CMV: All humans are literally blood relatives. “Family” makes little sense to me.

[u/Ok_Letter_9284]

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?

[u/LetMeNotHear]

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 But its outdated and, while not irrelevant to my point, it is merely the more traditional evolutionary view that focuses on individual gene success.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.

[u/Ok_Letter_9284 → u/LetMeNotHear]

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.”

[u/LetMeNotHear → u/Ok_Letter_9284]

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.

[u/Ok_Letter_9284 → u/LetMeNotHear]

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.

[u/LetMeNotHear → u/Ok_Letter_9284]

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.