Post by Pahu79 on Feb 12, 2013 15:50:39 GMT -5
Altruism 2
[/b]
If evolution were correct, selfish behavior should have eliminated unselfish behavior (c). Furthermore, cheating and aggression should have “weeded out” cooperation. Altruism contradicts evolution (d).
c. “Ultimately, moral guidelines determine an essential part of economic life. How could such forms of social behavior evolve? This is a central question for Darwinian theory. The prevalence of altruistic acts—providing benefits to a recipient at a cost to the donor—can seem hard to reconcile with the idea of the selfish gene, the notion that evolution at its base acts solely to promote genes that are most adept at engineering their own proliferation. Benefits and costs are measured in terms of the ultimate biological currency—reproductive success. Genes that reduce this success are unlikely to spread in a population.” [/i] Karl Sigmund et al., “The Economics of Fair Play,” Scientific American, Vol. 286, January 2002, p. 87.
d. Some evolutionists propose the following explanation for this long-standing and widely recognized problem for evolution: “Altruistic behavior may prevent the altruistic individual from passing on his or her genes, but it benefits the individual’s clan that carries a few of those genes.” [/i] This
hypothesis has five problems—the last two are fatal.
Observations do not support it. [See Clutton-Brock, pp. 69–72.]
“...altruistic behavior toward relatives may at some later time lead to increased competition between relatives, reducing or even completely removing the net selective advantage of altruism.” [/i] Stuart A. West et al., “Cooperation and Competition between Relatives,” Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 73.
If individual X’s altruistic trait was inherited, that trait should be carried recessively in only half the individual’s brothers and sisters, one-eighth of the first cousins, etc. The key question then is: Does this “fractional altruism” benefit these relatives enough that they sire enough children with the altruistic trait? On average, one or more in the next generation must have the trait, and no generation can ever lose the trait. Otherwise, the trait will become extinct.
From an evolutionist’s perspective, all altruistic traits originated as a mutation. The brothers, sisters, or cousins of the first person to have the mutation would not have the trait. Even if many relatives benefited from the altruism, the trait would not survive the first generation.
The hypothesis fails to explain altruism between different species. Without discussing examples that require a knowledge of the life patterns of such species, consider the simple example above of humans who forgo having children in order to care for animals.
Edward O. Wilson, an early proponent of this evolutionary explanation for altruism, now recognizes its failings:
“I found myself moving away from the position I’d taken 30 years ago, which has become the standard theory. What I’ve done is to say that maybe collateral kin selection is not so important. These ants and termites in the early stages of evolution—they can’t recognize kin like that. There’s very little evidence that they’re determining who’s a brother, a sister, a cousin, and so on. They are not acting to favor collateral kin.” [/i] Edward O. Wilson, “The Discover Interview,” Discover, June 2006, p. 61.
[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]