Skip to main content

natural selection, sexual selection, altruistic behavior

Just some meanderings re evolution that I'd like to discuss with a science buff.

Let's say that there are two mutually exclusive traits that can be had: V and R.

Persons with trait V are more likely to survive but less likely to reproduce, while persons with trait R are more likely to reproduce; raise offspring (IF they survive) but are less likely to survive (because they are willing to engage in risky behavior).

Let's quantify that.  Some other time.

Depending on how the numbers work out, there could be a way of exploring the degree to which the Rs are likely to outstrip the Vs after a sufficient number of generations.

Most interesting would be to show an inherent connection between R and ~V (and between V and ~R as well).

I can't work this out, but the gist of the expected results would be that sexual selection might naturally  outpace mere survival as a determining factor in natural selection.  And in this case, altruistic behavior (at least the sort displayed by parent toward offspring) might be the sort of thing we should expect in sexually reproducing populations.  The primordial altruistic behavior would be of parent toward offspring.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dembski's "specified compexity" semiotics and teleology (both ad intra and ad extra)

Integral to Dembski's idea of specified complexity (SC) is the notion that something extrinsic to evolution is the source of the specification in how it develops. He compares SC to the message sent by space aliens in the movie "Contact." In that movie, earthbound scientists determine that radio waves originating in from somewhere in our galaxy are actually a signal being sent by space aliens. The scientists determine that these waves are a signal is the fact that they indicate prime numbers in a way that a random occurrence would not. What is interesting to me is the fact that Dembski relies upon an analogy with a sign rather than a machine. Like a machine, signs are produced by an intelligent being for the sake of something beyond themselves. Machines, if you will, have a meaning. Signs, if you will, produce knowledge. But the meaning/knowledge is in both cases something other than the machine/sign itself. Both signs and machines are purposeful or teleological...
Post a Comment
Read more

particular/universal event/rule

While listening to a recorded lecture on Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, it occurred to me that every rule is in a way, a fact about the world. Think about baseball: from the p.o.v. of an individual player, a baseball rule is not a thing but a guide for acting and interpreting the actions of others.  But this rule, like the action it guides, is part of a concrete individual --i.e., part of an institution that has come into existence at a particular place and time, has endured and  may eventually go out of existence.  The baseball rule, as a feature of that individual, is likewise individual.  The term "baseball rule," on the one hand, links us to a unique cultural event; it can, on the other hand, name a certain type of being.  In this way, it transgresses the boundary between proper and common noun. If there were no such overlap, then we might be tempted to divide our ontology between a bunch of facts "out there" and a bunch of common nouns "in here....
Post a Comment
Read more