Selfishness vs. Co-operation: What drives evolution?

Faith & Science Conversation
21

Sorry, I missed that. Let me try to explain:

Evolution occurs because some individuals (of a species) pass their genes on to their offspring with greater efficiency.

The question evolutionists need to answer is this: If there is a gene (or gene constellation) that causes altruistic behavior, how is that gene (or genes) passed on to subsequent generations? I can offer no genetic explanation for such behavior, although I can posit a very satisfying theological one.

Now, kin selection explains how the sacrifice of kin (e.g., parents, aunts, uncles, etc.,) can explain self-sacrificial behavior in many (most?) mammalian species - including humans. But how do we explain the observation that human individuals will sacrifice themselves for perfect strangers? No other animal species does that. None.

Blessings,

Michael

22

I think one speculation might run thus … Even if your self-sacrifice was not directly beneficial to only your specific offspring, it still might have been beneficial to your tribe or wider community. And to the extent that your tribe or community flourishes, maybe those that are closer cousins to you genetically all have increased chances of prolific progeny. So maybe it isn’t just genes but entire communities that might enjoy something of a natural selection effect (i.e. —the tribe that is always attacking and marauding its neighbors may be more self-destructive in the long run than the more noble-minded tribe that cultivates trusts and friendships with other tribes --perhaps sometimes even at self-sacrificial expense). I know that gets away from biological evolution as this isn’t strictly about genes any more. But it does lead one to look for that higher dimension than Dawkin’s narrow-minded focus on genes exclusively.

After all, in biological evolutionary terms, Jesus was a total failure. And … yet … does anybody else in the world now have more children, brothers, and sisters? Not that self-sacrifice always leads to such profoundly world-changing results, but it does give one pause about the importance that we consciously or unconsciously attribute to our biology.

23

Er, this is simply not true. Selective pressures can be imposed at the molecular level and are independent of external influences. One example, but not the only one, is mutation bias (also here.) Mutation bias is based on the observation that some mutations are more likely than others. For example, one of the most studied of these mutations are transition-transversion mutations[see FOOTNOTE below] in which transition mutations are more common.

In other words, all mutations do not occur with equal probability as was once thought. How does this effect evolution? Well, mutation bias gives evolution a direction. One scientist has proposed the following analogy: mutation bias is like climbing a mountain with a slight lean to the left. You’re still ascending the mountain, but just a little to the left.

I fear I may have descended a bit to far into the weeds, but I really wanted to emphasize the notion that evolution at the molecular level can proceed independent of external environmental factors.

Blessings,

Michael

FOOTNOTE: A transition mutation is a change of one purine to another (A and G) or one pyrimidine to another (C and T). A transverse mutation is a change from a purine to a pyrimidine or vice verse (e.g., A to C).

24

What makes the difference is the survival rate of the offspring

25

What makes the difference is the survival rate of the offspring

Largely correct, but if I were grading a student’s paper, I’d give this answer a B. Technically, it’s the reproductive fitness of the offspring that makes the difference. For example, the survival rate of the offspring of donkeys (males) and horses (females) is quite high. However, their offspring is sterile so their reproductive fitness is zero and evolution cannot occur.

Blessings,

Michael

26

@mtp1032

There is no question that genes can change, but if that change is ecologically counterproductive, then that change will not survive. Ecologically neutral and almost neural changes will survive, but create no real change. If the ecology determines survival, then the ecology determines survivable change…

You take the position, as do many, that the opposite of selfish is altruistic. That is not true, The opposite of selfish is unselfish. It is not selfish to do good and to live well. To help others is to help everyone including oneself.

Jesus called us to love others as we love ourselves, not more than ourselves. We are free to sacrifice our lives for others, as many people do, soldiers and police for example, but that is not the standard. The standard is the common good, that benefits all, not just me and mine.

27

So it’s not passing genes on to offspring with greater efficiency, like you originally said.

28

Hmmmmm. I understood your claim (quoted above) to refer to external selective forces, e.g., predators, weather, topography, etc., because (1) you used the example of “dry land” as a selective force and (2) the theme of your response to @Professor_Tertius, was ecology and symbiosis.

But your argument levied against @Professor_Tertius would still be misleading because genetic change occurs largely independent of what you have termed “the environment of the earth” (see the example of nucleotide transversion-transmission) and the forces that would differentially select certain genotypes would largely be exercised from within the milieu of the reproducing cell.

Now, let’s come up out of the weeds.

The bottom line is that evolution can occur independent of “the environment of the earth”). OTOH, evolution cannot occur independent of genetic change.

Or,

Evolution cannot happen in the absence of forces differentially favoring certain phenotypes over others where those phenotypes are the expressions of underlying genetic differences. Moreover, these selective forces need not be external to DNA replication as implied in your post previously

I hope this clarifies and not confuses.

Blessings,

Michael

29

Roger: If the environment of the earth did not change, there would be no evolution.

@Michael_Peterson

Thank you for your response. Usually I do not try to argue either genetics or ecology, but because the quote I was using, which was not mine, that is probably the way the argument came out.

I agree with Darwin that evolution has two components, Variation which is genetic and Natural Selection which is for me ecological. The problem which I have with most neoDarwinian evolution that I have encountered, is that they have mined the Variation aspect quite thoroughly, but neglect or misconstrue Natural Selection. This is especially true of Dawkins, who claims to be the true spokesperson for Darwinism and evolution. I take4 him as his word, unless someone can show me who is a better spokesperson or what book can explain evolution better.

That being said, Variation AND ecological Natural Selection are both needed for evolution, not either/or but both.

Part of the problem that I have with what you and many others say is that they do not place their theory is a real setting. I certainly agree that genetic changes can take place independent of ecological changes, but it is the task of Natural Selection to select out or select in those changes. Mutations do not make a difference if they are selected out, only if they are selected in.

If they are selected in for technical reasons, rather than for ecological reasons, I would not call that evolution. The evolution of a new species takes place when two groups of the original species are separated into different environments, so they are genetically different.

Let me give you my best example of how the ecology determines evolution. Everyone knows how the non-avian dinosaurs went extinct, right. It was not because of competition with mammals. It was not because they changed genetically. It was because of climate change. It became colder and their environmental niche gradually disappeared and so did they.

Now if you define evolution as genetic change, then the extinction of the dinosaurs was not an evolutionary event, but clearly the change in climate benefited those mammals who survived the die off and opened new ecological niches for them. That in turn favored genetic changes as they adapted to their new surroundings.

In your opinion would human beings evolved if this were still the world of the dinosaurs?

30

I really don’t mean to come off as pedantic as I think I sound and I do apologize, but we need to have some common frame of technical reference so we can, at least, clarify our differences. So, with respect to your claim quoted above I would offer this:

At the molecular level, most evolutionary changes (and most of the variation within a species) is not caused by natural selection. Mutation bias is one mechanism (as described in a different response), but the effect of bias is probably minor. The major driver of non-selective evolution (and arguably evolution itself) is thought to be genetic drift (see Neutral theory of molecular evolution).

In other words, isolated species can (and do) undergo evolution. Darwin recognized this (tho’ not the reason) when he wrote about his Galapagos finches.

Blessings,

Michael

31

@Michael_Peterson

Please excuse me if I am wrong, but to say that genetic drift is neutral means that it does not effect the survivability of the allele, at least at the present situation. That would mean that being neural does not mean that it not selected out, but it is selected, because there is no change.

Just because a species is in an isolated environment, does not mean that it stop evolving unless the environment stops changing. It is isolated only from related species as on the Galapagos.

For some reason scientists want to deny the importance of Natural Selection. I have never seen a real example of where genetic drift has created a new species or a concrete example that supports the theoretical framework that is cited.

I am tired of what seems to be speculation taking the place of experimentation or well documented field studies in the study of evolution. I am not against this kind of mathematical models, but they need to be grounded in some sort of reality.

I am quite willing to admit that I am mistaken, if the concrete evidence it there and not before.

32

Thanks for the conversation, Roger, and I truly have enjoyed it. As in most discussions of this kind, I have found it necessary to go back in time and attempt to resurrect my own understandings gained decades ago. I have been amazed (but not surprised) at the progress science and theology have made in understanding how their disciplines intersect and, perhaps more important, I’ve seen how members of each side of the conversation have taken seriously the ideas of their opponents. I find Biologos to be the epitome of such discussions.

Which brings me to this:

I think it’s time to bring our conversation to a close. I would leave you with this thought: I think I understand your wish to advance a theory of evolutionary biology different than what is currently accepted, but I fail to understand why you seem disinclined to consult references to which you are pointed on even the most basic concepts. For example, I recently referred you to a theory of evolution that arose from the study of the empirical effects of genetic drift on evolution (Neutral theory of molecular evolution). It was immediately clear in your response that you did not even take the time to read the reference. In looking back on our conversation,I now see that you are unaware of (or have ignored) even the basic (non-controversial) concepts of evolution.

Unless and until we can find a common understanding of some of these fundamental definitions and unless and until we respect each others views enough to at least consult referenced documents, it’s hard to see how one’s participation in such a conversation can be useful - and not just to us but, say, to others who may be following this thread. This is not to say that you must agree with, say, my understandings, but if you do not, then marshal the evidence for your point of view. Your opinions, while interesting, are not sufficient for conversations of this type. In that way, we can drill down to some level of common understanding.

Finally, it should go without saying, that nothing in the existing understanding of evolutionary theory, as I understand it, contradicts the theology of a transcendent, creative God.

Blessings to you, Roger

Michael

My Principal Sources (i.e., references I have immediately at hand) I have been using are:

Web Sources (these are very, very good)

33

@Michael_Peterson

A neutral mutation is one that does not affect an organism’s ability to survive and reproduce. The neutral theory allows for the possibility that most mutations are deleterious, but holds that because these are rapidly purged by natural selection, they do not make significant contributions to variation within and between species at the molecular level. Mutations that are not deleterious are assumed to be mostly neutral rather than beneficial. In addition to assuming the primacy of neutral mutations, the theory also assumes that the fate of neutral mutations is determined by the sampling processes described by specific models of random genetic drift.[1]

@mtp1032
Michael, thank you for your response. I am sorry that I was curt with you, but please bear with me as I explain myself.

Examine the passage above from the beginning of the article on Neutral theory of ME. The first sentence is a truism. That which does not alter an organism’s fitness will not be selected out. However just because it passes the test by definition (neutral) does not mean there is no test or NS.

The NT allows for the possibility that most mutations are deleterious, but holds that these are purged by NS, so NS does play a role here but there is no way of determining as far as I can tell how it is able purge negative mutations. In the last sentence in this passage a form of the word “assume” (assumed, assuming, assumes) is used three times! Not once does it say that there is concrete evidence for these ideas and assumptions. This is not science as I know it.

If you define Darwinian evolution as being about genetic change, you will have an incomplete understanding of evolution. If you define evolution about organic ecological change, then you will have a more complete balanced organic understanding of evolution.

The article on Genetic drift was much better than the other one on NT. It explained that mutation and NS was the way of adaptation for large and expanding populations, while genetic drift was for small and not expanding populations.

I understand the theory of random genetic change, but it is hard to understand how genetic changes do not lead to changes in survival rates and thus NS. What do changes in genes do, if not change life forms? However if we assume that they do not, then what the model indicates follows.

Clearly I am concerned that science has become isolated and insolated from nature. That would be a serious mistake. This may be necessary when dealing with quantum reality which cannot be seen, but plants and animals are very visible.

Thank you for your attention,

Roger

34

@Michael_Peterson

Not to beat the subject into the ground, but I just finished reading the cover articles in the newest Scientific American, June 2016, on the Rise of Mammals. It closely ties the rise of mammals which began before the extinction of the dinosaurs, to climate and ecological changes.

I do not understand how some scientists can vigorously deny the importance of ecology, while others seem to be documenting the exact opposite.

35

@Relates,

Probably what some scientists are doing is defending the role of mutation … not DENYING the role of ecology.

I don’t understand how you can invest so much effort creating the impression that mutation is not important.

36

First of all, you need to stop your dualistic thinking, Just because the ecology is important does not mean that mutation is not important.

Second, I am arguing with people who use “genetic drift” to say that Natural Selection and Mutation are not important for evolution.

1 Like
37

Yes @gbrooks9, you really need to start thinking in terms of triune evolution. Evolution consists of the mutations and ecology being relationally tied together by the organism. This clearly shows that evolution is an image of the Trinity :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:.

2 Likes
38

You really need to do 3 posts at a time so you can be truly triune. And Biologos should be named BioLogoss so the number of letters is evenly divisible by 3.

1 Like
39

@Rrelates,

I think you would find people would agree with you A LOT MORE OFTEN if you could remember to offer this wisdom on a regular basis!

“Just because ecology is important does not mean that mutation is not important.”

Roger, I think you and I are finally at peace!

1 Like
40

@gbrooks9

If you only knew…