"The Sacrificial Lamb"
Southern Industrial
24-09-2004, 03:10
"The Sacrificial Lamb" is a subtheory of evolution. The idea goes that in a population there can exsist members that have traits which are a significant disadvantage to themselves but a benefit to the community.
Do you believe such a thing exists?
Trotterstan
24-09-2004, 03:16
well there is the sickle cell anaemia gene in humans which is similar in that it can cause anaemia if a person has the double recessive but is beneficial when inherited as a single recessive as it prevents malaria in such cases. Thats the only example i can think of and i'm not sure that fits the theory. Having said that, i dont claim to know too much about evolutionary theory.
Alinania
24-09-2004, 17:16
"The Sacrificial Lamb" is a subtheory of evolution. The idea goes that in a population there can exsist members that have traits which are a significant disadvantage to themselves but a benefit to the community.
Do you believe such a thing exists?
Hmm...what about people like mother teresa?
Libertovania
24-09-2004, 17:39
"The Sacrificial Lamb" is a subtheory of evolution. The idea goes that in a population there can exsist members that have traits which are a significant disadvantage to themselves but a benefit to the community.
Do you believe such a thing exists?
I think ants would fit the bill. Such a situation can only happen due to how ants reproduce. The queen makes all the baby ants so anything an ant does to help the queen will help that ant to spread its own genes (since the ant shares genes with the queen), whereas being a selfish ant doesn't help spread your genes at all.
Another situation is "reciprocal altruism" like where chimps pick fleas off each other. The best situation for a chimp is to have others pick fleas off you but not to pick fleas off them since you get the best of both worlds (no fleas but more free time) but if chimps ONLY pick fleas off chimps who return the favour it is good for both of them.
Then there is family altruism (I suppose the ants are a case of this). Since your family share more genes with you any gene which encourages you to help family will spread. E.g. parents educating or protecting their kids. The closer the relation, the better it is to help them.
On the other hand, you will NEVER get an example of animals acting against the "wishes" of their selfish genes. If an animal appears to be acting unselfishly it must be because in the long run it really helps spread that animal's genes. Otherwise the community would be overrun by freeloaders who take the benefits of others' risks without taking the risks themselves.
The Black Forrest
24-09-2004, 22:02
"The Sacrificial Lamb" is a subtheory of evolution. The idea goes that in a population there can exsist members that have traits which are a significant disadvantage to themselves but a benefit to the community.
Do you believe such a thing exists?
Well....
Ever noticed how the sounds of throwing up make other people ill? One theory goes back to the gather times. A group would find some new fruit and eat it. Turns out it is bad and the ones with weak stomachs got sick and puked. Those that heard and had the condition did the same. Those with strong stomachs didn't and died.
Can't name the source, I remember somebody talking about it......
At first when I read this, I thought it was going to be something about society can go on thing.
Something like the DownWinders thing.....
Santa Barbara
24-09-2004, 22:23
"The Sacrificial Lamb" is a subtheory of evolution. The idea goes that in a population there can exsist members that have traits which are a significant disadvantage to themselves but a benefit to the community.
Do you believe such a thing exists?
As was already pointed out, ants are an example of this. Some ants for example, can intake many times more food than they can consume (and its probably not very comfortable or beneficial for them, restricts movement completely, etc) for the sole purpose of being a living refridgerator of snacks for when the colony needs food.
"The Sacrificial Lamb" is a subtheory of evolution. The idea goes that in a population there can exsist members that have traits which are a significant disadvantage to themselves but a benefit to the community.
Do you believe such a thing exists?
this is actually not a "subtheory," but rather a totally disproven speculation that is not supported by any reputable evolutionary biologist. the idea that selection works on a population rather than on individuals has been refuted by every accredited study and research project to date.
I think ants would fit the bill. Such a situation can only happen due to how ants reproduce. The queen makes all the baby ants so anything an ant does to help the queen will help that ant to spread its own genes (since the ant shares genes with the queen), whereas being a selfish ant doesn't help spread your genes at all.
unfortunately, ants are NOT an example of altruism (i.e. an individual having a characterist or exhibiting a behavior that is a disadvantage to themselves but helpful to others). because of the way ant genetics works, a worker ant will actually be MORE successful helping to raise her sisters than she would be if she reproduced on her own...it's not altruism, it's still a selfish behavior because she is ultimately still trying to get her genetics passed on in the best way possible. the fact that it benefits the sisters is secondary, and has been demonstrated to not be the designing factor.
As was already pointed out, ants are an example of this. Some ants for example, can intake many times more food than they can consume (and its probably not very comfortable or beneficial for them, restricts movement completely, etc) for the sole purpose of being a living refridgerator of snacks for when the colony needs food.
food is distributed through an ant colony by trophilaxis; forager ants are often the only members of the colony that actually eat directly from a food source, and they fill up their little "tanks" with the food and bring it back to the nest. with solid food masses that can be carried back to the nest there can be more direct consumption by the rest of the nest, but (for example) a puddle of sugar water will be consumed ONLY by foragers and then the foragers distribute it to the rest of the nest.
the foragers are designed to do this, as are soldier workers in some colonies, and it could not be reasonably assumed to be "uncomfortable" for them to do so because they are built specifically to allow for this behavior. it is also not an altruistic act, because ant castes are not altruistic in nature due to the genetics of ant reproduction.
Well....
Ever noticed how the sounds of throwing up make other people ill? One theory goes back to the gather times. A group would find some new fruit and eat it. Turns out it is bad and the ones with weak stomachs got sick and puked. Those that heard and had the condition did the same. Those with strong stomachs didn't and died.
Can't name the source, I remember somebody talking about it......
At first when I read this, I thought it was going to be something about society can go on thing.
Something like the DownWinders thing.....
this is not a case of altruism; the original regurgitator was simply trying to expell bad material, and animals that learn to recognize and react to that sound by regurgitating will increase their own likelihood of survival by getting rid of potentially bad food. selection is acting on the animals to increase the response; the sound of puking isn't artificial, and it's not an intentional direct signal, it's just the sound that happens when certain bodily functions occur.