This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
DrWatson · 70-79, M
He introduced the concept of evolution through random genetic variation. I think most biologists accept that much.
But biologists do not all interpret evolution as "survival of the fittest", in the way that phrase is usually interpreted by the general public.
That traditional view has given rise to some abominations like Social Darwinism, Hitler's master race theory, and white supremacy. But there are objections to that view that are based purely on biological considerations, and not on social or political issues.
Biologists like W D Hamilton point to the marvelously intricate ecosystems that we have and conclude that evolutionary success is also tied to the ability of species to cooperate with each other. It's not all about competition. Successful species are the ones that can find their ecological niche.
There is a fascinating book called The Evolution of Cooperation , written by political scientist Robert Axelrod, with a chapter by biologist Hamilton. They do a mathematical analysis from the point of view of game theory and then discuss real-world examples, both social and biological. The latest edition has an introduction by Richard Dawkins.
Here is my admittedly crude example of what they are getting at.
Imagine an "ecosystem" consisting of two tennis players, where the goal is to keep the volley going as long as possible. An aggressive player will destroy the ecosystem and kill off his or her "food supply".
Now imagine a tournament consisting of several players, who each play every other player. At the end of the tournament, players "reproduce' according to how successfully they sustained a volley. The players with long volleys replicate in greater numbers than the aggressive players. In the long run, it is the aggressive species who die out because they are destroying the ecological balance.
I admit that my example is oversimplified and open to the criticism that the criterion for success can be considered arbitrary. But the book discusses a more complex kind of match, namely the 'prisoner's dilemma ' from game theory. Actual computer tournaments were held, with programs based on a variety of strategies. The most successful program was one that elicited cooperation from others but immediately punished non-cooperation.
It is a fascinating book.
But biologists do not all interpret evolution as "survival of the fittest", in the way that phrase is usually interpreted by the general public.
That traditional view has given rise to some abominations like Social Darwinism, Hitler's master race theory, and white supremacy. But there are objections to that view that are based purely on biological considerations, and not on social or political issues.
Biologists like W D Hamilton point to the marvelously intricate ecosystems that we have and conclude that evolutionary success is also tied to the ability of species to cooperate with each other. It's not all about competition. Successful species are the ones that can find their ecological niche.
There is a fascinating book called The Evolution of Cooperation , written by political scientist Robert Axelrod, with a chapter by biologist Hamilton. They do a mathematical analysis from the point of view of game theory and then discuss real-world examples, both social and biological. The latest edition has an introduction by Richard Dawkins.
Here is my admittedly crude example of what they are getting at.
Imagine an "ecosystem" consisting of two tennis players, where the goal is to keep the volley going as long as possible. An aggressive player will destroy the ecosystem and kill off his or her "food supply".
Now imagine a tournament consisting of several players, who each play every other player. At the end of the tournament, players "reproduce' according to how successfully they sustained a volley. The players with long volleys replicate in greater numbers than the aggressive players. In the long run, it is the aggressive species who die out because they are destroying the ecological balance.
I admit that my example is oversimplified and open to the criticism that the criterion for success can be considered arbitrary. But the book discusses a more complex kind of match, namely the 'prisoner's dilemma ' from game theory. Actual computer tournaments were held, with programs based on a variety of strategies. The most successful program was one that elicited cooperation from others but immediately punished non-cooperation.
It is a fascinating book.
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@DrWatson it is not my area of expertise, but the term survival of the fittest implies, that some genetic or epigenetic mutations led to changes in the organism that made it more attractive for a mate and or had survival.advanyagrs. The current stress of climate change has already resulted in massive loss of diversity, in species who did not evolve such protective mutations.
pdxlinux · 41-45, M
@samueltyler2 natural selection has been described by some people as survival of the fittest, but, it is not an accurate description of natural selection. natural selection is the process that selects genes on the basis of causing more offspring to be produced on average. not causing life or death.
