Re: Flaw in denial of "group selection" principle in evolution discovered?
Eric wrote things like:
> BECAUSE THE EVOLVABLE "GOAL" ...<
> THE "GOAL" IS TO ...<
Well, THERE IS NO GOAL (excuse the caps, you started it).
Evolutional events are not "in order to" rather "as a consequence of".
Further on Eric wrote:
>The organism doesn't have to be smart enough to believe in
>this wager {of risk that is}...<
While I am all for Eric's stance in group-evolution, I refuse to assign
speculational deeds for evolving species (groups), or in instigating changes
"in order to" survive. A bacterium does not amputate the sensitive group of
its molecule to resist the antibiotic or 'grow' resistant ones - in order to
the same. It is all selection of variants, wich come in all colors/tastes in
every generation - and the environment changes constantly as well. The ones
that have the better functioning variations for the (continually changed)
conditions will prliferate stronger and we (later on) observe prudent
changes "in the better surviving kinds".
The "group-evolution"?
I don't care how the reductionistic boundaries are cut for a "unit" of
our observation: it may be cutting off one member of a "group" or it may
include the entire 'group', the variational (mutation?) characteristics are
there, producing 'items' (callable 'singles' or 'groups', who
cares) -proliferating stronger or falling back in survival.
God did not write in his book the evolutionary path which the species
HAVE to run in order to fulfill HIS plans designed for the world.
It is all coincidential of the changes in the total, reflecting to the
functions of - what we assign as - individuals (or groups). It is all in an
"open deterministic two-way interaction" defined by the circumstances
which may be unpredictable (for us), not for the omniscient.
Then, when we see "snapshot observations" from time to time (in science) and
recognise changes therein, all for the better survival,
we have the reductionistic right to say:
IT ADAPTED.
(in a way: it did).
Words, words.
Regards
John Mikes
RE: Flaw in denial of "group selection" principle in evolution discovered?
Eric, This is a really interesting point. Could you elaborate some specific examples perhaps? ben g > -Original Message- > From: Eric Hawthorne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 7:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Flaw in denial of "group selection" principle in evolution > discovered? > > > Blast from the recent past. > This is pertinent to the previous discussions on evolution > as a special case of emergent-system emergence. > > It was argued that "group selection" effects have been discredited in > evolutionary biology. I counterargued that denying the possibility of > a selection effect at each more-and-more complex system-level in > a multi-layer complex-ordered emergent system (such as ecosystems, > biological species etc) denies the likelihood of spontaneous emergence of > those complex systems at all. > > I think I've found the source of the confusion regarding group selection > effects. It goes like this: > > A species can evolve a "group-benefit" behaviour so long as the > development > of the behaviour does not, on average, reduce the reproductive success > of individuals > that engage in the group-benefit behaviour, and so long as the behaviour > does > confer, on average, a benefit to the reproductive chances of each > individual in > the well-behaving group. > > The key is in how we interpret "average". The question is whether an > individual > organism always acts "in each short-term encounter" in a manner which > maximizes their > chance of survival-to-breeding-age IN THAT ENCOUNTER, or whether it is > possible > for the individual to wager that taking a slight risk now (and > believing or observing that > others will also do so) will lead to a better chance that the individual > will survive ALL > ENCOUNTERS from now up until it breeds. The organism doesn't have to be > smart enough > to believe in this wager. It is sufficient that the wager be on average > beneficial to the > individual.In that case, through repeated trials by multiple > individuals, the behaviour > which is group-adaptive and individually "lifetime-average" adaptive can > evolve. > > BECAUSE THE EVOLVABLE "GOAL" IS NOT SIMPLY TO MAXIMIZE THE > CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OF AN ORGANISM OF THE NEXT SHORT-TERM ENCOUNTER. > THE "GOAL" IS TO MAXIMIZE THE PROBABILITY OF SURVIVAL OF THE SUM TOTAL > OF ALL OF THE ORGANISM'S ENCOUNTERS UP TO WHEN THE ORGANISM REPRODUCES. > > So it is just a time-scale misunderstanding. Group-adaptive behaviours > increase the member's > probability of surviving to reproductive age, even if they slightly > increase the chance of the > indvidual losing some particular encounter. > > True "extreme" altruistic behavior which conveys CERTAINTY of death in a > single encounter > may not fit into this model, but it can be argued as to whether the > altruistic individual "believes" > they are going to die "for certain" in many incidents or not, or whether > they hold out "faint hope" > in which case the argument above could still hold. In any case, true > "certain death" altruistic behaviour > is an extreme anomoly case of group-adaptive behviour. Most > group-adaptive behaviours are > not of that kind, so "extreme, definitely fatal" altruism is not a good > model for them. > > Eric > > > > >
Flaw in denial of "group selection" principle in evolution discovered?
Blast from the recent past. This is pertinent to the previous discussions on evolution as a special case of emergent-system emergence. It was argued that "group selection" effects have been discredited in evolutionary biology. I counterargued that denying the possibility of a selection effect at each more-and-more complex system-level in a multi-layer complex-ordered emergent system (such as ecosystems, biological species etc) denies the likelihood of spontaneous emergence of those complex systems at all. I think I've found the source of the confusion regarding group selection effects. It goes like this: A species can evolve a "group-benefit" behaviour so long as the development of the behaviour does not, on average, reduce the reproductive success of individuals that engage in the group-benefit behaviour, and so long as the behaviour does confer, on average, a benefit to the reproductive chances of each individual in the well-behaving group. The key is in how we interpret "average". The question is whether an individual organism always acts "in each short-term encounter" in a manner which maximizes their chance of survival-to-breeding-age IN THAT ENCOUNTER, or whether it is possible for the individual to wager that taking a slight risk now (and believing or observing that others will also do so) will lead to a better chance that the individual will survive ALL ENCOUNTERS from now up until it breeds. The organism doesn't have to be smart enough to believe in this wager. It is sufficient that the wager be on average beneficial to the individual.In that case, through repeated trials by multiple individuals, the behaviour which is group-adaptive and individually "lifetime-average" adaptive can evolve. BECAUSE THE EVOLVABLE "GOAL" IS NOT SIMPLY TO MAXIMIZE THE CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OF AN ORGANISM OF THE NEXT SHORT-TERM ENCOUNTER. THE "GOAL" IS TO MAXIMIZE THE PROBABILITY OF SURVIVAL OF THE SUM TOTAL OF ALL OF THE ORGANISM'S ENCOUNTERS UP TO WHEN THE ORGANISM REPRODUCES. So it is just a time-scale misunderstanding. Group-adaptive behaviours increase the member's probability of surviving to reproductive age, even if they slightly increase the chance of the indvidual losing some particular encounter. True "extreme" altruistic behavior which conveys CERTAINTY of death in a single encounter may not fit into this model, but it can be argued as to whether the altruistic individual "believes" they are going to die "for certain" in many incidents or not, or whether they hold out "faint hope" in which case the argument above could still hold. In any case, true "certain death" altruistic behaviour is an extreme anomoly case of group-adaptive behviour. Most group-adaptive behaviours are not of that kind, so "extreme, definitely fatal" altruism is not a good model for them. Eric
