[lbo-talk] Altruism & Evolution?

[lweiger at umich.edu]

Touche.  Yes, I'm familiar with the Panda's thumb and all that.  Nonetheless,
the so-called phenotypic gambit really isn't much of a gambit in this case. 
We're not talking about foot fetishism.

-- Luke

Quoting Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu>:


>
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Luke Weiger wrote:
>
> > If altruistic behavior wasn't at least occasionally in the "interest" of
> our
> > genes at some point in the past, we wouldn't see any altruistic behavior.
> > That much we should all be able to agree on, and if we can't, some of us
> > must not understand evolution.
> >
> > -- Luke
>
> I gotta spank Luke on this one: this is naive sociobiology.  Not even
> Darwin argues that all traits in a species are inevitably the result
> of natural selection!  Check out Gould's spandrel analogy (discussed
> at some length in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory).  It is
> absolutely incorrect to assume that all behaviors observed in
> humans today must have occasionally contributed to reproductive
> success at some point in human history. (To be a little
> snarky, only someone who doesn't understand Darwin's
> concept of evolution would make Luke's claim above.)
>
> Miles
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>