/ hpindda:ca.environment / This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it (Alan McGowen) /  9:13 am  Jun 10, 1991 / To: < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Subject: Evolution beyond selfishness Message-Id: < 910609215654 70701.140 DHJ50-1 @CompuServe.COM                The Law of Natural Selfishness Evolution   by  natural  selection  operates  by  changing   gene frequencies.  But  exactly what does selection *select*?  It does not  generally  select  individual genes,  but  traits  of  whole organisms.  Genes do not face the world as individuals,  but only as partners in a complete genotype whose _expression_ is the set of traits  of an organism,  living and reproducing in  an  uncertain environment.  Accordingly,  the  classical  theory  of  evolution focused upon individual organisms as the units of selection. Fitness,  according to this idea,  although it may be reductively defined for individual *alleles* (gene variants), is biologically increased or decreased at the level of the whole *organism*.  The fitness  of  an  allele  results from  its  effect,  positive  or negative,  on the fitness of the entire organism.  The fitness of the  organism  is its overall success in increasing  its  genetic representation  in  the  future  of  the  population.   This   is calculated  as  *individual fitness*,  the relative  reproductive success  of  a  whole organism,  rather than  of  a  single  gene variant.   One  can  formulate a `law of natural selfishness'  which  states that  organisms  act  so  as to  increase  their  own  individual fitnesses.  This `law' can be `derived' by arguing that it is the stable  outcome of evolution:  those individuals whose  genotypes lead  them  to obey it are more favorably represented (almost  by definition)  in  the  next  generation than  those  who  do  not. Selfishness  therefore  waxes in  the  world,  and  unselfishness wanes,  quite  inevitably  as the outcome of selection.  Much  of organic  life and behavior can be understood from the  standpoint of  this `law'.  The philosophy of Social Darwinism  accepts  the validity  of  this `law' and extrapolates it to human  societies, arguing  that  social policies which attempt  to  circumvent  its operation   (usually  tacitly  and  illegitimately  redefined  as applying to subjective utility rather than to Darwinian  fitness) are hopeless attempts to violate a  fundamental truth of biology. There  are however some very notable violations of this law.  The most   drastic  example  of  all  is  the  evolution  of   sexual reproduction,  one  of  the  greatest problems  in  all  biology. Individual  asexual organisms place 100% of their  genotype  into their descendents, but sexual organisms only 50%. Sex immediately reduces individual fitness by a factor of two.  How then could it evolve?  It  does  no good to point to all the good things  which happen for a species  as a whole once the scheme is adopted. From the standpoint of the selfish interests of the asexual  organism, there is a reduction of profit in it:  any step in that direction should  be  selected against.  So how did it happen?  The law  of natural  selfishness  prohibits  sex.  But  the  world  has  been celebrating it for more than a billion years. Another,  less  all-encompassing  but still extreme,  example  of violation,  is  provided  by  sterile  worker  castes  in  social insects. How can *sterile* individuals evolve? No matter how much good  they might do for the hive as a whole,  any  organisms  who took  steps in the direction of sterility would be violating  the `law  of natural selfishness'.  According to  that  law,  sterile workers cannot exist. But exist they do.                     Altruism A  trait  

Alan McGowen:    The most drastic example of all is the evolution of sexual    reproduction, one of the greatest problems in all biology.    Individual asexual organisms place 100% of their genotype into    their descendents, but sexual organisms only 50%.  Sex immediately    reduces individual fitness by a factor of two.  How then could it    evolve? There are a number of mechanisms at the level of single-celled organisms which are analogous to sexual behavior in larger species. There are, in fact, asexual creatures which engage in sexual activity. I'm not sure where this idea came from that the evolution of sexual reproduction is one of the greatest problems in all biology , but perhaps it is not suprising that all the references given were social science references, not biology texts. And, to be blunt, I found the sociology in the post tedious and stupid.  

                   Inclusive Fitness       Social Conclusions: the Bankruptcy of Social Darwinism Consider  the ubiquitous human incest taboo.  This trait  reduces   individual fitness by reducing reproductive choice. But it raises the group fitness of the groups which practice it by avoiding the deleterious  effects of inbreeding (such as reduction of  disease resistance  and of fertility).  Here we see a  ethical  principle which may well be a heritable rather than purely acquired trait. Incest is damaging to the indidivdual too.  This is because the offspring has a much greater chance of having a lethal gene expressed resulting in the death of the offspring. In the rest of the post you develop a moral theory which you try to _base_ on genetics.  This gives new meaning to the phrase morally bankrupt .  Your genetics isn't very good either. References:         The Selfish Gene ,         The Extended Phenotype , Richard Dawkins,         Oxford university press, 1989

1) The existence of bacterial sex in no way reduces the puzzle of how meiotic sex evolved. Sex (mixis) in bacteria is not immediately related to reproduction. In diploid organisms, as I pointed out in the post, there would appear to be a reduction in fitness by a factor of two over asexual reproduction. 2) A great deal of biological work has been done on the evolution of sex, and it is widely regarded as a major problem of biology, comparable in importance to the origin of coding. It is no accident that all multicellular organisms are meiotic: the genome size required to support multicellularity is not possible with less precise reproduction schemes than meiosis. But meiosis is an immensely complex process, whose evolution is certainly not well understood. 3) All the references were biology references. E.O. Wilson (Sociobiology) is a prominent biologist. I can't imagine how the other references appeared to be sociological. Perhaps the frequent use of words like sociality would give a very careless reader the idea that sociology was under discussion. But the content alone, with its focus on selection and fitness, would surely indicate to an even moderately well-informed person that biological sociality was the subject. 4) A person who makes statements that biology references, one of them an extremely famous work by an extremely famous scientist, are clearly not biology references is certainly not qualified to pronounce on what is or is not a difficult problem in biology. The identification of the post with sociology suggests that he is not qualified to discuss that area either.

Alan McGowen:    1) The existence of bacterial sex in no way reduces the puzzle of    how meiotic sex evolved. Sex (mixis) in bacteria is not immediately    related to reproduction. In diploid organisms, as I pointed out in    the post, there would appear to be a reduction in fitness by a    factor of two over asexual reproduction. No.  The statement was     Individual asexual organisms place 100% of their genotype into    their descendents, but sexual organisms only 50%. Sex immediately    reduces individual fitness by a factor of two. There was no justification for this statement.  Further, a large number of organisms exist whose life-spans are not noticeably reduced by engaging in sex.  Or was some different definition of individual fitness being used? In fact, as the original post points out (in mentioning incest taboos), there are definite costs to fitness involved in mono-genetics.  The post seems to claim that somehow this does not impinge on individual fitness, even though there are costs, in terms of individual fitness, which are clearly visible.    2) A great deal of biological work has been done on the evolution    of sex, and it is widely regarded as a major problem of biology,    comparable in importance to the origin of coding. It is no accident    that all multicellular organisms are meiotic: the genome size    required to support multicellularity is not possible with less    precise reproduction schemes than meiosis. But meiosis is an    immensely complex process, whose evolution is certainly not well    understood. Well, the original article was not about the distinction between genetic mechanisms, but about the existence of gene sharing.  As Mr. McGowen has just pointed out, there is a bit more going on here than just gene sharing.    3) All the references were biology references. E.O. Wilson    (Sociobiology) is a prominent biologist. I can't imagine how the    other references appeared to be sociological. Perhaps the frequent    use of words like sociality would give a very careless reader the    idea that sociology was under discussion. But the content alone,    with its focus on selection and fitness, would surely indicate to    an even moderately well-informed person that biological sociality    was the subject. Ok, I was out of line stating that all the references given were social science refernces.  A closer look indicates that the references did have biological content.    4) A person who makes statements that biology references, one of    them an extremely famous work by an extremely famous scientist, are    clearly not biology references is certainly not qualified to    pronounce on what is or is not a difficult problem in biology. The    identification of the post with sociology suggests that he is not    qualified to discuss that area either. This is also out of line.  A biological theory of social evolution is definitely about sociology. Maybe a brief recap of the original article is in order here... (1) formulation of a ''law of natural selfishness'' which states that      organisms act so as to increase their own individual fitnesses.      This ''law'' can be ''derived'' by arguing that it is the stable      outcome of evolution. problem:  The article does not use this basis (organisms which make the best choices tend to live longer) in further discussion.  Instead, the non-technical meaning of selfishness is used. (2) The law of natural selfishness prohibits sex. Not as formulated.  The law of natural selfishness would say that in the long term, if individuals who engage in sex have some sort of advantage over those who do not, there will be more individuals who engage in sex. (3) Another, less all-encompassing but still extreme, example of     violation, is provided by sterile worker castes in social insects.     How can *sterile* individuals evolve? No matter how much good they     might do for the hive as a whole, any organisms who took steps in     the direction of sterility would be violating the `law of natural     selfishness'.  According to that law, sterile workers cannot     exist.  But exist they do. Again, this totally violates the formulated principle of the law of natural selfishness  In fact, this is a rather clear example of selfishness.  I suppose there might be some disagreement as to what constitutes an individual in the case of social insects, but since it is the queen which reproduces, the long-term success/failure of a colony depends on the treatment which the queen receives. The sterile individuals are engaging in selfishness by supporting the queen, and the queen is engaging in selfishness by reproducing more sterile individuals.   (3) A trait