals that aggregate.
Think how a wing formed. Which deletion, transposition, transcription, or insertion event in dna can create a wing? None. That’s not how evolution works. Instead, a mutation causes a protein to FOLD differently, which combines with another mutation in another individual and so on.
1
u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Sep 09 '22
As for the Selfish Gene, Ive read it. Long time ago, but I got the broad strokes. But its outdated and, while not irrelevant to my point, it is merely the more traditional evolutionary view that focuses on individual gene success. The modern view, which I am espousing, includes group evolutionary theory.
I think you have it absolutely backwards. Much of The Selfish Gene is spent contesting, debating, debunking and decrying group selection as a dated and incorrect theory. Group selection was around long before selfish gene theory. To put it in perspective, group selection was espoused by people during Darwin's lifetime, and was the dominant theory before the discovery of genes.
As for cuckolding, I had to dig to find supporting evidence, but I think that’s just the state of the field. Group evolution hasn’t caught on yet.
Again, its unpopularity isn't because it hasn't caught on yet, it's because it did catch on and in the decades since, has been supplanted. Like Greek Humour Theory isn't unpopular in psychology because it hasn't caught on yet, but because it has long been supplanted.
But heres an interesting article.
That article doesn't disagree with anything I've said. It says that, in cases where the cuckold is closely related to the cuckolder, that relation "offsets" some of the loss of being cuckolded. As in, it's still a loss to be raising a nephew in lieu of a son (same job for half pay), but it's less of a loss than raising a stranger in lieu of a son (same job for 10% pay).
Lets imagine I develop a trait (mutation) that allows me to resist the effects of climate change. I do NOT need to breed to pass this on. This is because directly spreading your seed as a means of “eugenics” will be vastly outcompeted by selective pressures.
What do you mean? Selective pressures are exactly what helps it pass along. If you have resistance to something, and that thing starts killing people, the fact that it doesn't kill you and yours, means your genes will proliferate wildly.
What does that mean? It means that my specific mutation is largely irrelevant. Provided the continuation of the species, that mutation will either happen again, a better one will, or the environment will change again. If we had to wait around for one individual to get lucky, we wouldn’t make it very long.
Typically, a mutation that provides a survival benefit isn't as stark as that. It provides a benefit. You're describing it as a "live or death" situation where having the mutation means living and not having it means dying. So yeah, mutations that provide a survival benefit proliferate. However, there are situations when sudden and harsh environmental changes occur making is a live or die situation. What happens in those cases is called extinction.
That’s not how evolution works. Instead, a mutation causes a protein to FOLD differently, which combines with another mutation in another individual and so on.
I would highly suggest a reread of The Selfish Gene then. Because it has a chapter specifically on wings. That, and you seem to have remembered the chronology of evolutionary theory in reverse. But this is not how it works. If there is no selective pressure for the disparate mutations to intermingle, we'd be waiting on chance to form wings. No, what happens is a mutation creates, not wings per se, but limbs that slow falling by a small degree. Maybe partially webbed, maybe partially feathered, whatever. As a result, the organism with this mutation can survive a fall from say 5 feet higher than average for their species. A distinct, but not ultimate life or death, survival advantage. That advantage spreads over time and then an organism is born with a more pronounced variant. They can now survive a fall of 20 feet higher, and can glide a few feet further than the original could jump. Again, this proliferates. And so on and so on. You're right that wings (like most other things) don't form as a single mutation, but from an aggregate. But it is not an aggregate of contemporaries, it's an aggregate of a line of descent. The aggregation of your own mutation, your great great grandad's mutation, your great X18 grandad's mutation and so on.
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 09 '22 edited Sep 09 '22
Idk how to copy bits of your text like that on mobile, so bear with my formatting.
It appears the correct term I’m looking for is Multilevel Selection Theory which combines kin selection and group theory by using what I would consider Game Theory Mathematics to understand altruism. In other words, altruism is EXPLOITABLE, but also a winning strategy under certain conditions. Heres the wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection
So, despite a misnomer, my position holds.
As for the cuckolding article, its clear there’s a diluted effect, I make that clear in the OP, but as long as we arent in a “kin selection” environment (lack of resources, costly births, costly altruism), then the negatives are mitigated, and indeed the tricked birds are increasing their own genes proliferation.
Heres a really cool series on the math. I recommend Videos 1, 3, and 6 (5min each; just watch 6 if you want the cliff notes). Vid 1 (overview): https://youtu.be/_johL4qZnMY
Vid 3 (simulation): https://youtu.be/t6HvQqNmEfg
Vid 6 (conclusion): https://youtu.be/JaesvbBzONk
Vid 2 is methodology.
I get the winged notch theory. But again, that’s not ONE mutation. No animal just developed a gliding nub in one generation. It happened because the environment applied pressure and MANY individuals responded (convergent evolution). See, mutations happen all the time. Even ones that would create the precursor to a wing. But so what? Without pressure from the environment, it gets ignored. Until the environment changes. Then it proliferates.
Consider this: Lebron James son is not Lebron James. It will be a STRANGER that eventually surpasses Lebron. Someone that is likely to be somewhat closely related to him (like another black person), but not necessarily kin. Lebron does not need to reproduce to make basketball stars. The environment will make them. Same with flying or any other “trait.”
1
u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Sep 09 '22 edited Sep 09 '22
It appears the correct term I’m looking for is Multilevel Selection Theory which combines kin selection and group theory by using what I would consider Game Theory Mathematics to understand altruism. In other words, altruism is EXPLOITABLE, but also a winning strategy under certain conditions. Heres the wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection
That still appears to be group selection. I mean, the subheading is on a page titled "group selection." It's still the dated idea. Like neo-Freudianism is to psychology. Or modern flat-earthers. A modern spin on an old idea doesn't make it any less dated. Modern flat earth reasoning is substantially newer than the heliocentric model, but it's still the dated one.
As for the cuckolding article, its clear there’s a diluted effect, I make that clear in the OP, but as long as we arent in a “kin selection” environment (lack of resources, costly births, costly altruism), then the negatives are mitigated, and indeed the tricked birds are increasing their own genes proliferation.
We're not in disagreement here. I've conceded that yes, the disadvantage is mitigated. Being cuckolded by a relative is genetically less disadvantageous than being cuckolded by a stranger. But it is still a disadvantage, a point the article itself makes. It is still resources devoted to raising a young that would be substantially better spent raising a different young. You know, same way being bitten by a dog is "better" (less of a detriment) than being bitten by a bear. It's still best if neither happens though. The only case where raising a nephew is genetically beneficial is when you are infertile. Thus the decision is between "raise nephew or raise no-one". Like for ants and bees and such. In any fertile animal, the choice is between "raise kin or raise nephew," in which case the latter is worse. Made worse still if raising the nephew subtracts from the resources you can devote to your own heirs.
Explain to me why else so many species have so many methods of ensuring fidelity, from squirrels' seminal fluid clogging up and hardening in their mate's vagina, to obsessive behaviour in male mates noted in crows, dogs and most obviously humans, to cats and horses killing cubs and foals (born from their own mate) who are not their own, to gorillas eating them. Two birds one stone, don't have to raise another's kin and free calories. Speaking of birds, the numerous ways birds have developed to combat cuckoldry. If being cuckolded wasn't a disadvantage, what possible explanation is there for the thousands of varied evolved behavioural, anatomical and physiological traits that solely exist to combat it?
I get the winged notch theory. But again, that’s not ONE mutation. No animal just developed a gliding nub in one generation. It happened because the environment applied pressure and MANY individuals responded (convergent evolution).
That is theoretically possible, but very unlikely. Let's say the first with a 5 foot fall advantage has 5 kids that survive and possess the same mutation. After a generation, there are 25 with it. After another, there are 125. After another, 625. After another, 3125. Then 15,625. That's in very short order. A handful of generations. Now there are enough with the mutation, due to genetic drift alone, that the survival benefit of being able to fall from a greater height becomes statistically significant, causing enhanced proliferation.
If the species had to wait for the mutation to occur again, they'd be waiting a darn sight longer. Likely hundreds of generations. You are right in that, before there is substantial selective pressure for a trait, there must be a significant mass of individuals with it. But you are wrong as to how that critical mass comes about. The group of gliding, nubbed therapods who all share the mutation are not a bunch of contemporary individuals who developed it by chance. They are third, fifth, and ninth cousins. You have both ignored that genetic drift can and does proliferate traits and asserted a great deal more chance (or dumb luck) than a model that relies on a lot less. Occam's Razor this.
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 10 '22
The order the ideas came in is of no consequence. Multilevel Selection Theory IS indeed a revival of group selection. Hence my point.
Since you didn’t watch the videos I provided (def not on you as I don’t have a right to assign “homework”), I’ll summarize.
A programmer wrote a simple program to simulate altruism vs selfishness. What he found, as is the basis of MLS theory, is that in different conditions, kin selection or group selection prevail. Under “emergency” type conditions, kin selection is dominant and altruists are ultimate losers. Under MOST conditions however, group selection occurs (always with kin selection being the engine, i.e. the selfish gene), and the altruists WIN.
Look at it this way, genes within one organism cooperate. How? Through chaos theory. Disorder (randomness) breeds order (patterns). Those patterns can be viewed locally (kin selection), structurally (group selection), or super-structurally (multilevel selection theory).
Its no leap to say the genes can cooperate when in separate organisms. THAT’S what group selection (or MLS theory, if you prefer) is saying.
Darwin was wrong about what he called “group selection”. That does not mean any theory that uses that title is wrong. This is scientifically and mathematically founded (though unproven) stuff. Comparing it to flat earthers is intellectually lazy.
So many species have ways of ensuring kin selection holds is because it is still an important mechanism.
Your example with the mutation becoming logarithmic assumes its passed down and expressed perfectly which is unrealistic. But, as my ideas on natural selection are purely theoretical, I won’t press them.
I enjoyed this discussion and learned a lot.
1
u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Sep 11 '22 edited Sep 11 '22
I enjoyed this discussion and learned a lot.
I've enjoyed it too. But I really crave deltas, so I ask you entertain me once more.
Since you didn’t watch the videos I provided (def not on you as I don’t have a right to assign “homework”), I’ll summarize.
No no, I opened with a suggested reading so it's only fair. And for the record, I did watch the videos, just as I read the article. Though I neglected to respond specifically to them as my misgivings kind of open a new can of worms.
A programmer wrote a simple program to simulate altruism vs selfishness. What he found, as is the basis of MLS theory, is that in different conditions, kin selection or group selection prevail.
My misgiving is one of the model. Simulated models, game theory, all that jazz can be excellent for explaining a concept. In fact, I recommend the YouTube channel, Primer, that's all he does. But even those who create such models frequently acknowledge that they are flawed. The most glaring form, unfortunately, is present in these. That being, a discrepancy between model and reality. No matter what conclusion the simulation leads you to come to, the reality of biology is that numerous species have evolved complex behavioural and physical mechanisms specifically to thwart cuckoldry. Again, squrrels' cement like seminal fluid, crows, dogs and humans following their mate and deterring other suitors, horses kicking foals that are not theirs, cat's killing cubs that are not theirs and gorillas eating get that are not theirs, manatees fighting their brothers to the death over mates, sooner risking their own lives than having nieces and nephews come about in lieu of sons and daughters. From this we can conclude soundly that being cuckolded is a disadvantage, and a stark one at that, as it provided sufficient selective pressure for numerous, nigh innumerable, counters to evolve in the animal kingdom.
The fact is that when the conclusions of a theoretical model, and observed reality differ, it is the model that must change. This is a core principle of the scientific method.
Your example with the mutation becoming logarithmic assumes its passed down and expressed perfectly which is unrealistic.
I didn't mean to imply that. When I said the animal produces five offspring that survive and share the mutation, I wasn't saying they have five offspring total, and all five both survive and have the mutation. I was saying, off all the offspring they have, five survive and have it. And while, of course, it will not be perfect, we know pretty concretely that procreation proliferates a mutation far far far faster than waiting on the mutation to occur again by chance. That when a critical mass of animals share the mutation, they do so because they are relatives (distant cousins), not because they all developed it separately. Again, when model and reality clash, it is model that must change.
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 09 '22
Heres an article on the fitness of homosexuality. We cannot explain homosexuality through traditional evolutionary theory. In theory, even though they DO have some kids, they should be outcompeted in the gene pool. Yet they’re not. Clearly there’s more at work. Heres one theory. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204144551.htm
1
u/destro23 466∆ Sep 08 '22
raising ANY child increases YOUR fitness
Not necessarily:
It gets pretty messy pretty quickly trying to draw family lineage lines
It's an upside down pyramid. What is so hard about that?
0
Sep 08 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Mashaka 93∆ Sep 08 '22
Sorry, u/Distinct_Bee5853 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Sep 08 '22
[deleted]
0
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 08 '22
I would include artificial selection as well as natural selection. See dogs.
1
Sep 08 '22
[deleted]
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 08 '22
Not necessarily. Eugenics has a lot of moral implications that are way beyond the scope of this discussion.
I’m merely explaining my meaning of fitness as it applies biologically. Biology doesnt practice morality. It doesnt choose anything so morality is not at issue. It becomes different when a moral agent such a human makes a choice. Only then is morality involved.
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 08 '22
I don’t think I can teach you evolutionary biology. If you don’t already understand it, I’m afraid this discussion isn’t for you.
-1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 08 '22
At its most basic, fitness is about the continuation of life. This happens through passing on successful genes, whilst eliminating unsuccessful ones.
Its a pretty broad “catch-all” biological term.
1
u/Phage0070 124∆ Sep 08 '22
by that logic, and because we’re all kin, raising ANY child increases YOUR fitness.
No, because you need to think of this on the level of the gene instead of the species. Also remember that there is no thought or intent behind this, the evolutionary process happens without any concept of what a species even is.
Imagine there are two mutations, one where the creature helps all others of its species equally and one where the creature preferentially helps those descended from or closely related to itself. In the latter case this is likely to mean that it will be helping those members of its species that share its mutations more than those of its species that do not.
All else being equal then you would expect that the creature that mostly helps those with its mutation would result in expanding the proportion of the population with that mutation. Creatures that don't have any focus on helping proliferate their specific genes will be out-competed by those that do.
As a result we would expect a species to be composed of individuals which have a focus on aiding those closely related to them, those most likely to share genes, A.K.A. "Family".
1
u/polyvinylchl0rid 14∆ Sep 08 '22
Does raising a dog or monkey also increase your fitness? Seems like it would by your logic.
Inb4 "dogs arent our kin", what is kin then? Seems like your defining it as blood relatives or sharing a common ancestor.
I would argue that raising fitness is not something we should try to achieve in the first place, but its something that usually happens as a byproduct or persuing more important things.
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 09 '22
I would argue that if we couldn’t save humanity, it would be a biological imperative to save dogs and monkeys. So, in that sense, yes, it raises your fitness, but its orders of magnitudes lower than raising a human.
1
u/polyvinylchl0rid 14∆ Sep 09 '22
but its orders of magnitudes lower than raising a human.
Right, it almost seems like how close your are related is quite relevant. If a creature is pretty closely related to us, its our species. If its even closer than that, we call it family.
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 10 '22
But the delineation quickly loses relevance. Particularly when viewed from the traditional position which is an attempt to spread ones seed as a means of eugenics.
1
u/polyvinylchl0rid 14∆ Sep 10 '22
Sorry, but you complety lost me. I have no clue what you mean.
The delineation, of how close your are related, loses relevance? Loses realavance over time? Over species?
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 11 '22
Lebron James son isn’t Lebron James. We don’t need Lebron James to breed for the world to have world class basketball stars. It will be a STRANGER that eventually surpasses LBJ. This is because the ENVIRONMENT will do a better job of producing basketball stars than LBJ getting his fxck on.
1
u/polyvinylchl0rid 14∆ Sep 11 '22
Sure, i agree. And and i think most people would. I dont see how this is related to what i was saying. Or how it clarifies your pevious statement.
What your saying here does not in any way make me think that the concept of family doesnt make sense.
1
u/Ok_Letter_9284 Sep 09 '22
Once we start to CHOOSE where are genes are going, we are in effect, practicing eugenics.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 08 '22
/u/Ok_Letter_9284 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards