Of all the endless variety of phenomena which nature presents to our senses, there is none that fills our minds with greater wonder than that inconceivably complex movement which, in its entirety, we designate as human life; Its mysterious origin is veiled in the forever impenetrable mist of the past, its character is rendered incomprehensible by its infinite intricacy, and its destination is hidden in the unfathomable depths of the future.
Max Gerber] I am often asked whether I agree with the new group selectionists, and the questioners are always surprised when I say I do not. After all, group selection sounds like a reasonable extension of evolutionary theory and a plausible explanation of the social nature of humans.
Also, the group selectionists tend to declare victory, and write as if their theory has already superseded a narrow, reductionist dogma that selection acts only at the level of genes. In this essay, I'll explain why I think that this reasonableness is an illusion.
The more carefully you think about group selection, the less sense it makes, and the more poorly it fits the facts of human psychology and history. The problem is that it also obfuscates evolutionary theory by blurring genes, individuals, and groups as equivalent levels in a hierarchy of selectional units; Most importantly, it has placed blinkers on psychological understanding by seducing many people into simply equating morality and culture with group selection, oblivious to alternatives that are theoretically deeper and empirically more realistic.
Does this mean that the human brain has been shaped by natural selection to promote the welfare of the group in competition with other groups, even when it damages the welfare of the person and his or her kin?
If so, does the theory of natural selection have to be revamped to designate "groups" as units of selection, analogous to the role played in the theory by genes?
Several scientists whom I greatly respect have said so in prominent places. And they have gone on to use the theory of group selection to make eye-opening claims about the human condition.
Wilson explains, "In a group, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals.
But, groups of altruistic individuals beat groups of selfish individuals. They suggest that evolution has equipped humans to solve tragedies of the commons also known as collective action dilemmas and public goods gamesin which actions that benefit the individual may harm the community; familiar examples include overfishing, highway congestion, tax evasion, and carbon emissions.
And they have drawn normative moral and political conclusions from these scientific beliefs, such as that we should recognize the wisdom behind conservative values, like religiosity, patriotism, and puritanism, and that we should valorize a communitarian loyalty and sacrifice for the good of the group over an every-man-for-himself individualism.
I am often asked whether I agree with the new group selectionists, and the questioners are always surprised when I say I do not. Why does this matter? I'll try to show that it has everything to do with our best scientific understanding of the evolution of life and the evolution of human nature.
And though I won't take up the various moral and political colorings of the debate here I have discussed them elsewhereit ultimately matters for understanding how best to deal with the collective action problems facing our species. The first big problem with group selection is that the term itself sows so much confusion.
People invoke it to refer to many distinct phenomena, so casual users may literally not know what they are talking about. I have seen "group selection" used as a loose synonym for the evolution of organisms that live in groups, and for any competition among groups, such as human warfare.
Sometimes the term is needlessly used to refer to an individual trait that happens to be shared by the members of a group; as the evolutionary biologist George Williams noted,"a fleet herd of deer" is really just a herd of fleet deer. And sometimes the term is used as a way of redescribing the conventional gene-level theory of natural selection in different words: In this essay I'll concentrate on the sense of "group selection" as a version of natural selection which acts on groups in the same way that it acts on individual organisms, namely, to maximize their inclusive fitness alternatively, which acts on groups in the same way it acts on genes, namely to increase the number of copies that appear in the next generation; I will treat these formulations as equivalent.
Modern advocates of group selection don't deny that selection acts on individual organisms; they only wish to add that it acts on higher-level aggregates, particularly groups of organisms, as well. For this reason, the theory is often called "multilevel selection" rather than "group selection.
I don't think it makes sense to conceive of groups of organisms in particular, human societies as sitting at the top of a fractal hierarchy with genes at the bottom, with natural selection applying to each level in parallel ways.
First I'll examine the idea that group selection is a viable explanation of the traits of human groups such as tribes, religions, cultures, and nations. Then I'll turn to group selection as an explanation of the traits of individual humans, that is, the intuitions and emotions that make it possible for people to learn their culture and coexist in societies.
No one denies that such faculties exist.Organic compounds essential to human functioning include carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and nucleotides.
These compounds are said to be organic because they contain both carbon and hydrogen. Carbon atoms in organic compounds readily share electrons with hydrogen and other atoms, usually oxygen, and sometimes nitrogen. Antimony is a member of group 15 of the periodic table, one of the elements called pnictogens, and has an electronegativity of In accordance with periodic trends, it is more electronegative than tin or bismuth, and less electronegative than tellurium or rutadeltambor.comny is stable in air at room temperature, but reacts with oxygen if heated to produce antimony trioxide, Sb 2 O 3.
History. The fluorine mineral fluorospar was known as early as Early chemists realized that fluorine compounds contain an undiscovered element, but were unable to isolate it.
In , George Gore, an English chemist, ran a current of electricity through hydrofluoric acid and probably produced fluorine, but he was unable to prove his results at the time. acquired trait: A phenotypic characteristic, acquired during growth and development, that is not genetically based and therefore cannot be passed on to the next generation (for example, the large.
Neuroanatomy and Physiology of the “Brain Reward System” in Substance Abuse. I. Introduction. How does experimental use of substances of abuse lead to drug addiction in some individuals?
Pure Garcinia Cambogia And Green Coffee How Long Does It Take To Detox On Plexus The 3 Day Jump Start Smoothie Detox Juice Detox To Lose 20 Pounds In A Week Over The Counter Detox Juice Cleanse How Do I Detox In 3 Days Pure Garcinia Cambogia And Green Coffee Full Body Detox Tea Then, there are a diet pills that are solely specifically for the reason for giving enough energy towards .