tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post4681224262823888183..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Kin selection and your toilet bowlmregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-6322059061875210322014-07-04T14:24:05.229-04:002014-07-04T14:24:05.229-04:00crusadeREX on your last comment and i appreciate t...crusadeREX on your last comment and i appreciate that its been almost 2 years ... <br />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 . <br />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. <br />FadiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-59712113659053992002014-07-04T14:14:30.992-04:002014-07-04T14:14:30.992-04:00Hello, first of all , bachfiend and oleg , how did...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 ) <br /><br />in any case protecting one's own offspring is part of natural selection . not kin selection . <br />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. <br />mother working to help her kids survive is natural selection . <br />mother helping her sister with her sister's kids is kin selection . <br />bachfiend your comment is gold , Oleg go research kin selection again and double check your sources <br />FadiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-90214923701486160342012-07-26T08:14:15.839-04:002012-07-26T08:14:15.839-04:00Oleg,
If kin selection is to be considered 'in...Oleg,<br />If kin selection is to be considered 'in the mix' of instinctive behaviours related to altruism <i> of course </i>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. <br />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. <br />'You run John. I'll hold them off. But you time. You've got kids at home.'<br />That kind of thing. <br />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. <br /><br /><br />I would suggest another scenario for you gentlemen to consider. <br />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. <br />The decision is made by one of them in a split second. <br />How does kin selection meet the 'mathematics' of this model? <br />All I see is sheer altruism. Dare I say... 'heroism'.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-9171208844860130042012-07-24T12:32:54.092-04:002012-07-24T12:32:54.092-04:00I always get the strongest reaction from you guys ...<i>I always get the strongest reaction from you guys when I hit you hard.</i><br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-13202552259611340272012-07-24T07:18:40.963-04:002012-07-24T07:18:40.963-04:00Oleg,
I hate to disagree with you, but I don'...Oleg,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />All the discussions of kin selection I've read don't include care of offspring as a part of it.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-16953258313861688582012-07-24T06:45:52.486-04:002012-07-24T06:45:52.486-04:00bachfiend: What the mother is doing is increasing ...bachfiend: <i>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> <br /><br />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.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-25954785814621661042012-07-23T22:28:09.273-04:002012-07-23T22:28:09.273-04:00Michael,
What you're describing as 'kin s...Michael,<br /><br />What you're describing as 'kin selection' (an organism surrounded by a few offspring resulting from sexual reproduction) isn't kin selection.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />See my comment below.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-75216069996007592452012-07-23T22:24:10.211-04:002012-07-23T22:24:10.211-04:00mregnor "You have no interest in the truth ab...<b>mregnor</b> <i>"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."</i><br />At worst that's a tu quoque.Modusoperandihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04213914791604385761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-33731567793748053462012-07-23T22:05:59.541-04:002012-07-23T22:05:59.541-04:00Michael,
Of all your threads, this is one of the ...Michael,<br /><br />Of all your threads, this is one of the most stupid. And that's really saying something.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />Δψp Δψq ≥ ℏ/2<br /><br />which tells us something absolutely fundamental about the structure of the Universe.<br /><br />Whether R ≻ C/B isn't complex enough for what it's describing is a matter of taste.<br /><br />And then you go onto an invalid analogy, comparing kin selection in humans with kin selection in bacteria, as explanations for altruism.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Your example of bacterial kin selection could be, but isn't. What you're describing is bacterial conjugation:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_conjugation<br /><br />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.<br /><br />And what's being transferred are the multiple genes forming the bacterial sex pilus: <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilus<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The possible transmission of antibiotic resistance is just an extra benefit, making retention of the conjugation pilus more likely, by standard natural selection.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />An idiotic argument, up to your usual standard.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-70021861645652963192012-07-23T21:03:49.626-04:002012-07-23T21:03:49.626-04:00I'm sure G.K. Chesterton also weighed in on th...I'm sure G.K. Chesterton also weighed in on the subject. :)oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-44922440097701952542012-07-23T20:44:17.311-04:002012-07-23T20:44:17.311-04:00crus,
Thank you! I'll take a look at it.
Mik...crus,<br /><br />Thank you! I'll take a look at it.<br /><br />Mikemregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-62492755296723463662012-07-23T20:17:01.526-04:002012-07-23T20:17:01.526-04:00Mike,
I imagine you're well read in the works...Mike, <br />I imagine you're well read in the works of CS Lewis. <br />I had recently decided to pick my old 'works' collection and read through some of his shorter lectures. <br />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. <br />Online version can be found here if you're interested: <br /><br />http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition2.htm<br /><br />Well worth the readAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-8303963003895923322012-07-23T20:08:51.803-04:002012-07-23T20:08:51.803-04:00OOPS.
Posted on my adult son's account. He was...OOPS.<br />Posted on my adult son's account. He was using my PC<br />So reposted here. <br /><br /><br />Human nature? <br />Wow... big question Pépé. <br />Not something that can be reduced into so many words or numbers. <br />I think human nature, very basically, is about choices. It is our nature to create options and influence reality by doing so. <br />It is a kind of metaphysical pupae stage, in analogy. <br />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. <br />Human nature, in our state, is about formation and creation. <br />Obviously love plays a very important role in these choices. <br />BIG question, Pépé! <br />Hope that makes some sense, mate.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-60445185503122073402012-07-23T20:06:35.038-04:002012-07-23T20:06:35.038-04:00And you get really pissed when that is pointed out...<i>And you get really pissed when that is pointed out.</i><br /><br />No, we just laugh at you. Almost every day, in fact. The amusement value is what keeps us coming back.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-42161500003970861992012-07-23T18:43:05.362-04:002012-07-23T18:43:05.362-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Sydenham_Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02483905190733578079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-52408751914230761922012-07-23T18:17:03.411-04:002012-07-23T18:17:03.411-04:00Michael,
This isn't about poularity, it is ab...Michael,<br /><br />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. <br /><br />I can asure you the only emotion this leads to is amusement.<br /><br />-LAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-66021822039098748082012-07-23T18:10:32.557-04:002012-07-23T18:10:32.557-04:00Mike,
You lack even a basic understanding of evo...Mike, <br /><br />You lack even a basic understanding of evolutionary science. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />It's fun watching you do this time and time again.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-79872427365049613002012-07-23T18:08:54.880-04:002012-07-23T18:08:54.880-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-52615902127497105522012-07-23T17:58:32.969-04:002012-07-23T17:58:32.969-04:00You may have noticed by now that I don't care ...You may have noticed by now that I don't care about popularity among Darwinists. <br /><br />Your science is crap, and your ideology is worse. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />You have no materialist explanation for altruism, and no explanation for man. <br /><br />And you get really pissed when that is pointed out.Mike Egnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-46367357679542411482012-07-23T17:11:54.241-04:002012-07-23T17:11:54.241-04:00Anybody here, besides Dr. Egnor, would like to com...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.<br /><br />What say you?Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-23240645103846956002012-07-23T16:53:52.692-04:002012-07-23T16:53:52.692-04:00Indeed. Your genes will be passed on when (and if)...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. <br /><br />Does that make sense?oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-30870539925769464482012-07-23T16:48:40.223-04:002012-07-23T16:48:40.223-04:00The act of passing on one's genes is independe...The act of passing on one's genes is independent of altruistic actions afterwards. Am I missing something here?K T Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259428595745509790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-63266259417393312562012-07-23T16:30:27.442-04:002012-07-23T16:30:27.442-04:00mregnor: So you are actually making the case that ...mregnor: <i>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.</i> <br /><br />Mike, I gave you some pertinent advice in <a href="http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2012/07/kin-selection-and-your-toilet-bowl.html?showComment=1343046660860#c2532231359335221103" rel="nofollow">this comment</a>. You would do well to follow it.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-37636407609647589052012-07-23T16:27:11.124-04:002012-07-23T16:27:11.124-04:00troy:
Human altruism is a manifestation of the fa...troy:<br /><br />Human altruism is a manifestation of the fact that we are made in God's image.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-56998561004341621392012-07-23T16:26:14.313-04:002012-07-23T16:26:14.313-04:00oleg:
So you are actually making the case that ki...oleg:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.com