Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fitness: Hueristic or Fundamental to Biology?
Allopatrik
Member (Idle past 6217 days)
Posts: 59
Joined: 02-07-2007


Message 31 of 47 (392123)
03-29-2007 12:09 PM


Inclusive Fitness
quote:
As I said, thinking of things at this level is usually good enough -don't think me an extremist. Its just that nature is a funny thing, and there end up being exceptions to rules all over the place if you aren't careful.
quote:
And the fitness of the queen would be low given that most offspring are the sterile drones and only some potential kings and queens, probably less than 0.1 by the above metric, yet they are able to expand and fill new areas easily. If you count the hive ability to produce new hives you get a different picture.
Odd - that unfit entities can spread so well
Sorry to introduce even moré terms here, but when you are discussing the reproductive behavior of the social insects, you are talking about eusociality, a kind of cooperation called kin altruism. To discuss it in an evolutionary context requires bringing in Hamilton’s concept of inclusive fitness. In short, a gene (or genotype) can increase its own fitness by influencing behavior that benefits copies of that gene in other organisms. That is, by behaving altruistically toward kin (which share more copies of genes in common than non-kin) an organism can still increase the fitness of the genes it carries, even if it does so at its own risk, or if it forgoes reproduction.
A
Edited by Allopatrik, : No reason given.

Natural Selection is not Evolution-- R.A. Fisher

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Modulous, posted 03-29-2007 12:45 PM Allopatrik has replied

  
Allopatrik
Member (Idle past 6217 days)
Posts: 59
Joined: 02-07-2007


Message 33 of 47 (392142)
03-29-2007 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Modulous
03-29-2007 12:45 PM


Re: Inclusive Fitness
quote:
I don't know if you followed the related thread at all - but this idea was bandied around there too, and it is worthy of discussion
Which thread was that?
A

Natural Selection is not Evolution-- R.A. Fisher

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Modulous, posted 03-29-2007 12:45 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Modulous, posted 03-29-2007 3:47 PM Allopatrik has replied

  
Allopatrik
Member (Idle past 6217 days)
Posts: 59
Joined: 02-07-2007


Message 35 of 47 (392174)
03-29-2007 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Modulous
03-29-2007 3:47 PM


Re: Inclusive Fitness
Thanks. I haven't read the whole thing, but I think I come closer to agreeing with you than some others, regarding the gene/individual controversy. Frankly, I've always been a bit confused about arguments for the "individual" side, mainly because individuals don't transcend generations; gene sequences do. So it only makes sense-- for an evolutionary perspective to be able to span more than one generation, that is-- to take a gene-centered POV.
A

Natural Selection is not Evolution-- R.A. Fisher

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Modulous, posted 03-29-2007 3:47 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Brad McFall, posted 04-01-2007 1:31 PM Allopatrik has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024