According to Natural Selection species of animals who exhibit Alturistic behaviors won't survive why?

Answer 1

What?

This is a common misunderstanding of the theory of natural selection. Don't forget that it's not just about *survival* ... but about *passing on your genes*. It doesn't matter at all how well you survive ... if you don't pass on your genes, you are useless, invisible as far as natural selection is concerned .... *extremely* important point when understanding natural selection.

Specifically: altruistic behavior is often *very* advantageous.

In the simplest case, any individual that cares for its own offspring ... e.g. spending energy, giving up food for itself, or even risking its own life to protect it ... ensures the propagation of its own genes. Genes that strengthen this maternal/paternal insinct propage well ... genes that weaken these instincts don't last long. This is not only the beginning of maternal or paternal instincts, but the beginning of all sorts of altruistic behavior.

This extends not only to parents caring for and protecting their own immediate offspring, but the offspring of relatives as well. And then to tribe members, and to members of ones own species.

In humans, this is especially pronounced because we are (and always have been) an *extremely* social species. Altruistic instincts leads to effective social structures ... tribes (and thus bloodlines) with a lot of altruistic members hunt better, share resources and knowledge better, care for children better, defend against predators better ... in short, those tribes with more altruistic members survive better in the long run. And thus the genes for these altruistic tendencies survives better in the long run.

{edit}

Jim, please read again. I did not say that a mother caring for its young is altruistic behavior in the human sense of the word "altruistic", but that the advantage gained from this behavior is the *beginnings* of altruistic behavior. I.e. that spending *any* time or energy caring for another individual other than oneself can (paradoxically) have advantages as far as natural selection. In other words, selfishness does not always follow as a consequence of natural selection, sometimes the opposite is true.

Whether we would call something *actually* "altruistic" (in the human sense) depends on how much the actor is aware of the benefit it receives. A bird feeding a chick is neither acting out of genuine altruism *nor* out of selfish knowledge that it is passing on its genes ... it is acting on pure instinct. My point is only that those instincts have reproductive benefit. And those instincts can *lead* to true altruism (in the human, self-sacrificing sense) in a more self-aware intelligence (like humans).

Answer 2

Humans, with regard to offspring, have shown themselves to be anything but altruistic.

During World War II, when the Germans placed an embargo in certain European countries, infant and child mortality sky rocketed as parents fed themselves and allowed their children to starve.

In the animal world (not other phyla), parents will protect their offspring in an effort to ensure that the parent's genes are passed on. However, the parents do NOT sacrifice themselves. When the parent determines they cannot save their offspring without sacrificing themselves, they let the offspring become a buffet.

Answer 3

Alturism: behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=altruism

Natural selection: according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

Taking care of young is not an example of altruistic behavior. Caring for young is indeed a benefit for the mother as well as the species. The "risk" taken by the mother no way comes close to altruism. She is NOT gonna go hungry, nor die for her young. Fact is very few animals will sacrific self for a young, or another member of a herd or flock. The most important thing in animals is survival, prime directive. No animal will get itself killed for it's young. Except the human one, of course.

It is pretty simple. There is NOT a gene, nor gene combination, for self sacrific/altruism. They only altruistic species still living is Homo.

Please don't be fooled by the current onslaught of "wildlife" and nature shows and programs. Animals do not love, nor hate and they certainly do NOT make self sacrific.

Also, don't be fooled by the invasion of pshyologist in to the field of animal behavior. The all want to give human characteristics and traits to animals, anthropomorhism. These people just wanna stay employed. After all they cant find jobs working with the human animal.

And, don't be fooled by the Creationist. What they claim is not only false, but just plain ignorant.

Looking Out for Number One
http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/article.cfm?issueID=86&articleID=1232

I partially argee with asgspifs reply. Read the Dawkins book. But the answers I read here were NOT good. Except of course mine.

Answer 4

Purely altruistic organisms are open to invasion by those who would take advantage of this altruism, by taking the benefit and not paying the cost of interacting altruistically, thus being driven to fixation in a population. Altruism is not species selection, but a form of adjusted altruism can arise in populations. Called in game theory, " tit for tat. " This means that I will cooperate if you do, but if you cheat I cheat/repay back. This position is quite well supported by empirical testing of human interaction and comes out of the theory of " reciprocal altruism ", by Robert Trivers.

The good of the herd or the flock does not work against the good of the individual, as is shown by cheater invasion of a population. We compete by cooperating. It is individual selection that drives this.
I am having trouble with the ignorance shown here of standard evolutionary concepts.

This is a question right out of his homework, secretsause. Or, I would surmise from his other questions on site.

There seems to be some confusion between kin selected altruism and reciprocol atruism with the answers to this question. The question is worded as a set piece refutation of group selectionist thinking and begs for the concepts put forward by W. D. Hamilton ( on kin selection; pure altruism ) and the work of Robert Trivers on how riciprocal altrism could arise in populations and avoid being overwhelmed by cheaters. The empirical support for psychological mechanisms that engender cooperation and punish cheaters ( most nessasary to keep them in negative frequecy dependent selection ) has been on line for some time.

Answer 5

Technically, that isn't correct. Altruistic behavior puts the good of the herd or the flock or the whatever, ahead of the individual. This means the survival chances for the species is improved by the altruistic actions of one or more members.
Humans exhibit altruistic behaviors and they seem to have survived.

Answer 6

Good answers.
Your statement about natural selection and altruism is incorrect.
For a complete review of this read The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins.

Answer 7

They won't survive because the selfish organisms migrate into the population and take over the gene pool. Altruistic behaviors are no match for the organisms that only care about there immediate offspring.

Answer 8

Basically the whole purpose is to pass on genes. So lets say I jump in front of a car to save my sister. Even though i may die i ensured that my genes will be passed on by my sister. There was a good chapter about this in The Language of God by Francis Collins.

Answer 9

Natural Selection does not apply in this case. There are several species who exhibit altruistic behavior who do quite well.

Answer 10

Altruistic behaviour is perfectly compatible with current theories of evolution particularly when extended to members of the same species. You have been misled.