Monday, July 23, 2012

Kin selection and your toilet bowl

Altruism is a catastrophe for Darwinism.


Darwinism posits that adaptations are the consequence of heritable undirected variation and natural selection, which is differential reproduction, generally on the basis of competition for resources.

Altruism is cooperation that is based on self-sacrifice, the antithesis of natural selection by competition.

So how could altruism have evolved by natural selection?

For any real scientific theory, a contradiction of this magnitude would have killed the theory in its cradle. But Darwinism serves purposes far removed from science, so it limps on.

Darwin and his descendants understood the problem, and there is considerable stammering in the literature over the past century and an half about the problem altruism poses for Darwinian theory.

The original efforts to explain the evolution of altruism invoked sacrifice that would aid dissemination of an altruistic individual's genes via relatives. As Haldane famously quipped,

Would I lay down my life to save my brother? No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins.

This  pseudo-science was given a mathematical imprimatur by W.D. Hamilton in 1964, with his theory of kin selection. Hamilton observed that in the struggle for reproduction there are sources of the individual's genes other than the individual-- the kin. In sexually reproducing organisms (e.g. humans), offspring share 50% of genes with each parent, ditto with siblings, 25% with grandparents and aunts and uncles, 12.5% with cousins, etc. Hamilton defined fitness as the passage of one's alleles to the next generation, regardless of whether the alleles resided in the individual or the kin. He defined this "inclusive fitness' as the sum of the individual's own contribution and the contribution of relatives divided together by the average contribution of the population.

Hamilton observed that in this scheme an allele that diminished the fitness of a particular individual could still increase in the population if the same allele enhanced the reproduction of kin bearing the allele. Hamilton kept the math to rudimentary algebra (suited to a Darwinian audience), and gave "Hamilton's Rule" that states that an increase in frequency of an allele in a population as a result of an altruistic act will occur if:

r > C/B
where r is the degree of relatedness (0-1), C is the reproductive cost to the individual of the altruistic allele, and B is the reproductive benefit to the recipient(s) of the altruistic act associated with the allele.

Succinctly, if the cost to the altruist is smaller than the benefit to the kin by a factor less than the degree of relatedness, the altruistic trait will propagate. The difference between the degree of relatedness and the cost/benefit ratio is a measure of the strength of the kin selection.

If r is much larger than C/B, kin selection (altruism) is strong. If r is only slightly greater than C/B, kin selection is weak.

That's kin selection, and that's a big part of the Darwinian explanation of altruism.

Does it make sense?

Let's see.

Take a simple comparison-- altruism of a (human) mother for her five children, and altruism of one bacteria for other bacteria.

Using Hamilton's Rule, now for human altruism

r > C/B
r is 0.5, the fraction of alleles that mother and her five children share. Let's postulate that the cost to the mother of an act (say, laboring to obtain good clothing for her children) is less than the benefit to the children (good clothing). Let's apply some kind of number to this (Hamilton's Rule is an equation after all), and say that the C/B ratio is 0.1 for each child. The reproductive benefit to the children of good clothing is ten times the reproductive cost to the mother of obtaining good clothing, multiplied by five (for the five children who will carry the altruistic alleles).

Thus r > C/B is 0.5 > 0.02, which is true. r is 25 times the cost/benefit ratio. The altruistic allele for the mom to buy good clothes for her kids will increase in the population. Altruism spreads. The strength of the kin selection for the spread of this altruistic trait would be 25.

So far so good.

Now compare this kin selection explanation for altruism between a mother and child with the kin selection explanation for altruism between... bacteria.

Consider a colony of bacteria in your toilet bowl. For simplicity, assume it's a clonal colony of e. coli (you missed one little bug with the brush.) He rapidly proliferates, and in a few days there are a billion e. coli in the little colony.


Using Hamilton's Rule, now for bacterial altruism

r > C/B
Remember that the bacteria are clones, so r is 1. They are related as identical twins-- a relationship twice as close as that of a mother and a child. Let's postulate that the cost to one bacterium of an altruistic act (say, sharing a little plasmid or extending a pseudopod to the daughters) is less than the benefit to the daughters (a handy plasmid or a helpful pseudopod). And let's again apply some kind of number to this (Hamilton's Rule is an equation after all). Let's assume that the effect of the altruistic allele of the bacterium  is of the same magnitude as that of the human mother of the children-- the cost/benefit ration for the altruistic bacterium and one daughter is 0.1. 

But the original bacterium now has 1,000,000,000 daughters, each of whom is an identical twin and each of whom will carry the altruistic allele. 

An altruistic perfect storm. 

So the C/B ratio is 0.0000000001. Hamilton's rule for the bacterial colony, which measures the strength of kin selection, is 

r > C/B

r is ten billion times greater than the cost/benefit ratio, so by Hamilton's Rule the altruism (the strength of the kin selection) in the e. coli in your toilet bowl is 400 million times stronger than the altruism between a mother and her children. 




:O


Kin selection is not an explanation for altruism. Kin selection is pseudoscience with a mathematical patina.

Altruism is a catastrophe for Darwinism.

58 comments:

  1. This has to be one of your more ridiculous lines of attack. You imply that bacteria should be doing more to help their kin as if they where capable of reacting in complex ways to circumstances they don’t have the functionality to perceive or react to.

    I’m no expert, but on the face of it, bacteria don’t have babies that are the key to future propagation of their genes. They are all “cousins” descendant from a forbearer, with no one likely to have more reproductive success than another. Assuming no beneficial mutation in its cousins (which a bacterium would be oblivious to anyway), a bacterium surviving is the same as a bacterium sacrificing itself for a cousin. I would think that even very subtle altruism in so simple an organism would be powerful proof of the central role kin selection plays in determining behavior.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I simply applied Hamilton's Rule to real-life situations.

      Delete
  2. Garbage in, garbage out.

    There are a couple of novice errors in Mike's calculations. He computes the cost C per child, but the benefit B for all children (5 in the first example, 1 billion in the second). This is wrong: both quantities must be computed on the same basis (per individual or per generation). Adding a daughter increases the benefit to the daughter generation, but is also increases the cost to the mother because she must now buy an extra set of clothes.

    A word of advice, Mike. Read a textbook and work out a couple of examples before you spew any more nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I simply applied Hamilton's Rule to real-life situations.

      I don't care about trivia. The fact is that Hamilton's Rule yields absurd results when applied to rapidly asexually reproducing organisms.

      Kin selection is crap science.

      Delete
    2. Your calculation is in error, Mike. That's why it does not make sense.

      Delete
    3. You're free to make a calculation on the relative altruism of humans and bacteria that does make sense.

      Delete
    4. I pointed out your error. Go ahead and apply Hamilton's rule as it is intended, with the cost and benefit computed per individual.

      Delete
  3. This thread is a great illustration to the comment I made yesterday. It's easy to laugh at a science you don't understand. Any fool can do that.

    Keep up the good work, Mike.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. oleg:

      I'm waiting for your calculation that demonstrates that Hamilton's Rule applied to this comparision is not absurd.

      Delete
    2. Why wait? You can do it yourself. Just remove the spurious factors of 5 in the first calculation and 1 billion in the second. Go ahead and fix your error. The results will make a lot more sense.

      Delete
    3. You make the false assumption that the cost effect per relative must be linear. If a parent sacrifices his life for his offspring, for example, the cost in lost reproduction is not realted to the number of kin.

      Even if that effect is applied here, Hamilton's Rule would state that the strength of kin selection (the altruism) between and mother and her child and between bacteria are equal.

      Bullshit. Kin selection has nothing to contribute to an understanding of altruism, especially human altruism.

      Delete
    4. Egnor: Even if that effect is applied here, Hamilton's Rule would state that the strength of kin selection (the altruism) between and mother and her child and between bacteria are equal.

      Even if?! That's how things are supposed to be calculated according to Hamilton! The ridiculous outcome of your calculation was the result of a silly misapplication of Hamilton's rule.

      Delete
    5. So apply HR the way it is supposed to be in this situation.

      Show us the explanatory power of kin selection.

      Delete
    6. It's quite simple. Assume the cost-to-benefit ratio of C/B = 0.1 in each case. The degree of relatedness is r=0.5 for humans and r=1 for bacteria. In both cases, Hamilton's rule is satisfied, r>C/B, so the benefits of the altruistic behavior outweigh the costs. (For humans, 0.5>0.1, and for bacteria, 1>0.1.)

      Delete
    7. This garbage tells you nothing about human altruism, and it's not clear that "altruism" can even be applied to bacteria.

      What an idiot ideology.

      Delete
    8. How about acknowledging that you did your kin selection calculation incorrectly? :)

      Delete
  4. Michael,

    I am no expert on bacteria and kin selection and obviously neither are you. You have been seriously and completely PWND on this one. Please just stop.

    -L

    ReplyDelete
  5. pwned is not the right term. Hoisted on one's own petard is more like it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. [I am no expert on bacteria and kin selection and obviously neither are you. You have been seriously and completely PWND on this one.}

    I've just shown that application of the foundational model of kin selection to human and bacterial "altruism" yields bullshit. Show me that it's not bullshit.

    [Please just stop.]

    You'd love to shut me up. Sue me, like you bastards always sue people who question your crap science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael,

      "You'd love to shut me up. Sue me, like you bastards always sue people who question your crap science."

      I was offering advice, not issueing a command, filing a lawsuit, or otherwise trying to censor you. You see sedition everywhere.

      You are completely embarrassing yourself with your ignorance on this subject. That was it.

      -L

      Delete
    2. You may have noticed by now that I don't care about popularity among Darwinists.

      Your science is crap, and your ideology is worse.

      I always get the strongest reaction from you guys when I hit you hard. I've made it clear that kin selection, when applied to a comparison of human and bacterial altruism, is absolute garbage posing as science.

      You have no materialist explanation for altruism, and no explanation for man.

      And you get really pissed when that is pointed out.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Mike,

      You lack even a basic understanding of evolutionary science.

      You did your calculation without really understanding what you were doing. Even though the cost in your human model (buying clothes) scale linearly with the number of the offspring, you computed it as if it were fixed. It was a factor-of-5 error for the human example. It ballooned to a factor of one billion with bacteria.

      These errors could be easily prevented if you read a basic text and followed a few examples. You didn't. Your example did not show that Hamilton's theory is ridiculous, so you are reduced to mere declarations that it makes no sense. It makes no sense to you, but you have not made an effort to understand it.

      It's fun watching you do this time and time again.

      Delete
    5. Michael,

      This isn't about poularity, it is about credibility. You sometimes post well written and thought out pieces that enjoy greatly. And then you post crap like this showing that you don't understand the science you are talking about.

      I can asure you the only emotion this leads to is amusement.

      -L

      Delete
    6. And you get really pissed when that is pointed out.

      No, we just laugh at you. Almost every day, in fact. The amusement value is what keeps us coming back.

      Delete
    7. I always get the strongest reaction from you guys when I hit you hard.

      The next time you "hit hard" when it comes to anything related to science will be the first. You're using a nerf bat and thinking you're smacking home runs. It is really sad and pathetic.

      Delete
  7. mregnor: I've just shown that application of the foundational model of kin selection to human and bacterial "altruism" yields bullshit.

    Garbage in, garbage out.

    Show me that it's not bullshit.

    I just did.

    You'd love to shut me up. Sue me, like you bastards always sue people who question your crap science.

    To the contrary. As I have said so many times, I strongly support your right to spew nonsense. The more, the merrier. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. oleg:

      [I just did.]

      You 'showed' (using kin selection theory)that the bacteria in your toilet bowl are twice as altruistic to each other as your mother is to you.

      Kin selection theory is crap (as a causal mechanism) that explains nothing at all. It makes "predictions" that are rank nonsense.

      Human beings cannot be understood from a Darwinian perspective. Your effort to do so is bizarre.

      Delete
    2. mregnor: You 'showed' (using kin selection theory)that the bacteria in your toilet bowl are twice as altruistic to each other as your mother is to you.

      You've built a straw man. The number 2 in this case does not show the strength of affection (of my mother for me or one bacteria for its double). It shows the strength of a selection process. It does not measure the strength of mother's feelings. There is thus no paradox here.

      Kin selection theory is crap (as a causal mechanism) that explains nothing at all. It makes "predictions" that are rank nonsense.

      The predictions are nonsense when one does not know how to apply the theory and is therefore off by a factor of a billion. :)

      "Causal mechanism" is not a term frequently used in sciences. Newton's theory of gravity likewise lacks a causal mechanism: it does not explain where gravity comes from, it merely provides a description of how gravity acts. Think of kin selection in the same way.

      (Boy, this guy has no idea how science works.)

      Delete
    3. This is funny. As soon as I demonstrate that kin selection, when actually applied formally, yields batshit results, you retreat to "oh it is just a little theory about selection processes. It doesn't say anything about the cause of altruism... how silly to think that..."

      So you admit that kin selection lacks explanatory power to explain altruism. It is merely an acausal statistical observation. It does no explanatory lifting.

      Then what does explain altruism, which is a defeater for Darwinism, if kin selection doesn't explain it?

      Delete
  8. in the same way as universal theory of gravity explains the motion of planets. Science is not a search for casual mechanisms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Darwin's theory isn't a causal mechanism, so it explains nothing. It merely describes, and much of that description is trivial at best.

      You forgot to answer my question. What explains altruism? Darwinists claim that kin selection explains much of it, but you (prudently) admit that that is nonsense.

      You've already admitted that kin selection is no explanation at all.

      So why are human beings, Darwin creatures that we are, altruistic? Why and how?

      Delete
    2. mregnor: Darwin's theory isn't a causal mechanism, so it explains nothing.

      You can say the same thing about Newton's theory of gravity. It isn't a causal mechanism, so it "explains nothing. It merely describes, and much of that description is trivial at best." (On second thought, it frees up the angels from keeping the planets in their orbs.)

      You forgot to answer my question. What explains altruism? Darwinists claim that kin selection explains much of it, but you (prudently) admit that that is nonsense.

      You are asking the wrong questions. Science does not answer why questions, it answers how. Newton's theory describes how planets move, not why. Kin selection describes how altruism arises, not why.

      You've already admitted that kin selection is no explanation at all.

      It's a description, not an explanation.

      So why are human beings, Darwin creatures that we are, altruistic? Why and how?

      The why question is none of science's business. It nonetheless is capable of describing how altruism arises through natural means. This is what kin selection is about.

      Michael, you have glaring holes in the understanding of what science is. You ought to take a course in philosophy of science. I am sure they offer one at Stony Brook. It's really amazing how you are completely lost about the very basic aspects of scientific knowledge.

      Delete
  9. Hilarious, but very predictable, that Egnor would screw up a simple application of Hamilton's rule. The man's hubris to think that he can overthrow kin selection theory with a stupid example calculation, it's amazing.

    Yesterday I linked to a paper in Nature showing how kin selection models correctly predicted when - and when not - cooperation evolved in experimental bacterial populations, and Egnor thinks he can refute that with a screwed-up calculation that a first-year biology student would have done better.

    And Egnor doesn't even have the balls to admit he was wrong. Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Egnorance = ignorance + arrogance.

      Delete
    2. Humans exhibit altruism, often to a great degree. Darwinism has no explanation for this.

      Kin selection theory, applied to a comparison between human and bacterial altruism, yields nonsense results, regardless of the "parameters" chosen.

      Human beings cannot be explained via Darwinian principles. Trying to do so borders on mental illness.

      Delete
    3. mregnor: Kin selection theory, applied to a comparison between human and bacterial altruism, yields nonsense results, regardless of the "parameters" chosen.

      Right. You tried to show that the theory is nonsensical because it gives an absurd result. Turned out the nonsense (9 orders of magnitude!) was all of your own making. FAIL. Now you just declare the theory to be nonsense because... ummm... well, because you think it's nonsense. Yeah, that's one convincing argument!

      You are one hilarious nutter, Michael.

      Delete
    4. Human beings cannot be explained via Darwinian principles. Trying to do so borders on mental illness.

      No, it borders on mental illness to deny science whenever you feel it contradicts some theological dogma that you happen to believe in.

      What's your explanation for altruism in humans? Let me guess: we were made in an altruistic god's image.

      Delete
    5. oleg:

      So you are actually making the case that kin selection is not markedly stronger for an organism surrounded by a billion identical twins than it is for an organism surrounded by a few offspring birthed by sexual reproduction.

      You have no interest in the truth about this science. You are defending an ideological position, in the face of common sense and simple logic.

      Delete
    6. troy:

      Human altruism is a manifestation of the fact that we are made in God's image.

      Delete
    7. mregnor: So you are actually making the case that kin selection is not markedly stronger for an organism surrounded by a billion identical twins than it is for an organism surrounded by a few offspring birthed by sexual reproduction.

      Mike, I gave you some pertinent advice in this comment. You would do well to follow it.

      Delete
    8. mregnor "You have no interest in the truth about this science. You are defending an ideological position, in the face of common sense and simple logic."
      At worst that's a tu quoque.

      Delete
    9. Michael,

      What you're describing as 'kin selection' (an organism surrounded by a few offspring resulting from sexual reproduction) isn't kin selection.

      Your ignorance of science, common sense and logic is amazing, and all you're trying to do is defend an ideological (well, actually worldview) position.

      See my comment below.

      Delete
  10. The act of passing on one's genes is independent of altruistic actions afterwards. Am I missing something here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. Your genes will be passed on when (and if) your offspring survive and have children of their own. In the meantime, their survival depends on your care.

      Does that make sense?

      Delete
  11. Anybody here, besides Dr. Egnor, would like to comment on what human nature is exactly? I don't think human nature can be defined by an equation, but I may be mistaken.

    What say you?

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. OOPS.
    Posted on my adult son's account. He was using my PC
    So reposted here.


    Human nature?
    Wow... big question Pépé.
    Not something that can be reduced into so many words or numbers.
    I think human nature, very basically, is about choices. It is our nature to create options and influence reality by doing so.
    It is a kind of metaphysical pupae stage, in analogy.
    We are like the caterpillar. Learning, enriching, carving the leaves - but never really understanding what lays beyond the chrysalis. We must be all we can and be utterly physically reborn into something totally new and inconceivable.
    Human nature, in our state, is about formation and creation.
    Obviously love plays a very important role in these choices.
    BIG question, Pépé!
    Hope that makes some sense, mate.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mike,
    I imagine you're well read in the works of CS Lewis.
    I had recently decided to pick my old 'works' collection and read through some of his shorter lectures.
    The last section or book entitled 'The abolition of Man' is pertinent to the subject of altruism. In the second section/chapter 'The Way' he essentially PREDICTS a concept almost identical to 'Kin Selection' and clearly illustrates how refutes itself.
    Online version can be found here if you're interested:

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition2.htm

    Well worth the read

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. crus,

      Thank you! I'll take a look at it.

      Mike

      Delete
    2. I'm sure G.K. Chesterton also weighed in on the subject. :)

      Delete
  15. Michael,

    Of all your threads, this is one of the most stupid. And that's really saying something.

    You complain that the equation from Hamilton's rule isn't complex enough. Perhaps not as complex as the equation from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:

    Δψp Δψq ≥ ℏ/2

    which tells us something absolutely fundamental about the structure of the Universe.

    Whether R ≻ C/B isn't complex enough for what it's describing is a matter of taste.

    And then you go onto an invalid analogy, comparing kin selection in humans with kin selection in bacteria, as explanations for altruism.

    The trouble is is that your example of human kin selection isn't actually kin selection. A mother going out and working hard to earn money to buy good expensive clothes for her 5 children isn't kin selection. It's standard natural selection.

    Kin selection occurs, for example, when offspring help their parents to raise further offspring. They're increasing the chance of copies of alleles they probably share surviving in the next generation.

    What the mother is doing is increasing the chance of her alleles surviving into the next generation through her own offspring. It would be kin selection if she was helping her sister to raise her offspring.

    And anyway, the altruism she's displaying is cultural, not genetic. She could have worked less hard and bought cheaper less well-fitting clothes, or even less hard and bought slightly worn second-hand clothes. All result in her children being warm and clothed, but what is accepted depends on the society. In some societies, buying expensive clothes might be considered a no-no.

    Human altruism is largely cultural, not genetic. It's considered heroic and admirable to engage in brave acts, such as rescuing non-related children from burning buildings, because humans are intelligent social animals. And heros are esteemed in our societies.

    Your example of bacterial kin selection could be, but isn't. What you're describing is bacterial conjugation:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_conjugation

    which can occur between bacteria of entirely different species, not just the offspring of a single ancestor bacterium, which would be 'kin' by your argument. Bacterial conjugation occurs between 'non-kin' too.

    And what's being transferred are the multiple genes forming the bacterial sex pilus:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilus

    from a bacterium with one to one without one. (By the way, it's not a pseudopod', but I'll excuse your ignorance of biology - you're only a neurosurgeon after all.) It's a standard case of natural selection again, increasing the frequency of pilus-forming genes in subsequent generations of bacteria. Nothing to do with altruism.

    The possible transmission of antibiotic resistance is just an extra benefit, making retention of the conjugation pilus more likely, by standard natural selection.

    Your mathematics also stink. If you start out with one E coli bacterium and finish up with a billion, then there's been about 30 doubling divisions and obviously almost 1 billion bacterial divisions (minus 1, obviously). The 1 billion E coli in the micro-colony won't be identical clones because of mutations and also gene loss (bacteria divide so rapidly that often their entire chromosome isn't replicated fully before cell division and one of the daughter cells misses out on some genes).

    And also, you've specified already that they aren't clones, because bacterial conjugation can only occur between bacteria with the pilus-forming genes and those without.

    And the 1 billion is irrelevant, because bacterial conjugation can only occur between pairs of bacteria. Not among billions. If it weren't otherwise, you'd be justified in using the number of all E coli in the world, all coliforms, or even all bacteria. Which you aren't.

    An idiotic argument, up to your usual standard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bachfiend: What the mother is doing is increasing the chance of her alleles surviving into the next generation through her own offspring. It would be kin selection if she was helping her sister to raise her offspring.

      I don't think you're right. A mother caring for her offspring is a legitimate example of kin selection. The caring incurs personal cost, expressed as a reduction in the number of offspring she could have produced instead. Her offspring receiving the benefit may compensate for the reduction. The mathematics is exactly the same as it is for siblings caring for each other and other cases of kin selection. There is no reason of excluding this particular case from consideration.

      Delete
    2. Oleg,

      I hate to disagree with you, but I don't think you're right. Haldane said he'd lay down his life to save two brothers or eight cousins, not that he'd sacrifice himself to save two offspring. He actually went on to say he'd truly die to save more than one identical twin or more than two full siblings, but again he didn't mention offspring.

      All the discussions of kin selection I've read don't include care of offspring as a part of it.

      Delete
    3. Oleg,
      If kin selection is to be considered 'in the mix' of instinctive behaviours related to altruism of course offspring must be a primary example. You're quite correct, and bach is limiting his expression of the idea to the 'expert' writings on the subject.
      I am no proponent of the idea that kin selection is anything more than a rationale for sacrifice. A way of reasoning that we are doing the 'right' thing both morally and reasonably by laying down our lives.
      'You run John. I'll hold them off. But you time. You've got kids at home.'
      That kind of thing.
      But if it is to be considered at all, an inclusive model such as that proposed by Oleg is the working one; regardless of what so-and-so said in his papers or books.


      I would suggest another scenario for you gentlemen to consider.
      Two men who fight side by side in a conflict (yes, here I go with war anecdotes again!). These men fight a common and very human enemy. They fight and kill these other members of the species. The two men of which we speak are of different ethnicities (or 'races'). When faced with a situation that is seemingly impossible for them to both escape, the younger man (again remember of a different genotype) sacrifices himself so the older man may live. Neither man has offspring or even brothers. Neither man is of any different rank or any greater importance to the struggle. In fact, they are on the losing side of the struggle and eventually the war. They are both, again, quite aware of this.
      The decision is made by one of them in a split second.
      How does kin selection meet the 'mathematics' of this model?
      All I see is sheer altruism. Dare I say... 'heroism'.

      Delete
    4. Hello, first of all , bachfiend and oleg , how did you come across such a crazy blog , I was searching for something completely unrelated! (An old series )

      in any case protecting one's own offspring is part of natural selection . not kin selection .
      kin selection would be a used if I was helping raise my sibling's children. kin selection is to put make yourself less viable for survivability for the sake of parts of your genes to survive.
      mother working to help her kids survive is natural selection .
      mother helping her sister with her sister's kids is kin selection .
      bachfiend your comment is gold , Oleg go research kin selection again and double check your sources
      Fadi

      Delete
    5. crusadeREX on your last comment and i appreciate that its been almost 2 years ...
      that isn't kin selection .... it is pure human society influence its a conscious act , kin selection really is about instinctive acts , like the ones we see in ants and such other animals of our family tree. those two men have thought about their hypothetical problem and they made a decision. that is what our culture call heroism its a conscious act to put someone else's life above yours. in the sense of getting nothing in return :) maybe immortality . but all of this is glamour . its not something Science goes into a lot . this has to do with culture and society and up brining and many more things . ... at one point in history kids where asking their parents to take them see Christians eaten by lions since its their birthday . these kids weren't crazy or damaged , they are the product of their culture and society .
      just like some kids will grow up wanting to die fighting for their country and some grow up to become suicide bombers killing themselves thinking that they are serving a greater good... these people that are exploding like morons aren’t applying Kin selection , just human nature being stupid.
      Fadi

      Delete
  16. thanks for sharing.

    ReplyDelete