Joined: Oct. 2005
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 27 2017,21:14)|
|Edit (for bolding code) below:|
|Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 26 2017,18:01)|
|What I said was that inclusive fitness explains how altruistic behaviors and behaviors or traits that do not directly result in more offspring for the individual involved (e.g. homosexuality) can be positively selected during the course of evolution. That's all I claimed, and that is well understood. What amount of homosexuality is explained by a genetic component is unknown, as are the exact causes of homosexuality.|
Recall, this is in response to YOUR question, "And does that name by chance include a gay population...?". The answer remains, yes it does.
Inclusive fitness explains kin selection, which includes such things as individuals sacrificing themselves (or putting themselves at risk) to warn siblings and cousins: J.B.S. Haldane, "I would gladly lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins." However, it also describes the benefits to a community of a more general reciprocal altruism involving unrelated individuals (hence "inclusive"), and how many selfish cheaters can be tolerated before such a system becomes unstable. If your community benefits from having elders around (more people to watch over the young, more long-term experience, more accumulated wisdom, and more experience with rare hazards), all of which increases the chances of survival for your young, it is worth your while evolutionarily to look after unrelated elders, quite apart from the personal benefits of establishing a culture of looking after elderly people in preparation for when you in turn become elderly.
Instead of your trying to pretend that you knew how how all that works you should have just been honest, which in this case only needed the one sentence. All the rest around it was well written, but amounts to trying to look smart after basically admitting you have no working model for determining the likely cause of things like "altruism".
You really have comprehension problems, don't you?
You claimed that inclusive fitness was a new buzz word that merely adds complications.
You are wrong on both assertions - the term was coined 50 years ago, and is well understood and offers considerable clarification.
You then asked (rather poorly) "And does that name by chance include a gay population, without which all of humanity is somehow less fit?"
You brought up homosexuality. I agreed that homosexuality is the sort of thing intended to be covered by inclusive fitness (something that tends not to lead to an individual having as many children as a heterosexual, but where the presence of homosexuals could well be a overall benefit to the reproductive success of a group, raising the status of a group via artistic contributions, for instance, or helping to provide childcare, or such like). That is not a claim to understand the origin of homosexuality.
Inclusive fitness explains very nicely (mathematically and as demonstrated via field and lab studies) that altruistic behaviors and behaviors that do not lead to an individual's personal reproductive success can nonetheless be selected for during evolution. It is best worked out with regard to (1) animals that offer warnings that increase their own risk but help save their relatives, and (2) eusocial insects like ants and bees with unusual (for us) patterns of relatedness (with clones, haploid individuals, and so forth).
You now insist that I need to have or claimed falsely to have an explanation for the causes of homosexuality. The origin of homosexuality is not what you or I have been discussing, and it's not what I claimed. Again, inclusive fitness, about which you remain ignorant, explains very well how apparently nonadaptive behavior can nonetheless be selected for during the course of evolution. It has been a tremendously successful area of biology.
I did not say that we do not understand how altruistic behavior can expand through a population. We do know this. If an altruistic behavior has a genetic component (is selectable), it can be selected if its average or expected cost to an individual is exceeded by the benefits in reproductive success reaped by the individual's close relatives. Again, as Haldane said, "I would gladly lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins."